The Problem With the Profession
The problem with architecture is exclusivity. The idea that much
of the architectural design process is assuming what a community wants, a fair
amount of that process involves data points that are viewed from an aerial……. Where
is the community in that? Architects, although it is improving, tend to think
that they know how a person should feel in a space, all based on preconceived
notions that are typically self-centered thoughts…… “A person would start at
this entrance and move throughout this museum”, all because “I” drew a line on
a piece of paper that surrounds a series of walls thus creating an “experience”.
Within the profession, community outreach on a project can tend to be an expensive
endeavor that sees little outcome, this is not because what they are saying is
wrong, we are just to blind to see that they could probably design it better
than us.
Large global firms have the digital power to design all
around the world, without taking one step into the city. Due to this firms can
draw large 100’ walls between architecture and community. Alejandro Aravena does
something few firms practice, allowing the community in which you are designing
for to be your clients. Through multiple design charettes that were made fun
and inviting to the community, he was able to come up with a scheme that worked
not only for that individual community, but others around the world. Simply put;
he understood what was there and what worked and gave value to it.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree, Cody.
ReplyDeleteA year ago, I sat in a meeting with some New York-based architects who were involved in the early stages of a large renovation project on my college’s main campus. The lead architect asked everyone around the table to suspend their existing ideas about academic buildings and imagine new language for spaces in the remodeled building to come. She used numerous travel references; for instance, instead of the term “lobby,” she proposed “concourse.” Her delivery was eloquent, and it probably resonated with people around the table.
Earlier that same week, however, I had observed a class designed to help students improve college reading skills. As they read passages aloud, I noticed some students struggling with vocabulary derived from foreign words. As I sat in the planning meeting, I recognized a disconnect between the professional architect who travels frequently and those students who have had limited opportunities to experience other parts of the world. I wondered whether the architect’s proposal would have gotten any traction in a meeting with reading students, as opposed to a room of college leaders, and what directions our planning might have taken if that meeting had actually occurred.
The "birds eye view" of architecture isn't the way to really address the people using the space in a way that probably matters to them and that shows care to their being. That exclusivity is an issue. I've come to see over the last year and continuing into this semester in studio, how important it is to have the client, user and community involved. While in Charleston we consistently interacted with the client and the immediate community to get their input in hopes of satisfying their wants and needs. You can't possibly get everything right, but it is highly important to have this connection in efforts to do right for and with the people.
ReplyDeleteI think about this all the time. Architects have to assume what a community needs to a degree just because it would be impossible (time & money) to get everyone's input on every detail. An architect instead has to be good at having their finger on the pulse of the community in which they are designing. This is typically done by either being personally familiar with the community or having good clients who are able to speak for a large group.
ReplyDeleteFor this reason, I think it's hard to create contextually sensitive architecture in Maryland, for example, if you're a Texas based architect. It's in the marketing strategy of mega-firms like Perkins+Will that the reason they have so many offices is so they can be close to their work. It's a compelling argument.
It is a tall order to ask the architect to ensure that the community at large is fairly represented in a public project. As you said, it is expensive to invest a fraction of the time that would be required to become familiar with the members of the community. We can't expect architects to only operate within their realm of familiarity, but there could potentially be workarounds. Many cities have organizations in place that provide representation to underserved and underrepresented community members. Establishing communication with such organizations at the onset of a public project might go a long way in bolstering inclusivity and making sure that the communities' voice is heard.
ReplyDeleteI think it all comes down to being able to put our ego's to the side sometimes and humble ourselves. We need to accept the fact that we don't know everything and learn to become better listeners and citizens in order to have productive conversations with the community and stakeholders within a project. We may not necessarily be able to please everybody and all groups at the end of the day since it is quite difficult to get equal representation, but the effort does go a long way in making for a better design.
ReplyDelete