Not for the people
On of the issues we encounter often is that laws are not on the side of the struggling majority, and this can be said for architecture as well.
Our role as an architect is to provide safety, welfare and health. So when the majority is not able to afford better structures or get their projects approved what ends up happening is that we sacrifice all three [health, safety and welfare]. This can be seen with the emergence of slums in cities.
The reality is that politics, economics, sociology and architecture are strongly linked and one influences the other. The whole organization of a cities is based around politics. This is true in any culture at any given time period. This emerges from the need "for security, that of organization of work and play, exchange and investments, of independence and communication". This can be seen in the organization of Taino's bohios (dwellings) around the cacique (chief's) caney as well as with the organization of of roman forum which mixed different activities including the city's political life.
As we can see these disciplines go hand and hand.
In the rebel architects video they mention:
"Architecture should be functional [politics], cheap [economy] a and a reason to come together[social]"
So shouldn't we as architects live up to the new standards that define our profession? Should we not do all that is in our power to provide everyone with safe and healthy spaces?
Does that mean that we let the laws define who can have access to these spaces
I am not saying we should be rebels and ignore zoning codes, the city's grid but I do believe we have a duty to prevent something that we know does not work. Should we close our eyes to the mass construction of unstable informal settlement and hope that nothing goes wrong or can we plan for them to be built better.
I am personally a fan of what these architects do for collectives. They give them a safe space to grow, prosper, gather and live. That is the beauty of what we do.
Our role as an architect is to provide safety, welfare and health. So when the majority is not able to afford better structures or get their projects approved what ends up happening is that we sacrifice all three [health, safety and welfare]. This can be seen with the emergence of slums in cities.
As we can see these disciplines go hand and hand.
In the rebel architects video they mention:
"Architecture should be functional [politics], cheap [economy] a and a reason to come together[social]"
So shouldn't we as architects live up to the new standards that define our profession? Should we not do all that is in our power to provide everyone with safe and healthy spaces?
Does that mean that we let the laws define who can have access to these spaces
I am not saying we should be rebels and ignore zoning codes, the city's grid but I do believe we have a duty to prevent something that we know does not work. Should we close our eyes to the mass construction of unstable informal settlement and hope that nothing goes wrong or can we plan for them to be built better.
I am personally a fan of what these architects do for collectives. They give them a safe space to grow, prosper, gather and live. That is the beauty of what we do.
It is truly fascinating and challenging how linked architecture is with political and social elements. The approach for design and people can become a deep task. We can't separate from the law fully or these elements but there are things that can be done appropriately for the better.
ReplyDeleteI think you hit the nail right on the head about linking social, political realms with architecture. I found the video on Rebel Architecture to be quiet beautiful. When a community comes together and has the power, and the voice, to shape and build their community a beautiful product can be created. I think it is important for architects to find ways to get involved in this work, though I hate it teeters on legality. Imagine if more architects were able to help communities build like this when the state doesn't have the ability to? I think at that point the architecture would be able to start reflecting the community as it does in the video.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with you: health, safety and welfare are and should be intertwined with architecture. We all think and taught that building codes and regulations are meant for our safety, welfare and health but what happens when politics hinders that? I do think that our obligation is to the people first and foremost and therefore like Aaron said, we should figure out a way even if it means lobbying and being at the table when the laws are written
ReplyDelete