The Role of the Architecture Within Ecosophy
Within “Ecological
Urbanism”, Mustafavi uses Felix Guattari’s verbiage to define how a city might
adapt to social, political, economic and environmental issues. Ecosophy takes
the form of three ecological considerations: environment, social relations, and
human subjectivity). Breaking down this term in my own words I begin to think
about ecology itself and how long it took for it to become this self-reliant system
where everything from small to large scale plays a crucial role. The biggest
piece the ecological cycle has yet to find a way to utilize, is us. No matter
where we go in the world, we introduce objects that were not intended,
materials that have no place and pollution that must where to go. In terms of
architects, we need to be more responsive to this, we need to become
self-reliant. We need to become cyclical.
This topic
is great to examine through the lens of our own studio projects, where some are
redefining what it means to be a sustainable power plant. Others focus on communities
respecting and learning what it takes to grow in a physical sense. A strong focus
between us all is a site that is reliant on itself. This is the approach architects
must start taking within the professional practice. Although we are taking
small steps towards a better future, sometimes big steps must be taken, even if
they are somewhat failures.
In the end,
I feel that design, needs to take a step back and appreciate how this world
stays together, the science of it. Although we see hints of it through façade systems,
the program of a space can easily takes pieces from ecology and the cyclical
nature of it all And apply it to design.
A step back or a step in? That is the main question, as you rightly point out, Cody. Should design become more silent and limit itself to being implicit, or should it change itself as a new explicit content in the discussion of sustainability? Where are we in this choice?
ReplyDeleteI agree that sometimes we need to take big steps, even if they are somewhat failures. How else do we learn? How else can we grow as designers and as a profession? In this sense, I think design is situated as a new explicit content in the discussion of sustainability (as David mentioned). I struggle with how bold architects should be when, as we've discussed in class, our profession is ever changing, ever being undervalued, and every having to prove itself. Maybe through this lens we can start to assert our capabilities and be at the forefront in changing our future. And with what you've mentioned Cody, we can direct the discussion in an ecological way, looking at biophilic design, urbanism, social health, etc.
ReplyDeleteCody, I appreciated your analysis on the role of the human on the ecosystem and how we don't fit in. I agree that this fact should make us think critically on the role of architects and the built environment. In response to David's question, I think design should "change itself as a new explicit content in the discussion of sustainability". By stepping into sustainable design, the ways of heating, cooling a building become aesthetic as new explicit content. While contemporary design involves displaying the structure as an architectural move, how can we do the same with environmental systems?
ReplyDelete