Designing for Reality

Denise Scott Brown writes in Learning from Pop that we, as architects, need to design within reality, and consider context and most importantly understand what people want and need.

She states, “if high-style architects are not producing what people want or need, who is, and what can we learn from them?” This to me is somewhat of a controversial statement looking back at the form and function debate from last week. I feel like architecture is so subjective; I just revert to my argument of why high-style architecture can’t still function, look sculptural, provide an amazing experience and be accepted by society.

Brown says that form cannot and does not arise from function alone, it is also influenced by varying forces, processes, and technologies to determine the architectural form.

“Modern architects can now admit that whatever forces, processes, and technologies determine architectural form, ideas about form determine it as well; that a formal vocabulary is as much a part of architecture as are bricks and mortar (plastics and systems, for futurists); that form does not, cannot, arise from function alone, newborn and innocent as Venus from her shell, but rather that form follows, inter alia, function, forces, and form….By suggesting that form should be analyzed, I do not imply that function (the program), technologies, or forces (urban social processes or land economics) are not vital to architecture, nor indeed, that they too can’t serve as sources of artistic inspiration to the architect. All are necessary and they work in combination.” – Denise Scott Brown

However, I do begin to see Brown’s point when she mentions the builder developer.  She states, “sensitivity to needs is a first reason for going to the existing city. Once there, the first lesson for architects is the pluralism of need. No builder-developer in his right mind would announce: I am building for Man. He is building for a market, for a group of people defined by income range, age, family composition and lifestyle.” This statement made me step back and think for a minute, that there can sometimes be that oversight of context, culture, and what the user would benefit from the most. Sometimes I feel like I can get caught up in designing some radical, modern building without thinking of the effects or repercussions.

Brown challenges us as architects to “find formal vocabularies for today which are more relevant to people’s diverse needs and more tolerant of the untidinesses of urban life.” Ultimately what she is getting at is architecture should and needs to differ for different groups. We cannot always assume what the intended user wants or needs based off what is existing.