Challenging the establishment
Is participation the sole agent that is relevant and necessary if architecture is to have any relevance leading into the future? Participation can be used in multiple ways, yes, but not just by architects. Planers can be utilized as well with another way of thinking about projects, yet not reinventing the wheel to any degree.
Does participation challenge values that are already established? More designers, architectural thinkers, and planners need to face more social responsibilities if Architecture is truly going to be seen as a disciplined collaborative effort going forward in the future. Architects (whom are included but not limited to) have to learn that in order for participation, one must take acknowledgement of all parties and trust in their expertise just as one should trust in your expertise regardless of immense constraints bestowed by another party.
Cameron, I believe what you are trying to convey has a lot of potential. No building can be done by one individual, its always a group of people and a set of consultants. That's what IPD actually promotes. Early involvement of all the consultants and guide designers to foresee the issues and try to avoid them in the design stage itself.
ReplyDeleteTotally agree but I have to ask who are the consultants/researchers here? Are architecture/design firms responsible for research groups to discover the social responsibilities of different sectors and then how they apply to the area where the city is being built? I want to say yes but that required a lot of resource and $$$. I am wondering if out 'government' could work to collect and provide architects with this information? If we are going to have historical boards why cant they provide 'current' boards. People who develop regulation for the 2020 everyday peoples.
ReplyDelete