Community Input: A Resource, Not a Solution

Architecture is interesting as a profession in the sense that there are a lot of community members that truly believe they have equal expertise in design. I feel that architecture can easily be criticized by public opinions that cry out, “what were they thinking” and in several cases they have justified reasoning in being upset. This then begs the question of what role the community – for which is will be the actual user of the design in question – has a right to participate in the design process.

Alejandro Aravena demonstrates several different case studies of his own work that have been strongly centered around community engagement and it was interesting to hear about the opportunities that public communication can offer. I know the Chilean “Half House” social housing project was challenged in class as not being as great as its awards and publications have led it to be seen. However, I strongly disagree and argue that it is a great project that not only encourages socio economic motivation, but also customization of social housing which provides pride in the dwellings and resalable value. But this is not what I want this post to be about. I want to talk about designing with the community.

Aravena’s strongest he brings up is, “participatory design is not about finding the right answer, it is about finding the right question”. There is nothing worse than answering the wrong question.

I think this is the key to community design because the public is not educated in the language of architecture and they aren’t going to clearly provide the design solution to you. Instead they are an asset that has experience and knowledge in that certain culture and area that can offer them solutions to problems they don’t even know they have.

Personally, I have only had one experience with community-based design, which was in my undergrad’s equivalent of the “rural studio” at Auburn. The University of New Mexico sent our small studio down a couple hours to a struggling boarder town along the boarder and challenged us with how to revitalize a struggling ghost town. It was honestly 4 months of getting yelled at by retired members of the community about our out-of-place and unrealistic designs and honestly, they were right. In the end we were producing better work and interacting more successfully with the community, but I can’t say community design is a strong passion in my heart because of that experience.

The public can have wrong opinions and especially if there are multiple voices, it is the architect’s responsibility and AUTHORITY (in my opinion) of making those final decisions. If architects lose their voice and way of authority, then there is no successful end project. An example would be the Rijksmuseum renovation that was hijacked by the bicycle advocates that in my opinion weakened the final design. I am not anti-community and I think there are a lot of positive impacts participatory design can have, but don’t let a group of community advocates dictate the fate of design.