Grounded Architecture

 

    The intersection of politics and technology in participatory design is where we should strive to locate ourselves. De Carlo and Segal together create a framework for participatory architecture that is essentially the idea of a grounded theory methodology that we see in social science to study and evaluate populations based on their specific context. In the social work practice this methodology is used when approaching social issues with delicate populations and understanding their needs, stresses, and adversities before formulating a theory to serve that population. Aravena and Erskine’s models provide important examples on how this theory relates to architecture in tackling housing crisis.

Aravena & Erskine

    Aravena’s incremental housing focuses on the user, their needs, and the reality of the socio-political atmosphere in Chile with regards to informal settlements. His claim (paraphrase) that ‘there would be an informal settlement here anyways if we do nothing’ is an admission that architecture is only part of the solution to solving the housing crisis problem. The other parts are societal and political intervention. This is a noble admission that supports a grounded theory methodology by understanding context and assessing what people’s specific needs are currently through survey and inclusion. Aravena can not solve for poverty or homelessness but only provides part of the means for a population to not fall victim to the negative systemic implications of Chile’s socio-political climate – that is, an informal settlement or slum.

    Erskine’s work in Newcastle takes a completely different context than that of informal settlements of Chile. Erskine essentially presents a prototype for a nuclear neighborhood in which Technology, in the form of a professional service (architect), is at the forefront of including end-users in the development of their homes and neighborhood. He presents a theory for housing and then includes the population in the evolution of the housing development.

    Both models are participatory but would not work within the other’s context. Erskine’s involvement was long term, where the office worked many years within the development as a ‘resident architect’ to help the population expand, move, and tackle needs associated with their homes. It was a constant surveying and data collection of the population’s needs. In the case for Aravena, it was evident through survey, public forum, and involvement that, although informative into the psyche of the population he was trying to serve, it was difficult to tackle the fears and frustrations of people who saw him in a political position that they attributed to the negative impacts affecting their lives. Long-term involvement, like Erskine, would not be an option here - Aravena took a political approach at the forefront where the technological participation was attributed to the end-user in the form of finishing the houses.

    I believe an intersection of the two methodologies is where architects should reside. We cannot prescribe an entire methodology of just Aravena nor just Erskine in addressing issues concerned with housing. Our thoughts, involvement, and participation must be heavily rooted in context. We must strive for a participation that is long-term and stable. The politics involved are long-term, accessible, and adaptable to population growth. The technology in participation cannot be just at the forefront but must be adaptable to meet population needs and changes over time. If we are to address issues of housing in the United States, we must understand where politics play a role and where technology (resources) play a role in every population. Aravena’s strategy in Chile, where there are less government assistance programs, would not work in the U.S. where housing issues are heavily intertwined with policy. Erskine’s model does not work because it has already been in the U.S. in the form of model home subdivisions that have been large contributors of housing affordability crisis in the US.