Ladder: The Paradox of Hope and Fear
I found this idea of giving the users a sense of a future fascinating and I wish I would have found this talk while designing "Elevated Integration" with George Sorbara. In our design we wanted the apartments for the low income families in Portland to be able to be assembled by the families based on their needs but to be flexible in that it could be expanded later. Earlier in the Ted Talk, Alejandro was talking about how people in the apartment style buildings felt trapped and could not expand and I believe that people want a "ladder." I am using ladder as a metaphor because people tend to not like being stuck in a single place. The hope of climbing a ladder can be for a better view, better life, higher social standings, etc. which gives hope. People are also scared of falling or failing in this case where going back to where they started can be devastating for morale. Providing a space for visual morale and community can help motivate people to push forward in life.
Here in Alejandro's apartment building example people had a sense of community and a drive to push forward. The issue I have with this model and one George and I tried to tackle was how do we provide this visual community but allow for privacy. In Alejandro's project, the users are completely exposed to other tenants at all times. In our project we allowed for modular walls allowing for windows to be placed where the user would want visual access while allowing the ability to deny visual access for privacy based on the user.



I think you are touching on the points that make it difficult to design a specific methodology as an architectural response to housing crisis. Your ladder analogy is essentially the goal, but the ladder is shaped by context. I'm interested in the conversations that this idea could generate.
ReplyDeleteMy interpretation of this, in the US, is the formation of housing choice voucher program as a way to not relegate projects to 'low income' or 'social housing' developments but to subsidize the cost for those populations to live in areas more integrated socio-economically. HCV is the 'ladder' in my view. The downside is that the U.S. struggles with accessibility on a city scale to sustain this 'ladder'.
If HCV is the backbone of addressing the housing affordability crisis in the U.S., then accessibility for people to jobs and services deserves the architectural consideration over moveable walls and space to expand. We can't create a scenario where room to expand your house is available but you still have a 2-hour commute to afford home expansion.
I enjoy your take on the Ted Talk and how you incorporated one of your past projects into the lens that the talk offers. With our field of work being dependent on not just the client, but also the user of the building (because most of the time these two are not the same) creates a unique dynamic that many still strive to find balance in. On one hand our services are being purchased by a client who may or may not have a vision for the building, and it is our job to bring that vision to life. But if this is done without insight from the users of the future building, then are we truly designing ethically?
ReplyDelete