Participation: A Red Herring
If people vote for garbage architecture, does that make it better? Terrible architecture happens, whether by starchitects, firms trying to imitate starchitects, or just bad design. Participation is not inherently bad, but it is certainly useless in trying to create good architecture. People agree to things for all sorts of reasons. There is too much human psychology going on when trying to get participiation - one might get excellent participation and terrible design. Of course this does not mean we ignore what people want, we look at what is beloved, what is taken care of, what lasts, and we go from there. Democracy of the dead, in a sense. Participation by action, not merely words.
Participation award. No.
Let us, instead, participate in the public realm, and try to add good things to it, be aware of our site and context and scale and all those things. Clients tell us what they want (are clients not part of the community?). Clients have skin in the game, while often public participants have not.
This is well said. I would add that not everything that starchitects design is terrible. Sometimes a gem falls through the cracks and is missed by the public. I would also say that the Charleston example is a good one of something that is wrong. I wish authentic Charleston architecture was built instead of large industrialized developments. Go on and keep expressing your opinion! It is a good one!
ReplyDeleteParticipation in design often just means listening to what the community wants and trying to deliver something that somewhat resembles their wish list. Listening to the voice of the community is important and crucial, but so is insuring you fulfill the needs of the client. Successful architecture can begin with a participation driven mission as we have seen in the last 4 Franco lectures. However, to your point it is also our duty as architects to ensure that what we design is for the better and the last image you posted sums it up well. Maybe a few industrial building in Charleston are okay. It can add to the cities eclectic nature, but when we are at a point where the lower image of a traditional residential style is blocked by the participators and the regulators we are in trouble. I feel a mix of both can set up a positive setting for the everyday life, not all of one or the other.
ReplyDeleteLee, I agree with what you said about to scale interventions into communities. It is a sad state where the 360 unit 5 story generic apartments are being encouraged rather than the scaled housing that you show in the second picture. However, I would think there could be a deeper investigation here. You mention that clients are apart of the community that they are building in. Often times, with large clients, that isn't the case. They own projects across the country and this space just so happens to be seen as a place to grab as much money as they can by advertising a parking structure. I think holding meetings where the residents of the community where the building will be constructed could provide an insight into what the community needs in terms of housing.
ReplyDelete