Social Architecture
Does modern architecture follow social changes? Or does it present a friction against them?
Like other professions, architects are rooted in the context of our experiences and our upbringing. They may be much more aware of a variety of topics that influence architecture including social issues, political strife, global changes, religious symbolism, and world history, but they still design with a bias of their own perspective.
I think that the main argument for modern architecture presenting a friction against social changes comes from the failures in design that are still looked at negatively today. However, they are products of the time and products of forward thinking brought on by the social changes that led to their creation.
Following the world wars, many cities had to be rebuilt and many communities were reimagined with hope in the future. Like the theory of communism, social utopia is an ideal scenario in a very real world without perfect circumstances and order. Architecture reflected this inspiration in the theoretical and real projects that came about. Experimentation of modern materials came at a time when materials were rapidly entering the market. Likewise, technology entered construction when it accelerated from a room of machinery into everyday objects.
Tafuri wrote in L'Architecture dans le Boudoir that society and the public has a large impact on design, regardless of whether or not the architect wants to do something different. The public is still heavily relied on for participation and cultural and societal views are largely taken into consideration during the design. Buildings are not created in a vacuum. In this way, even if change is so rapid that in 10 years a building design seems crazy and obsolete, I believe that architecture tends to follow social changes. Just look at the focus on sustainability in recent years as the impending destruction from global climate change draws nearer.
Waihinga Martinborough Community Centre. Martinborough, New Zealand
Hey Jenn with two n's! Love this post. I truly believe that architecture does follow social changes, especially in recent years as so much has changed within the world. I think we can even push this idea further however, because in saying that the "public" has a say is very vague. I believe that unfortunately the public is being referred as people in more of a corporate setting and not someone off the street who happens to live in the city the development is being built per say. Not to the fault of architects, as we do not choose who gets to participate, but why can't we advocate for the average Joe? I think another social change architecture can follow is the notion that everyone should have a say as to what happens in their community. I think it would allow a lot of people to get involved and overall just make our designs so much better. Great post because it really sparked a whole thought of what "social change" really means.
ReplyDeleteJenn, I completely agree with your theory. History has shown that architecture is heavily influenced by its society and society is influenced from its current events. I see buildings as a statement made by the architect in which he or she gives their opinion on the current situations of the world. This opinion can show their stance on a movement or even their own desire for change. However, I do believe that architecture has as much power to shape society as society has to shape architecture, if not more. I think especially right now, with the increase in technological advances and rise in the interest of innovation, we are at a place where we as architects can decide and influence what the future of our world will look like.
ReplyDelete