Never Not Changing
Giancarlo De Carlo argues that user participation is the only
way for architecture to be truly inclusive and democratic. He says that as of
now architecture is authoritarian in nature—architects acting as gods imposing
their will onto a user group. Architects answer questions of ‘how’ rather than ‘why’
which keeps them designing for those in power and, thus, perpetuating these
power structures. The only way to break free of this oppressive design practice
is ‘process planning,’ or user participation in architecture. Architecture then
abandons its quest for solutions in favor of a constant state of becoming. The
architect must welcome disruption and adjust to an ever-changing reality. In my
opinion, this way of thinking more appropriately aligns with the nature of
building in general. Societies and spaces are always evolving so it makes sense
that the design process would also follow this logic as well. Architecture
should be for people not just the architect.
Emma,
ReplyDeleteThis is so obvious and yet so hard to enforce.
A good example is that of the car. They were invented a little over a century ago now, and the endless variations from the original have proven that the car is much safer, faster, and fuel efficient, to name a few.
Why not apply the same logic to architecture? We don't want the model T of cars architecture anymore.
Great post Emma.
ReplyDeleteAlejandro Aravena in his Ted talk provides examples that reflect a similar point. That coordination with users or people most impacted to new or revitalized structures can help us come up with solutions that actually work. On the other hand, in an interview with Peter Zumthor he compares even the interaction of the client in the design process to be absurd saying something like "if you were going to buy a radio you wouldn't hover over the person putting it together and tell them what to do". Additionally, there's kind of this famous controversy of George Nakashima, a renowned furniture maker who used to get hired to build a table, chair etc... and would come back with something completely different than what he was hired for, arguing that the wood told him what it wanted to be.
Here is maybe a small set of examples that provide a gradient of outlooks on the matter and in correlation to this it also seems to go Architect-> Art Driven Architect -> Artist. Should the public tell an architect what to do? probably not, maybe they're actually not technically savvy enough to do so but perhaps through discussion an architect can extract a solution that works for everyone after hearing the problems and engaging with them. This seems to most reflect Alejandro Aravenas action on his projects. Also, does all architecture stand to solve a problem? I would say maybe not, sometimes architecture is closer to art and perhaps its place is to be a composition of an idea and not solve the world's problems.
With so many monstrosities out there that are just completely wrong for the economy, environment and people, I'm prone to siding with you almost completely but maybe there's something that's lost if architects weren't free to pursue their own ideas.
Postscript: The Thermal Baths in Vals was an absolute plight on that town after it began to infest the area with tourists but there’s no argument that it's really f***ing cool piece of architecture.