Places That Won't Go Away
In contemporary architecture, there is much discussion of how architecture can better belong to its place without being nostalgic or kitsch. One of the central topics of this discussion is how most architecture has become seemingly generic to the same degree across the globe, partly because of the replacement of local materials and skilled craftsmen with market-made products. These products are only roughly attached to the context they are used because of building science objectives in response to the context's climate.
"Architectural design has become more and more a matter of composition of hardware systems available on the market" -John Habraken, "Questions That Won't Go Away"
This topic of discussion came to mind when reading John Habraken's justifications for why self-contained architecture cannot exist in a profession working in the everyday environment. Habraken states that "architectural design has become more and more a matter of composition of hardware systems available on the market" due to contemporary projects requiring the specialization of various team members and consultants (Harbraken 5). While yes, the distribution of control imposed by the architectural production market justifies the outdatedness of historical ideas on the profession, it also makes me question whether the production market is a good agent in creating an everyday built environment. If we were to assume it is, then we risk losing local qualities of place since the monopolization of the production and building science industry has eliminated opportunities for local variation. But isn't an essential quality of the everyday environment the local diversity of a place? If this is to be true, then how can we as architects promote building science objectives for healthy occupation, and use manufactured products, without losing the unique places that fuel the everyday? Or does the atmosphere of the everyday not depend on local materials, but only how architecture is occupied?
I certainly agree Geoffrey, there is something valuable lost when local materials are replaced with mass manufactured products, a sense of place. I believe that it is our job as architects, to design in a manner that when someone sees a street lined with buildings, their materiality and design can tell them exactly where they are. I've lost this sense in a majority of places here in America, but some cities have managed to cling onto their identity. I'm thinking mostly about Charleston, who, through a very stringent design process, has maintained the ability of its architecture to say "this is Charleston". To me, the ideal solution is for product manufacturers to find a way to merge their products with historic, regional architecture so the world can receive the benefits of researched and enhanced materials, while keeping that sense of local identity.
ReplyDeleteGeoffrey,
ReplyDeleteTotally agree. The use of regionally specific building materials not only provides locals with a job market, but also provides them with the agency in their environment and will instill in them a sense of place within their community. This has become a lost notion in many cities across America with the insurgence of market-made products. In addition to the poor quality of place, the actual construction quality has dropped as a result. It is imperative that we bring back the use of local materials in our design in order to right this wrong before it goes too far. The sad but good news is that many of the tacky and locationally neglectful buildings you're referring to likely won't survive top see 20 years old and will need to be replaced. Hopefully by then we can convince the world to do better.
I agree that the use of local materials is a better way to locate a project in a specific place globally, however, I think the idea of "place" is much more intricate. Regardless of building materials and market products, there are other ways for projects to be situated in a location. For example, building form and building use/program are other ways for buildings to locally relate to each other, since I doubt a dramatic change in the market functions of architectural products will come about any time soon.
ReplyDeleteGeoffrey - you bring up great points from this week's readings by Habraken, and funny you chose a project by LS3P to prove your points. Habraken speaks to a method by which contemporary architects can structure a practice, where LS3P exemplifies one type of practice that fits the bill of market-available hardware systems - AND - market-available "good design". Firms like these have supported a select few designers within their office to develop marketable design strategies that look friendly, fit-the-bill, pleasant to the untrained eye, then almost immediately recognizable by the trained eye to have come out of a certain design shop. I think Habraken warns against the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" approach when it comes to aesthetics.
ReplyDelete