Responsive Architecture is not just for the Environment
Okay I get it, climate change is real and one of our duties as architects is to be able to design responsive buildings that can help slow or even fight back against this international threat. But the conflict building in Ukraine made me wonder, where is architecture's emphasis on socially responsive architecture.
When we ask, "architecture for whom?", we must remember that the everyday man is just a fraction of the world population as a whole. What about the people starving, the people that are oppressed, the people that live in fear everyday. Where does our role as the architect
The first project I ever did in architecture school, while at Anne Arundel Community College, was to design a refugee home reusing a cargo container. A simple project that was merely to teach me how to hand draw plans, elevations, and axonometric views. Not much emphasis was placed on the whom, for that project. And since, I have had a few projects related to housing vulnerable populations within the United States, but repeatedly, the main effort of the studio was directed at environmental design and the actual architecture.
What if architecture school began directing just as much attention on how architecture can change societal issues at large, through design. Think about the new spaces that we could create that save not only the environment, but also our fellow man.
Here are some quick overview examples of how architecture can do this:
https://www.archdaily.com/919496/beyond-refugee-housing-5-examples-of-social-infrastructure-for-displaced-people
Great post Jon,
ReplyDeleteI agree that it isn't in our curriculum as a consideration. Honestly, I would probably say that this is the case because architects generally don't play a role in these emergency situations, typically armies and there engineers work on getting quick and easily deployable shelters out to these people in need. It seems to land more on the side of research, materials, operability, deployment, access, and less associated with the typical trajectory of an architecture student. It would be cool if they offered classes with a theme on responsiveness and what that would even mean. Architects typically spend years working on a project in the profession, what would it mean to only have a couple weeks?
A couple weeks definitely seems like a tight deadline, love the thought of the final question you presented.
DeleteWow John, this is some great thoughts. I agree with you that designing is so much more. There are so many things that one should be thinking about when designing outside of just the technical aspects. I feel like because there are so many things to consider, we cannot consider it all. But instead, being aware of these can make one chooses what one wants and specializes in it. Or maybe not even specialize, different things need to be considered for different geographical locations, political, social issues, etc. All in all, being aware of issues outside of architecture is the first step in solving the issue.
ReplyDeleteJohn,
ReplyDeleteI love your position on this topic. I think architecture school focuses more on saving the environment because it can use technology and products within buildings and it can be quantified and measured. It is harder to measure social change through architecture because there are so many more variables, but I agree that we should always consider the social affects our architecture plays on the world. There are firms that design for social justice out there, they just arent common!!
I've also been thinking about how architecture can affect societal issues like homelessness, oppression, etc., especially related to how we design for the environment, specifically natural disasters like hurricanes. We already implement hurricane shelters, so why do we stop there and limit ourselves? We could be designing for everything that could affect the built-environment, everything that we cannot control as architects (or people).
ReplyDelete