Stop Pretentious Architecture
I found this week’s readings and videos to be complementary to those of last week which talked about the importance of the focus on the "every day" of people who inhabit the building and occupy the spaces. The readings of last week support the theories of this week’s readings in the way that they are claiming that architects need to let go of the idea of making “beautiful architecture” in order to focus on the solutions that are really needed by their work. Most architects have an idea of architecture that revolves around them and their ideas. They think that they make the decisions of how the world is going to be built and the people are just let in this world and must adapt to it. In reality, as Habraken states, "the built environment has its own laws and is very complex". We need to shift the nature of the questions that define architecture. Instead of conducting surveys around the neighborhood to determine the extent to which people can participate in the work of an architect, we need to ask ourselves how can architecture reach an understanding of the site, people, and the building form so that we may develop the RIGHT type of architecture. In order for this to happen, it is vital that architects stop trying to sell their pretentious ideas and start listening to the needs of the community.
Thaly,
ReplyDeleteI agree that it is the architect's role to listen to the needs of the community. I remember last semester we struggled a lot with understanding why the Spaulding Paloozi Building in Charleston was denied by the BAR, but ultimately it was because the public did not approve. If the architect and school focused more from the beginning on what the neighborhood wanted to see, then it may have been built. It is a tricky balance between what is right and what may be right in a different context.
Thaly,
ReplyDeleteI can not agree more with your statement, it is vital that architects stop trying to sell their pretentious ideas and start listening to the needs of the community. You said what I always wanted to say but in better language. I have always felt that architects design buildings for users rether than for their own will.
I absolutely agree. There are too many cases where the architect's ego stands in front of the needs of the people using the space. I think the would you rather questions brought up some unique ideas about what architecture means to us versus what architecture means to the user. Arguing that we know what's best because we studied architecture is hubris at its finest. We will never know the needs of the people more than they know themselves and their own needs.
ReplyDelete