Discussing how architects have been designing for "everyday life" and how the actions of the architect dictates how someone might live in a space reminded me of suburbanization that we talked about last semester. One ideology deals with the idealistic home that we should strive to have and the other analyzes and responds to the specific user. One is superficial and the other is reactionary. Ads of suburbanization showed us the perfect nuclear family, the wife often cooking or cleaning, the men drinking beers and grilling, and the children being good and playing off in the corner, very white focused. I would say that all tactical elements in suburbanization was brought about because of a strict strategy. Everyday life is the complete opposite. The house by Sanaa depicts the beauty of uniqueness and mess from living even in the floor plans. The design meets the occupant where they are instead of showing them "perfection" and forcing them to conform. Strategy in this kind of design is determined from its tactics. It's much more forgiving to allow the user to define their own space and for the occupant to own that space as uniquely theirs, a product of their existence, than to coexist with others that are also falsifying a pedigree of suburban purity.
Comments
Post a Comment