The Successes and Failures of the Architectural Object
I couldn't help but reflect on De Carlo's position on the administration and use of architecture. He talked about how project planning does not end with the completed construction of the project. He states, "The client and the architect leave the stage, and the conflicts are shifted to the relationship between the architectural object and those who use it." He then says how architecture's quality depends on if it is used for its intended function later on down the road.
His argument reminded me of one of our conversations in Architecture, Society, and Culture. We discussed architecture that ended up being used by the public differently than was intended in its design. One of the topics we brought up was whether or not architecture was a failure if we, as architects, could not foresee it being used differently. Is it really so bad if the architecture is misused? There are cases where the spaces we create get used differently, but it actually enhances the space. I was thinking of the bank example where the lobby created underneath the building becomes a public market on the weekends. But there are also many examples (too many to name) where the failed intended use marks the architecture as a failed project.
I supposed the question becomes how we as architects can predict public behavior to enhance our architectural designs rather than detract from them. We can influence society for the better, but it requires knowledge of how the public will react to our creations. There is a delicate balance between listening to the needs of the people and spoonfeeding them what they want versus suggesting better solutions. We have to remember that the public is not trained in architectural thinking, so their ideas of what architecture should be will vary from that of the architect. If we aren't careful, we will end up with cheap knock-offs of downtown USA *cough cough* I'm looking at you New Urbanism and Patrick Square.
I think that's a really interesting thought that the user will ultimately use architecture for many things beyond what was originally intended. And in many ways that's the beauty of space... it'll always transform into many uses. I'm not sure that it's possible for us, as architects, to even plan for all of the ways our designs might be used. It's a good exercise, but even then, I think the imagination of the public will always exceed our plans.
ReplyDeleteTaylor,
ReplyDeleteI thought that the quote that you picked was a good description of architecture. The initial completion of construction is just one phase of the life of the project, and I think that it is important for us to realize that as we go throughout our careers. I have spoke with my boss about how he did the initial design for a project years ago, that building is now turning into another business and he was hired back to do the design on the new one. I think that it is so cool he gets to do that because most of the time it would be another architect working on 'your' building.
I was thinking of the same concepts last week with junkspace. I think failed architecture is architecture that fails to recognize the reality that people claiming the space is inevitable. It's impossible for us to account for every factor of a society, not to mention that factors that might occur because a space becomes available for them to interact. Calling architecture a failure that didn't plan for that inevitability is foolish unless it directly tried to prevent it. A Mies level rigidity in social spaces would never be as successful as one that allows the people to control how they need to use the space. The operative word there being need.
ReplyDeleteI think that architecture should be judged on the quality of use it provides later on in life. Good design is interchangeable, resilient, and adaptable. Good architecture is a space where a large array of things could happen, ideas can be sparked, and recycling of structures can occur.
ReplyDelete