"Architecture can be a Gen Ed." - Said no one ever
"The Supports and the People: The End of Mass Housing", John Habraken argues that traditional mass housing designs are not suited for the diverse needs of individuals and communities. Instead, he proposes a more participatory approach to architecture that involves the residents in the design and building process.
Habraken's theory is based on the idea that buildings are not static objects, but rather, they are systems that are continuously evolving and adapting to the changing needs of their inhabitants. To accommodate this, he suggests a flexible, modular approach to design that allows residents to modify their living spaces as their needs change.
But what does this mean for the role of architects in society? Habraken suggests that architects should not be the sole authority on design, but rather, they should act as facilitators who help residents to realize their own vision for their living spaces. This collaborative approach not only leads to more personalized and functional living spaces, but it also fosters a sense of community and ownership among residents.
However, this raises the question of whether or not the role of an architect is still necessary in this model. After all, if residents are taking an active role in the design and construction process, is there still a need for a trained professional?
as the public may have a deep understanding of their own needs and desires, they may lack the technical expertise and knowledge of materials and construction that architects bring to the table. Architects can act as mediators between residents and contractors, ensuring that designs are executed correctly and safely.
If architects were to lose our place in society, how would the world adapt? What if architecture were to become a general education in schools, could it help to foster a more engaged and empowered citizenry.
By teaching students about the principles of good design and encouraging them to take an active role in shaping their built environment, we could create a society that is more invested in the places where they live and work. This could lead to more vibrant and sustainable communities that are better suited to the needs of their inhabitants.
Of course, implementing architecture as a general education would require a significant investment of time and resources. However, the benefits of a more engaged and empowered citizenry are difficult to overstate.
This sums up De Drager well. As an undergraduate student at Clemson there were architecture related courses that fulfilled gen ed requirements such as art and architecture history. I think these were good first steps to understanding architecture even for those not in the field. Although history is a good first step to understanding any skill it seems that some kind of gen ed design course would really be beneficial in the school system. There seems to be some examples of this, for example the Impacct competition taught by Dan Harding.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Habraken's concept stating that "buildings are not static objects, but rather, they are systems that are continuously evolving and adapting to the changing needs of their inhabitants". A building is only what its drawings say that it is on the day it opens. From then on, a building is formed by its users.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the idea that architecture cannot entirely depend on either the architects or the users. I think a well designed building has both elements that are formally planned and spaces that are left to be appropriated by the user and as architects it is our job as mediator to facilitate that balance.
ReplyDelete