Is too much flexibility a bad thing?

 As we study participatory design, we are learning how we can create spaces where the user can also create a space that can be theirs. It is a collaboration between user and architect. There are some cases where architects can grow lazy and make a space too flexible to where the users are lost in how to use it. After seeing different examples in class, one that stood out to me was the example that had a variety of permanent walls and flexible walls. The permanent walls had plumbing and electricity, while the flexible walls were typical dry wall/partitions. This allowed people to come in and make the space what they want and it made it adaptable for the future uses. While this idea gives the individuals close to maximum flexibility, at what point is the architectural portion lacking? Are good architects supposed to give the users the minimal number of built objects so that they can make the space their own? And at that point are architects necessary? I believe participatory design is important… I mean, we are not the ones using or living in the spaces we create. I believe there is a way to give moments of flexibility while still finding creative ways to design rooms with materials. There is beauty in allowing an individual to design, I think our job is to work alongside that and help the users expand that and make it functional, beautiful, all while making it stand up.

This image shows an open floor plan with partition walls to create rooms within rooms. Other ideas of how architects have started to work with flexibility in housing is by using different materials for different rooms or double or single height spaces.