In the discussions from class, we have touched on many
examples of ways that architects have tried to address the public and needs of
the user, but every design arguably had its benchmarks that went unsatisfied.
It seems to be a common occurrence that the sacrifices within a project end up
hurting the true public. This doomed fate almost seems inevitable when considering
the complexities of life.
Let’s break this damning idea into its components. On the first
layer of understanding, any project an architect takes addresses the spatial requirements
of a particular occupant group. Residency holds living spaces for people, Commercial
offers a workplace for people, and a cemetery is the final resting place for many
individuals. That is the only thing that fundamentally is the same, the more
layers you add to the project, the more unique and intricate it becomes. And so
is the same with life. The more layers you peel back on a person (not
physically) the more interesting and unique we are. The goal for architects should
then in turn should focus on having the character of the space match as closely
to the users’ character to have a seamless symbiotic relationship between occupant
and environment.
The picture of Shrek was really had me hopeful that you were going to talk about Lord Farquaad's eviction of the fairytales creatures. Shrek was very happy in his swamp alone and the fairytale creatures did not actually want to be there, but they were forced out of their homes. My point being that people/fairytale creatures have different wants in their built environment. So, why do we see so many cookie cutter houses and apartments going up all over the country? How can we have cost efficient homes and apartments without them all looking the same?
ReplyDeleteI think that one thing that clear from your post is that architecture is like an onion, it has layers. Architects have to be opportunistic and see the possibilities in every situation. Despite the difficulties that come with every project, architects have to find creative solutions that makes a project the best that it can be despite the constraints. It reminds me of the example we looked at in class, where the architect was designed social housing in France. He decided to sacrifice the beauty of the exterior envelope to give the units double height space. He chose to put the money of the project into the height because he believed that would create a better experience for the residents.
ReplyDeleteI could be off base here, but I think that residential architecture for the most part does the focusing/matching of the character of the user. The client is telling you their wants, needs, style, character, likes and dislikes. So, that in itself is a lot to navigate and shape into this seamless relationship, but I do feel like it is the closes version to what you suggested.
ReplyDeleteKyle,
ReplyDeleteI like your explanation of the different layers to each experience and the phase of the user that goes with it. I think that pairing the space's character to the user's character would work best on projects with smaller user groups like RJ was saying but I wonder how this ideal could be adapted for a larger user group like a community center? Maybe taking into account some of the characters that are shared by a community or some of the traditions that they may have?
Kyle, I find it interesting to imagine (and hope) to see what a world would look like where design sacrifices are not forced upon the architect. Buildings, like onions, are made up of layers. Sifting through what is essential and what is superfluous is a part of an architect's role that tends to get messy.
ReplyDeleteYou have a very interesting thought process. I think that the different layer analogy is very smart way of at looking how people and the space they experience can have different meanings per space.
ReplyDelete