User Space? or Useful Space?
Flexible "Office" Space
In much of our current paradigm of architecture and critique, it could be said that there is some kind of friction between two critical positions regarding the overall purpose of space. On one hand, with the pressure of balancing influence and power, we find it necessary to provide spaces that serve the users, which often requires being specifically made to serve those people. On the other hand, we find the necessity of environmental preservation pushing the need for flexible buildings that can endure over time.
Many would prefer the first option, believing that spaces designed for specific users is the most important approach, as this ensures that people are receiving the support they require out of our built environment. Others would more heavily weight the latter option, as the reuse of older parts of our built environment ensures less environmental impact when it is critical to lessen our carbon footprint.
I don't believe these two positions have to be at odds however. I believe that if one is a good designer, they should be capable of providing a space that both meets the necessity of the current program, while also the design being able to be replaced later on. A space need not be a blank slate with minimal services to be forward thinking.
Hayden,
ReplyDeleteI like that you were able to describe the two positions so concisely. I agree that the positions don't have to be at odds with each other but I think that some project teams tend to prioritize one over the other and usually end up only succeeding at one. A good designer can meet the needs of users without defining every detail, there should be room for flexibility and growth.