Architects VS. the people or Architects AND the people...?

Historically, "architecture" was not just limited to monumental buildings intentionally designed by an architect/designer but also encompasses the more informal, self-built, self-grown side of the built environment. So just as there has always been a role played by architects/designers, who at that time did not concern themselves with the built environment of everyday life, there has been an equally important role played by people who shaped and made their surroundings. With time, there has been a shift of emphasis and need - from the monumental to everyday life. This now puts architects and people (previously separate) on the same playing field. This leads to the ongoing struggle between how architects think people should live vs. how people transform the frame of architecture because of their role in appropriating space. While I believe that as trained professionals, part of our job as architects is seeing possibilities/test feasibility of a project that the user doesn't always know, I also think this can result in a sort of architectural "god-complex." We don't always know everything, which leads to us being unable to provide what a user needs because we might not even know what they want. We need to come back to this idea of the architect as a mediator, a go-between that can go beyond the confines of constraints and provide for appropriation. Architecture can leverage the simplicity of creating a frame for people to inhabit. So our job is to find the right balance between reading society, identifying needs, and negotiating to create rich, vibrant, and meaningful spaces.