The "Feeling" of Regionalism
The contemporary teachings and practices of architecture have left us (designers) conflicted. On one hand, there is a qualitative, more experiential-based approach to design. This I would argue follows the path toward critical regionalism. On the other hand, there is a quantitative, more factual-based approach to design. This I would argue follows the path toward evidence-based design. With teachings and precedents that lean so heavily, one way or the other, it makes an emerging designer wonder, which way is correct.
Without a doubt, there is a need to support design decisions. But does data have to be the form that we provide this evidence?
I argue instead that we focus on regional precedence to defend design decisions. And that new interventions reveal their value by the connections they make to their context; how they respond to it, and how they challenge it. The challenge with this concept is that the “feeling” of a space cannot be truly detected, or felt by a user until it exists, and many times, this takes the power away from the client. The best moments in architecture aren’t prescribed or detected with high-tech anticipation. Often these spaces become too efficient and lack feeling. Instead, it’s when there is a feeling of what the space could be and a response to how a site speaks. Designers have the power to achieve this without resorting to high-tech, quantitative design repeatedly. But we do have to find a balance between having a “feeling” and having tools at our disposal to be precise.
I think this balance between evident and regional culture is interesting. In my first cursory glance, It would seem to me that the best evidence we can use in these situations is the precedence, as you mentioned Michael. People and cultures have shifted to building in particular methods and manners for one reason: it works. In that way they have already conducted the evidence-based research over years and generations of living in a particular place, and adapting the structures accordingly.
ReplyDeleteI agree, Michael. The argument for evidence-based design is easily made, but the argument for a more critical approach is less evident. We as designers must balance what we know to be fact and what we believe will benefit the client and community with which we are working.
ReplyDeleteYou bring up an interesting point that designing to provide a certain "feel" is a strategy even though it can't be measured or truly understood prior to the finished structure. I do think some architecture has become to "in the weeds" of data and strategy vs. making a space feel welcoming and inviting. How do we find the happy medium and make spaces that achieve both? We could start with potential small scale mock ups to really interpret the feel. I am sure there are many other ways.
ReplyDeleteHey Michael! I agree that design should be based on how the space makes a person feel but I do think it's helpful when evidence is used to supplement these decisions. Good architecture can't happen when only one of the two is used to guide a design.
ReplyDelete