Skip to main content
Architecture For the Public?
For an architecture that is based on the function and the use, one might say made for the people, Ellen Dunham-Jones points out the obvious that it is an architecture that is mostly if not wholly divorced from the reality of people and their social class. As form based architecture seems to exist in a bubble of autonomy, Koolhaas also resides in his own realm of conscious ignorance. I have trouble distinguishing whether or not the idea of one of the primary roles of an architect as a social servant is entirely the pedagogy of today or if the idea is contained in essence of architect no matter the time. As a current student I am more inclined to say the later, but ultimately might not matter as it is ingrained to a degree that in my lifetime may never see the discipline without it. On account of this mental state, I believe Ellen Dunham-Jones criticism reveals truth that is needed to be acknowledged when looking at Koolhaas’ work.
I also struggle with getting a clear idea of when exactly architecture started shifting toward a more inclusive design. I am more in the camp that architecture for the user is much more refined and taught in present day. Especially with architecture's early beginnings fitting the 'gentleman's club' ideals, architecture has clearly not always been about design for all. I do think that naturally with the passage of time, ideas about the world grow and change, so it is not surprising that we now pay more attention to this in design.
ReplyDeleteI would certainly agree that architecture has not always been about designing for all and I will concede that this idea of inclusive design has gained more visibility and traction in the couple decades, beginning with the disability rights movement in the 1960s, the passage of the ADA in 1990, and the more recent trend toward universal design. That said, I would hardly say that architecture has accepted the idea of truly designing inclusively and more often, do the bare minimum based on regulations without thinking outside or beyond them. I would argue that this may be more inclusive than in the past, but it is compliant architecture, not inclusive. Perhaps architects today believe that they are social servants who are trying to design for social change, but I don't think that has become engrained enough to actually see that social change and inclusive design happening. Even in education, universal design is barely taught, if at all, and students are still being taught to make designs compliant instead of inclusive. Perhaps I'm being too harsh or expecting too much, but I have trouble with the idea that architecture as a profession today has actually embraced design for all.
ReplyDelete