A Blank Canvas
Informal spaces are becoming playgrounds for architects to get creative and try out new ideas. Although not conventionally designated for architectural purposes, these spaces offer a blank canvas for experimentation with novel design approaches. Architects utilize informal spaces as testing grounds for new materials, construction methods, and technologies, employing various methods such as temporary installations, community-driven design projects, and platforms for architectural activism. These initiatives aim to activate underutilized spaces, foster community engagement, collaborate with local residents, address community needs, raise awareness of social and political issues, and advocate for change.
Now, here's a thought that's been bouncing around in my head: is allowing users to alter buildings beneficial? I believe that well-designed and visually captivating buildings can inspire artistic thinking without necessitating user modifications. Allowing users to modify structures may seem like a shortcut for architects. On the other hand though I think allowing users to add their own unique sense of flair to space could offer for a more diverse blend of styles.
The examples brought up in the lecture, Le Corbusier's Quarter Fruges in the city of Pessac, is an interesting example of how informal spaces can be transformed into a creative occupation. Le Corbusiers technique and purism "style" has allowed this residential neighborhood to become a hub of artistic creativity. Over the years the users and home owners have been able to add their own unique touches and life to their own space. In cases like this I think leaving the canvas open ended is extremely beneficial.
I think your question has many different answers depending on the type of architecture you are thinking about. In the examples from this week's lecture, most dealt with housing, which is arguably the best example of why user agency in design is very necessary. A home is the place where most people are most comfortable and find their sense of peace, so I completely agree that these spaces should be customizable. In other cases, I see it much harder to make this defense. Government architecture, like a court house, is one that comes to mind that often has a very specific typology, and the programming needed really dictates the space. Additionally, I think there a lot more layers of this question that we could really spend days on, such as how it would be answered if analyzed from staff vs visitor users.
ReplyDeleteI think it is beneficial if done well. It reminds of the precedent shown a few weeks back of the Nemausus. The blank slate method incorporated there turned out to be a very successful exercise in giving creative opportunity to the user, albeit on a smaller scale with mainly interiors.
ReplyDeleteI feel like this question comes up a lot especially when deciding flex/unprogrammed space in a design. As stated in previous comments it's a complex question and I think it really depends on the building type. Obviously someone's home/private non-public buildings is where this would be beneficial, in more public facing buildings where the use stays fairly consistent however a more rigid program layout would be more beneficial in my opinion. But then again, places always seem to need more space because of expansion and growth, change of program, etc. so maybe designating extra "flex" space in designs would be beneficial, if possible.
ReplyDelete