architecture for you
So many cases I run into the theory of "architecture for the people" and yet never really understand how that is translated into built architecture - unless it is for residential. Hence, the architecture for you. I feel that residential work is so curated and adjusted for the client, where the client is king, and we are the experts. A custom architecture is the only architecture truly, undoubtedly, for a person. There is no (substantial) public duty, no generalizing, simply architecture for one entity and (we) know how to provide it.
Alternatively, when that mindset is then applied to commercial/public spaces, I struggle to see how one architecture is more "for the people" than another. Simply saying its for the people for xyz reasons does not mean it necessarily applies to all. Frankly, I'd make the argument that architecture can never "be" for all, but beside that, observing how Giancarlo De Carlo's buildings start to take apart Corbu's blocks and towers are steps to a commonly liked almost custom architecture. Maybe that's all that "architecture for the people" means, but isn't that considered just good acceptable architecture? It seems like Le Corbusier was prescriptive and literal while Giancarlo De Carlo provides more flexibility, but they both provide a Wayfair-type service to each one of our unique architectural problems.
This is why I enjoy the idea of the Segal Method so much. It seems like a type of modernity that is a semi-custom service but you can apply no limit to custom elements to make it truly for you, and a framework that works for the people. Similar to Ikea in some ways - maybe their kitchen cabinetry: flexible, modular system, can be modified for custom-ish design.
Yes, I agree that in some ways residential is truly the most personal architecture, where the architect has to fully engage with the client and let them "rule" the design. It is definitely more difficult to apply these personal touches on public architecture, since there is so much diversity that may be impossible to address properly with a single design. It is a great challenge though, for architects to step beyond their comfort zones and experience the culture they build for, whether that is within their societal status or not. Will it ever be as personal as designing someone's dwelling? Who can even predict how people use public space since that definition constantly changes over time?
ReplyDeleteI feel like this might be a different interpretation of what it means to make architecture for people. I would say that it's more the concept of human centered design where it is not that the building is customized to a single person's tastes or wants, but rather that the architect has thought through the user experience and has designed to support that experience. This would be things like allowing for adaptability and flexibility is spaces and practicing universal design concepts so all people could use the building equally rather than designing for some mythical average and throwing on some accommodations to meet code that don't provide the same experience.
ReplyDeleteI think this depends on the specific cultural role of the individual in a given society. This idea of custom design is a reflection of an emphasis on the individual's role and fulfillment socially, economically - through the outward expression of their taste/style. Why must this be fulfilled in order to call architecture good? Can the individual express their unique perspective through their oppositional occupation of space not made for them?
ReplyDeleteIt's interesting to me that you so closely relate customization and personal control of spatial quality/aesthetic to being "architecture for people", and feels like a very Western notion of individuality of expression and personal space within architecture. In my experience, in the West, the place of comfort, rejuvenation and control is the home, whereas in the East, the public sphere- such as tea shops, barbershop, or public square are the place people go to relax and rejuvenate after a long day of work. In a more Eastern context, I believe that the public space is just as vital to the personal experience of "home" as the literal home, and thus should be considered in a similar way.
ReplyDelete