Balance!
Architecture as a profession is such a difficult conversation. It is unique in that it is a form of art (if you will) that people actually see and interact with daily. Naturally, people have opinions on it. But, there is a difference between turning over autonomy to the public to become the designers. It can happen where the designer tries to create a "non-prescriptive" space that ends up becoming nothing. I fell into this trap in my early years of school. An additional, more severe interpretation is quite literally having the general public be the designers; essentially, do away with the architecture profession. This would create unsuccessful/unusable buildings, and chaotic urban fabrics. It is obvious that there needs to be a level of professional to create valuable built environments.
The conversation also leans in the other direction though, right? (I argue that not as strongly). If there are only professionals having an impact, this doesn't create a successful built environment either. This may ignore how people want to use the site, or the building, or the community.
To me though, this seems intuitive. The architect should consider what the clients (specifically and generally) want and have to say. That, to me, seems like part of the job. Its not necessarily as dramatic as Lucien Kroll's building methodology. Observing, listening, and studying are all valuable practices for public participation in architecture.
I also agree that its very important to find a balance between taking public opinion into account but still allowing for the architect's expertise to drive the design and architecture of our society. I think we see a debate all the time in what makes someone qualified to decide what's best for us, specifically politicians, and the answer int he case of architects is years of schooling, practice, continuing education, and design background to be able to create architecture that works for the people using it.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree it should be a balance between professionals and the public. To imply a studied, experienced, specialized individual like an architect knows less about spatial impact than the general public is kind of a dangerous notion. Health, safety and welfare are what architects uphold. The welfare portion can and should be a joint effort with those who the welfare is actually benefitting. I think health and safety, for the public on a micro community scale and the environment on a macro scale, absolutely necessitates a professional.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your statements of finding that balance. This is becoming the most important aspect of the role of the architect. Not only balancing the client and community, but the contractor as well. Its being able to take into account all parties and find a solution that benefits all.
ReplyDelete