the pitfalls of "architecture by committee"
So often in similar projects to the ones that we have been reviewing in class, a committee is formed full of politicians, business men, architects, and lastly, the people. With so many people and opinions, architectural thought just becomes a mixed salad once everyone has their hands in it. This is a reason I question the notion of "designing for the people," because we all have a different idea of what that really means. How can architecture be designing for people if all people feel differently? Put every design decision up to a vote? Only in cases where the architects let the residents take control of their space can I start to get on board with the idea - but even then - does affordable housing just mean a roof and walls now? Everything else costs extra/you need to cover. I just have doubts with the notion that a single building can be "designed for people" rather than designed for a client. On the urban scale, another story.
I take 'designed for the people' as something generally designed to take into account how the space will most likely be used. Is there an overarching culture that would dictate design needs? Is it common to socialize outside, so there should be ample seating in a plaza? How do people get around? Should the design connect to a larger pedestrian system around the site? As for housing, I believe all the basics should be covered (living room, kitchen, bathroom, etc.) but having something like additional bedrooms come later helps with initial cost to the residents. It allows for them to grow their space as they are able to afford it, while having access to something earlier on.
ReplyDeleteIt's tough to get everyone's opinion represented when it comes to making decisions about how different things are being designed and who they're being designed for but fostering open dialogue and collaboration can help ensure that architectural projects better serve the needs and aspirations of the communities they're intended for. It comes into question IF the residents are given this choice...???
ReplyDeleteI agree with this sentiment. I would go further and say that designing for everyone ends up making all architecture the same at a certain point. Clients have unique interests, flaws and desires and those are expressed through them and the architect they choose. But “everybody” is just a grey area lacking opinions.
ReplyDelete