Wheels.
Over 40 graduate architecture students in their final semester of study are stationed at their studio desks. Some of them are locked in, already working on their projects. Some are preparing to get to work, they just got back from lunch. Some are socializing with their desk mates. Yet all of them are at their desks, in a space that was designed for these desks. Everything is in harmony, going exactly as expected. But then... they are called to the professor's table to hear the plan for the day.
Wheels.
A stampede of them, as over 40 chairs are rolled great distances, through narrow corners, over bumpy laptop chargers, knocking against glass railings, clipping the backs of ankles, all to get to a spot where everyone can congregate to hear 5 minutes of housekeeping, and then they return. Needless to say, this space wasn't designed for, well... that. But we do it anyway.
In reading Margaret Crawford's introduction to "Everyday Urbanism", I was drawn to the concept she outlines by Michel de Certeau and Henri Lefebvre of the distinction between strategy and tactics in built spaces. Strategy in the case of architecture would be efforts made to design for certain uses, whereas tactics would be how the space is actually used once it's there. We should really keep both in mind as designers, while knowing the limits of predicting human behavior. We can't just call a room a multi-purpose room and tell people to go be multi-purposeful in there, can we? Can we ever fully design a space with enough flexibility to perform every function it needs to? I think the answer is we can, as long as the list of functions is prescribed and finite. I think what makes architecture so beautiful is leaving it for somewhere else. The experience of a space is temporary. Let people find purpose in several of them.
I believe that people will always make a space to be what they want from it. I think that architects are simply suggesters, especially when it comes to flexible space. At the end of the day, architects are making a square box and calling it a classroom, a bedroom, an office, etc. The way we occupy a space is done by the people not the architect. Also, I will continue to clip people's ankles... on accident of course.
ReplyDeleteI <3 wheels. Last semester I designed an indoor/outdoor library based on bookshelves with wheels. It is so interesting how we all have used buildings before, but it is difficult to predict how our designs might be used. There is such a fine line of prescribing/not prescribing the space. I suppose that goes along with the idea of listening (/observing) the user. Enough freedom but enough direction
ReplyDeleteThis is clever - and I think you capture the absolute bare bones of how we make architecture our own by simply positioning ourselves within the space. I feel that some architecture and some program works for an indefinite period of time - one being studio space. Much has remained the same over the years. But if suddenly Lee 3 became a computer science building, I don't think they would be able to comfortably use it for their intended program.. all to say I think very very finite functions increase the value of the design because it can be specialized.
ReplyDeleteI agree this studio space was not intended for large group meetings, but I also wonder what the intention of the building was for. With how many people are in the building at once and how much it echoes, was it only intended for small group discussions? Or was it assumed the time frame people would be in the building would be staggered and thus the building echoing all the chaos wouldn't be a problem? A design lesson I have learned from lee hall is people are stubborn and will almost always use space when, and how, they want to, regardless of what the building has to say about it.
ReplyDeleteThis post is awesome. I also believe that spaces should be designed to allow people to decide what they should be and should not be told that they can only serve as one function. I think that the best designs are those that think about the future and what the spaces could be further down the road. When we design spaces to only be one thing, then it loses purpose because it can only ever be that one thing. I do think spaces can have a specialized purpose but they still need to be flexible and allow themselves to be able to change if needed.
ReplyDeleteThe idea that a "mutipurpose space" designed to be a large rectilinear flex-space is not sufficiently prescriptive or facilitative for multiple specific uses reveals a huge weakness in current architectural thought. Although the concept of a multi-use space has captured the imagination of many-a-architect in the recent years, it's also my experience that it is either designed for highly specific furniture (leaving little room for "flex") or is characterized by large open, unspecific space (which encourages absolutely nothing). It is seemingly a rare gem to see a space designed to transform into facilitating multiple different, specific uses. I agree that the list should be finite and well-defined for optimal multi-use.
ReplyDelete