Constructability, Adaptability, Practicality

02/22

I really like the idea of engaging users in architecture, especially in this idea of a "system" that Habraken discusses. It creates a more vibrant cityscape, forms community, and promotes sustainability. If you build a “frame” for users to have agency and informality, what level of development can a frame become architecture, and is it even architecture if it is just a frame for inhabiting? It seems that in class there has been a range of adaptability strategies such as the user simply decorating the space, to setting up a structure that is prepared for additions as needed. I wonder if the public, designers, and developers struggle to buy in to the idea of creating systematic frameworks because the variance of people actually choose to/have the ability to “finish” the space. While everybody would like to be able to create their own home that is personable to their needs and likes, it seems that many people would not be able to afford (in time or money) to construct and design it. I suppose it is all relative to building type and scale in what could work.

We talk a lot about residential architecture in this conversation of adaptability but can/does this idea of personality and adaptability apply the same way to other building types like offices, arts and culture, and hospitals? It would be interesting to explore the idea of agency being given to users in public buildings, at whatever scale that looks like. In this conversation I cant help but think about how architecture struggles to flip across occupancy types (for example the difficulty NYC is having to flip office buildings to housing units).