Here later
I found Till's essay, "Here, There and North of Nowhere" really interesting with his argument that contemporary architectural practices often prioritize what the global trend is at that time and doesn't think long term on how it might look like 50+ years from now, whether it be the aesthetic or functionality. This then leads to buildings that lack character and fail to address what unique challenges that the community might be facing. With that, he has emphasized that it is important to engage with the local community and designing for their desires and their concerns. This is something that I completely agree with as we tend to see what's on trend, for example in residential aesthetic, board and batten. To dive deeper, I think we are finally beginning to get back on track with involving the community and hearing their input and what they actually need, but also we are more intentional now with the way we are designing. I think we are still designing with these grand gestures but taking in account for the future and how the public will interact with it.
I agree with most everything you mention here - from Till's essay to how these character-less buildings don't serve for long. I do think there is more of a distinction between "community involvement" or the community's desires and concerns, and a functional appreciated architecture. Álvaro Siza shows an understanding of local political climates, architectural motifs and techniques, and attitudes towards architecture that doesn't necessarily and literally ask for community input.
ReplyDeleteMaddi, I agree architecture was beginning to lose its meaning in that everything was looking the same as we all took influence from what was trending at the time. Timeless architecture would be those that are unique to the occupant and to the place it is located. Creating this sense of cultural aesthetic in cities and communities will bring back architecture from its meaninglessness.
ReplyDeleteMaddi, I agree with your statements of concern with everything looking the same. It seems like there is a push for all of our buildings to look similar that almost removed a local identity from the architecture. It makes me curious if we can even revert to local identities in architecture like in the past in areas such as Charleston, which has such a strong connection to its foundations in local appearance.
ReplyDelete