A thought experiment:
Two houses sit side by side on a suburban street. They are around the same size and include the same number of rooms hosting the same functions. But they are designed very differently. If a family, having first lived in one of the houses and then in the second, concluded that the design of the second house, unlike the first, made their lives more efficient, helped strengthen their familial bonds, and simply made them happy, which house is better designed?
Assuming we can agree that, at least for this particular family, the design of the second house is clearly superior to the first, let us continue:
Imagine another family, of the same size as the first, and generally having similar spatial needs, also living in both houses for a short time. The difference is that this family fell in love with both houses, claiming that although they are different, the designs of both houses provided them with cherished moments of closeness and everlasting memories of love. Both houses, they passionately insisted, made them happy. If that was the case, which family is the better user of architecture?
I expect this question might not make sense at first, so let me clarify. First, the ‘families’ here represent all users of architecture, especially architects. Second, the word ‘better’ does not refer to a superiority in worth, morality, or intellect, but is based on the belief (my own) that using architecture is a skill (just like designing architecture), and that some are better at it than others. Third, a ‘user’ is understood here in a broad sense that includes physically interacting with buildings, but also the consumption of architectural media including its discourse, imagery, and more.
Back to the thought experiment: I suggest that the second family is the better user of architecture because they were able to extract more value and personal happiness from the houses than the first family. Just like a building that is able to successfully serve more users (not in terms of capacity or size, but in its inclusivity of a wider spectrum of people and their varying needs) is a better building, a user that is able to understand, appreciate, and exploit more architecture is a better user.
This is not a call to abandon criticism or to tolerate mediocrity in design, rather, it is a reminder to be generous, thoughtful, and even kind in our ‘using’ of architecture. Architecture culture is generally negative. Whether in school or in the profession, it is a common occurrence to witness architects who revel in tearing down others’ work, so transparently building their own self-esteem using the wreckage they create. This unhealthy inclination to race one another in pointing out what is lacking is anything but a sign of sophistication. To articulate what is valuable in a design often requires more creativity and perception than to identify the faults. The good architect not only designs good architecture, but is a good user of architecture as well.
Two houses sit side by side on a suburban street. They are around the same size and include the same number of rooms hosting the same functions. But they are designed very differently. If a family, having first lived in one of the houses and then in the second, concluded that the design of the second house, unlike the first, made their lives more efficient, helped strengthen their familial bonds, and simply made them happy, which house is better designed?
Assuming we can agree that, at least for this particular family, the design of the second house is clearly superior to the first, let us continue:
Imagine another family, of the same size as the first, and generally having similar spatial needs, also living in both houses for a short time. The difference is that this family fell in love with both houses, claiming that although they are different, the designs of both houses provided them with cherished moments of closeness and everlasting memories of love. Both houses, they passionately insisted, made them happy. If that was the case, which family is the better user of architecture?
I expect this question might not make sense at first, so let me clarify. First, the ‘families’ here represent all users of architecture, especially architects. Second, the word ‘better’ does not refer to a superiority in worth, morality, or intellect, but is based on the belief (my own) that using architecture is a skill (just like designing architecture), and that some are better at it than others. Third, a ‘user’ is understood here in a broad sense that includes physically interacting with buildings, but also the consumption of architectural media including its discourse, imagery, and more.
Back to the thought experiment: I suggest that the second family is the better user of architecture because they were able to extract more value and personal happiness from the houses than the first family. Just like a building that is able to successfully serve more users (not in terms of capacity or size, but in its inclusivity of a wider spectrum of people and their varying needs) is a better building, a user that is able to understand, appreciate, and exploit more architecture is a better user.
This is not a call to abandon criticism or to tolerate mediocrity in design, rather, it is a reminder to be generous, thoughtful, and even kind in our ‘using’ of architecture. Architecture culture is generally negative. Whether in school or in the profession, it is a common occurrence to witness architects who revel in tearing down others’ work, so transparently building their own self-esteem using the wreckage they create. This unhealthy inclination to race one another in pointing out what is lacking is anything but a sign of sophistication. To articulate what is valuable in a design often requires more creativity and perception than to identify the faults. The good architect not only designs good architecture, but is a good user of architecture as well.
👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
ReplyDeleteYou should write more .. you are a very good writer ..!
ReplyDeleteThank you!
Delete