I really wanted to ask this question, it was touched on a bit in the discussion but I was too shy:
‘All the speakers touched on the use of narrative as central to their work. In my limited experience I have seen the same narrative being used as the basis of proposals of very different nature. One architect could use the story to propose the planting of a strawberry bush where as the other could use the same narrative to justify a proposal for a whopping great big tower on a site. 1:1 intervention is becoming ever more popular and is often the interpretation of an individual or group and, though, often based on a narrative themselves can be an imposed intervention with no specific reference to or understanding of a site. A tool for communication, engagement or a set purpose.
Socially engaging architecture, if that’s what you propose, depends more on the will of the architect. Norman Foster doesn’t build a tea trolley to engage Somali newcomers and more historic residents in Liverpool, both famed for tea consumption by volume. Studio Weave haven’t built many large office complex, where as Lynch is…
Got a bit lost there and kind of answered my own question but, is it equally fair for architects to impose much larger buildings on the city?
People don’t know what they want until you tell them? We can see through statistical approaches that questions and answers are easily manipulated, I’ve done it myself with a questionnaire on ‘Livable Streets’ where everyone drove to work, the shops, even the local park yet ask the right question and the residents could be seen to want the roads to be taken up.
It’s very hard to imagine something different. We don’t have time. You can’t predict how a building will really be used, particularly at larger scales. I found this recently with Unit 10 in Odessa; I thought it would be rough, cold and aggressive. I found it to be none of these, cars seem to stop to let you cross the road every now and again, people were friendly and open, it was a pleasant city-even more so the poor areas, less affected by encroaching capital markets on a day to day basis but more so in a structural economic way, and in terms the correlation of receding government. I suppose the weather was just a bonus. (will write more separately, signposts of language?)’
Perhaps the question was a bit long. Any answers, I would like to know what people think to the main question: ‘Is it fair for good architects to impose large buildings on the city?’
Of course this brings up lots more questions, who chooses the ‘good’ architects, would that category of architects be capable? I think any architect with the right team is capable. Back to capital. I suppose this is the point Signy raised so won’t go into that much further.
Another good remark was Robert Mull’s, (he’d obviously been thinking about it for a long time-hahaha) ‘Individual conversation to discover communal perspective’. As was elaborated by Maurice Mitchell, where, ‘the particular beats the unusual.’ As was highlighted here, narrative is used for the purpose of the architect to highlight a collective need or an individual taste. ‘Taste’, now that’s a good one, Brutalism only!
I, therefore, will strive for vagueness in my own work, who knows, it might be used well.
P.S, didn’t particularly like much of the work on show.
‘Is it fair for good architects to impose large buildings on the city?’
ReplyDeletePeople don’t know what they want until you tell them?
These go together do they not? For example with retail, it's not all that needed, you need milk, bread, some veg, clothes of some description, but gradually the offerings got bigger and bigger. People adjusted and now we NEED three Westfields in every city. So no I guess I would say it's not fair but developers, planners and architects have created a demand and pulling the rug out would mean making everyone go cold turkey. Of course this is separate to the small matter of market forces, economy, profit etc. but that's a conversation for another day.
And anyway the architect builds, the planner approves, where does the responsibility really lie. Mags? Shard?
Separately you do need some things to make small things small.
Strange then that these 3 Westfields would house the same shops, if the selection has got wider, I would argue that the selection is relatively narrow, thinking about the TV shows we watch or something like that-I someone names a show in a pub most people could talk about it. Does it then mean that there is more potential value in widening the range of shops or could it be argued that people are reasonably happy having similar things and that to most people staying in fashion is an unwanted necessity.
ReplyDelete