T30 Starting Again 3, The Idea of City, Florian Beigel, Philip Christou

It would be too easy for us on the MA SPUD course to jump on the assertion that: 'The prerogative of the Architect is to work with the client and to interpret how to provide for the user.'
I felt that this method and that of MUF's, expressed the week before common in this way. To strip back a fundamental of the architectural process. For MUF, put in simple terms to identify an end user/group and provide, often through thorough consultation a relevant building and/or program. For Florian and Philip, to understand the potential end users through the demands of the client and thorough investigation. As we saw over these two lectures, both practices carry these processes off very well. The problem, as is commonly true is interpretation. Any person will have a different interpretation of the projects, the architects themselves had many through the lives of the presented works. A site visit on a different day would have unearthed and originated a wholly different project. I would be confident to say that projects brought to fruition by these two practices would be good, despite their individual potential for alternatives and such an ideologically different approach by the practices.
Surprisingly, with the relatively small numbers of architects, most are very bad.
My thought would then be, what is the better approach to teaching potential architects, is it MUF’s view to find an end user and develop the program that way or Florian and Philip’s, to rely on the skill of the architect. Both methods can be used cynically, done badly, ill-considered, partially ignored, given little time to.
In many ways, anything in between doesn’t really work.
As we have admitted, any end product is due to the interpretation of the designer. Both practices build beautiful objects.
Perhaps this is why Diploma Unit 01 are so picky about their student intake. I think I would like to learn the skills they teach, why they now use ‘Figure’ and no longer ‘Form’. It is clear that Philip and Florian are interested in new ideas; I was surprised by Florian’s comment that food production in the city was ‘a very, very important idea.’

‘Roads, given by the government interrupt everything.’ Florian
This was my favorite comment and I think one that in a way can be used to sum up the approach. The idea of giving to the city. The idea of city itself and its scale being inherent in all built things. Objects have different uses to different people. Objects are used differently all the time and over time. Objects of the city are used differently locally, and inter-locally, have different meanings nationally and internationally, if meaning at all and otherwise can be suggestive of other indicators of a built homogeneity.
Well, I could write a basket of snakes all day.