Architects Design Mainly for Themselves

S

stellarfun

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2006
Messages
5,612
Reaction score
1,352
Have you ever looked at a bizarre building design and wondered, “What were the architects thinking?” Have you looked at a supposedly “ecological” industrial-looking building, and questioned how it could be truly ecological? Or have you simply felt frustrated by a building that made you uncomfortable, or felt anger when a beautiful old building was razed and replaced with a contemporary eyesore? You might be forgiven for thinking “these architects must be blind!” New research shows that in a real sense, you might actually be right.

Environmental psychologists have long known about this widespread and puzzling phenomenon. Laboratory results show conclusively that architects literally see the world differently from non-architects.
Click to expand...
And schools are partly to blame.

http://www.guernicamag.com/blog/3176/the_architect_has_no_clothes/

The image (OMG!, the shadows!!!!!) the article uses to illustrate the underlying point is:

Boston-CIty-Hall575.jpg
 
:( ... this makes me sad.

cca
 
Oh, is it time for this debate again?

My how the time flies by.

Edit: This is actually turning out to be a really interesting conversation.
 
Last edited:
It's true. There is a very sharp disconnect between architects and non-architects (typically the users). The schools have nearly 100% of the blame, imho. I have noticed this in school more and more as I progress through the studio courses. I think I've told this story before on here, but I once had a professor who insisted that I put a giant Corbusian ramp in the middle of my building where I had an architectural staircase. It had no integration with my concept for that space at all. In fact, it would have split a multi-purpose gallery/exhibition space in half because the ramp needed to rise 14' (meaning a length of 168' (at ADA 1:12 which would require 6 landings to comply with 30' run ADA guidelines). When I asked him who would use it, he paused for a moment dumbfounded and then said "...I would?" I said "case in point, it's not happening."

The same thing happened with the brutalist movement. It is brilliant and rich in theory, but to non-architecture-minded people, the spaces are miserable and depressing to inhabit. I don't even think it requires a scientific study to figure this out. I'm a big fan of brutalist theory and I'm always trying to think about how the core values of it can be integrated into the built environment without making the users miserable.

This disconnect is something that is really personal to me (and really irritates me) and when I do eventually become a professional, I've vowed to base designs off architectural theory, but always keep the user in mind. There has to be co-existence and the "I know everything" architect ego needs to be demolished.
 
I just read a portion of Finnish architect Jahani Pallasmaa's book "The Eyes of A Skin" There was a passage that really spoke to this unfortunate rift between architecture and the public.

"The current over-emphasis on the intellectual and conceptual dimensions of architecture contributes to the disappearance of its physical, sensual and embodied essence. Contemporary architecture posing as the avant-garde, is more often engaged with the architectural discourse itself and mapping the possible marginal territories of the art than responding to human existential questions. This reductive focus gives rise to a sense of architectural autism [I really love this term], an internalised and autonomous discourse that is not grounded in our shared existential reality."

Anyways, I highly recommend his entire book
 
Archibald "Harry" Tuttle said:
I just read a portion of Finnish architect Jahani Pallasmaa's book "The Eyes of A Skin" There was a passage that really spoke to this unfortunate rift between architecture and the public.

"The current over-emphasis on the intellectual and conceptual dimensions of architecture contributes to the disappearance of its physical, sensual and embodied essence. Contemporary architecture posing as the avant-garde, is more often engaged with the architectural discourse itself and mapping the possible marginal territories of the art than responding to human existential questions. This reductive focus gives rise to a sense of architectural autism [I really love this term], an internalised and autonomous discourse that is not grounded in our shared existential reality."

Anyways, I highly recommend his entire book
Click to expand...

Thx for the recommendation. I need a new book to read on the T. This guy pinpoints the issue right on the nose.

Hmmm... maybe I could do my thesis on this issue.
 
If architects were real people, the buildigns of the world would be full of these

spiral_2.jpg


And these

Kaanapali_Beach_Club_Exterior_Elevator.JPG
 
If anyone is a fan of "Art & Architecture" on FaceBook, you'll see a HUGE presence of this "architecture autism". Frankly, I think at least 75% of that pages' posts are SHIT, but everyone goes crazy over everything! I used to troll on just about everything just because it was always so shitty and everyone thought it was the pinnacle of development. I think most of you guys would agree on alot of them, too... There's nothing impressive about a blank streetwall with one setback entrance... And naturally the renderings are always on 12-lane boulevards.

jass said:
If architects were real people, the buildigns of the world would be full of these
Click to expand...

Fuck. Yes.
 
Ron Newman said:
Is that last one from a Hyatt Regency hotel?
Click to expand...

No clue.

The point is, elevators should be outside of buildings. Thats what the masses want. And it saves interior space. Win, win, win!
 
I don't think that elevator is outside the building. It looks to me like it's in an atrium, which is why I brought up that hotel brand.
 
Jass, I mostly agree with your comment, but I do have one discrepancy. Sometimes, architects will specify elevators to be scenic, only to have it value engineered for the cheapest price which means they end up as regular ones. The same goes with spiral escalators which are extremely expensive... ridiculously expensive. Part of the problem is that developers and building owners aren't willing to actually invest in quality. They want maximum floorspace, which is greatly comprised by interior atria required by scenic elevators. There's no point in making the bank of them scenic, if there's nothing to look at.

On a broader scale, this principle applies to elevator quality in general. No one wants to fork over the money to KONE (whose cab design schemes have won international design awards) or Fujitec, because Schindler, Otis, and ThyssenCrap will undercut the formers' bids with their cheap crap.

This issue is also something that I've studied extensively. I'm a big fan of vertical transportation in general (always have been) and I've been researching vertical transportation systems (what makes them work physically and theoretically) since I was 8 (which goes beyond simply riding elevators like many do, though I ride any that I get the chance to). There's a strange natural attraction or fear of elevators that people tend to have and I see it as a great opportunity for architects to engage the public in thinking about how we move through buildings. It also starts to ask the question of how we can possibly use vertical transportation to enhance how a user experiences/views the architecture of a building.
 
This would explain why some architects get so focused on the minutiae of site design. They may focus on the aesthetic of a site item such as a transformer or a manhole cover not seeing it through the eyes of the rest of the world. Most people would never notice such things but an architect may go through great pains to hide such things. I sometimes feel like they need to teach a course in design school called "common sense/practicality"
 
gyro said:
This would explain why some architects get so focused on the minutiae of site design. They may focus on the aesthetic of a site item such as a transformer or a manhole cover not seeing it through the eyes of the rest of the world. Most people would never notice such things but an architect may go through great pains to hide such things. I sometimes feel like they need to teach a course in design school called "common sense/practicality"
Click to expand...

I think that's beside the point. You can design something down to every single piece of furniture and light fixture while at the same time have a completely engaging, experiential building that the public can relate to and appreciate. Those aren't mutually exclusive attributes. Frank Lloyd Wright designed this way. This "architecture for architects" or "architectural autism" is more about the inward-thinking theoretical/mental masturbation that gets transformed into less than mediocre buildings.
 
understood, and this was a response I expected. I was a bit off on a tangent and trying to explain to myself the frustration I have experienced in the past few weeks over such instances. It does explain though why there have been instances of focusing on relatively unimportant features that in the end aren't going to change.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top