The Question:
Having listened to our class discussion and reviewing our readings I have come to the conclusion that we as citizens have been tricked into becoming consumers. (I am defining citizens as individuals that are aware and actively taking part in their environment and consumers as people with no regard to the limit availability of resources, who want what they want when they want it.)
As citizens we chose to move to the suburbs where we thought we could safely raise our two point five kids in our perfect houses with perfect lawns framed by that good old white picket fence. By moving to the suburbs we left the convince of the city, the shops that were located around every corner, the public guards and squares, and the social gatherings that we so crave. However as citizens of the USA we want convinces, so we allow the big businesses (like Wal-Mart, Home Depot, Chiles, etc.) to move in. Mind you, I have nothing against these or other companies, it is just that with the development of these businesses our suburbs become more urban, little cities of themselves.
Haveing established the perimeters for my question, I ask: How do architects, who have been trained to builded globally, return tothe local small twon environment and build structres that maintain the identiy of the local town?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I believe that, as trained architects, we build to the vernacular, even globally. We could take this skill and focus it on our on local environment. If we use our developed skills of studying local precedent, the local climate, local traditions, etc. we could build structures that work well for the environment we build them in.
But how many architect actually are interested in taking their time and studying the vernacular architecture to make a structure that works with the environment?
People are creatures of habit. It is difficult for them to change, if an architect goes to school for 5 years taught one way, (which is that they are global designers, that they must be bigger, better, and more unusual than the other), we as citizens, can not expect that architect to change his ways without some form of financial compensation. And yes, the reason architecture is not functional in the environment is because the more outstanding and nonfunctional it is, the more money they get paid.
I believe it is the citizens responsibility to demand of the architect a change, and it is the architects responsibilities to respond, within reason, to the demands that will make the structure more conducive to the local.
Many Architects are concerned with aesthetics
You have a point. As time progresses and I learn more and more about architecture and architects in general I realized that the problem is in the teaching meathod.
The majority of the classes I've taken in architecture focus on the aesthetics of the building. Rarely if ever do we discuss sustainable options. Most students don't even know what is made locally in their own community, yet as architects it should be those local craftsmen that they go to first.
Post a Comment