Designing for the Non-Architect
A. Oklak's loved building.
Looking at the host of new buildings from the last 20 years, the average building has modern details ranging from materials, form and design. Some of these buildings are elegant, but many are not. However, most of the people judging these buildings are architects like me, and we are mainly prejudiced by our own taste and style. But what about the millions of people who live on the planet who have no formal architecture or related education? Don’t they deserve to enjoy buildings as much as we designers do?
Steve Mouzon tells a great story about his wife when he was in architecture school. She asked him, “Why do you not design buildings that I love? And those I love love?” This has lead to Steve’s great mantra about buildings that are loved last for generations, and he seeks to design buildings that will last through generations.
So what kind of buildings do non-architects love? The RIBA-affiliated Traditional Architecture Group did a poll last fall asking just that. They found out of 1,000 people shown 4 images – 2 modern buildings and 2 traditional ones – 77% of people would prefer the traditional buildings to be in their neighbourhood. You could say that these people are just British and they are used to traditional architecture, but remember Lord Richard Rogers and Lord Norman Foster are also British and have quite a following.
What about Americans? What kind of buildings do they love? A while ago the eloquent Robert Ebert has shifted his critique from movies to buildings. He says:
Much modern architecture has grown tiresome to me. It does not gladden the heart. It doesn’t seem to spring from humans. It seems drawn from mathematical axioms rather than those learned for centuries from the earth, the organic origins of building materials, the reach of hands and arms, and that which is pleasing to the eye. It is not harmonious. It holds the same note indefinitely.
…
In architecture I am a reactionary. This isn’t ideological with me; it’s visceral. When I look at a building and conclude its “beautiful,” I’m not looking at the work of the children of Mies. Having spent a lifetime wandering when I could in London, Paris, Stockholm, Cape Town, Kyoto, my feet linger on the old streets but avoid the new. Venice will never be eaten by modern architecture; although the most threatened of cities, it is also the safest.
For a non architect, but albeit a Chicagoan, Ebert knows his history, but he points out that he prefers buildings which address the street and have detail (which are often lacking in the minimalistic modern form). He also states that his out-of-town visitors respond emotionally to the traditional buildings on the Magnificent Mile but not the modern ones. One also only needs to look at the many monuments in Washington, DC to see how the most visited memorials are also the classical ones.
But what does the rest of the world prefer? International travel statistics show traditional cities rank the top of the list, and while these places have modern architecture there is also a massive amount of traditional buildings in the old cities.
Now I am an architect, but I don’t think I could tell you my favorite building. I can tell you many that I love. But it’s not me that I want to design for. I want to design for my mom, my cousin’s children and John Doe who walks by my building on a daily basis. What style do they want? What style gives them an emotional reaction? It’s about time we listened to the general public rather than our own tastes. We designers are not the users of our buildings. We are merely the instrument through which others receive their homes.
[...] 本文引自The Urban Times(原站連結) [...]