Custom Residential Architects Network

If you haven't been following along lately, you may have missed some of the recent attention grabbing articles calling into question the architect's role in contemporary society.

In their much-publicized New York Times op-ed, Steven Bingler and Martin C. Pedersen claim that contemporary architects have "both [a] physical and spiritual disconnect...attempting to sell the public buildings and neighborhoods they don't particularly want, in a language they don't understand." 

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/16/opinion/how-to-rebuild-architecture.html

In response, Aaron Betsky of Architect magazine dismisses Bingler and Pedersen's position as cliché, and instead argues that the role of today's architect is to foster experimentation with the aim of "figuring out how to make our human-built world better."  He goes on to point out that architecture, "[in] truth...is made for those who have the means to commission it, and reflects their values and priorities."

http://www.architectmagazine.com/architects/the-new-york-times-versus-architecture_o.aspx

In his Huffington Post article, Lance Hosey questions whether architects can best serve their clients-both direct (patrons) and indirect (occupants)-by creating a "built environment [that will] nourish and enrich their lives."  In contrast to the "architect-as-artist" stereotype, he cites architects that employ credible scientific research, such as "the innate human attraction to nature's patterns of space, shape, and texture" in their design methodology.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lance-hosey/the-failures-of-architect_b_6445858.html

Architects that specialize in custom residential design are seldom lumped in with the "starchitects" that dominate national architectural debate, yet the work we do designing homes and, by extension, neighborhoods certainly has the power to connect or disconnect with the public.  So what do you think?  Are we best serving the needs of society?  Or, have we lost touch with the aspirations of the general population?

For other commentary on this topic, please see the following:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/22/opinion/the-architects-together-and-apart.html?_r=0

Christopher,

Thanks for sharing these articles - good reading.

I honestly think that the articles addressed/debated only a small fraction of the overall body of architectural work.  I believe that most of the work - probably over 90% - is done by local architects who are very in-tune with their clients and design buildings that they like.

ASPIRATIONAL WORK VS. THE OVERALL BODY OF WORK
Aspirational works should be critiqued on their aspirational value, and not on a misguided belief that they represent the overall body of the profession's work.


-------------------------------------------
Adam Trott AIA
Owner
Adam J. Trott Architect
Erie PA
-------------------------------------------


Original Message:
Sent: 01-26-2015 19:12
From: Christopher Glapinski
Subject: Join the CRANversation

If you haven't been following along lately, you may have missed some of the recent attention grabbing articles calling into question the architect's role in contemporary society.

In their much-publicized New York Times op-ed, Steven Bingler and Martin C. Pedersen claim that contemporary architects have "both [a] physical and spiritual disconnect...attempting to sell the public buildings and neighborhoods they don't particularly want, in a language they don't understand." 

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/16/opinion/how-to-rebuild-architecture.html

In response, Aaron Betsky of Architect magazine dismisses Bingler and Pedersen's position as cliché, and instead argues that the role of today's architect is to foster experimentation with the aim of "figuring out how to make our human-built world better."  He goes on to point out that architecture, "[in] truth...is made for those who have the means to commission it, and reflects their values and priorities."

http://www.architectmagazine.com/architects/the-new-york-times-versus-architecture_o.aspx

In his Huffington Post article, Lance Hosey questions whether architects can best serve their clients-both direct (patrons) and indirect (occupants)-by creating a "built environment [that will] nourish and enrich their lives."  In contrast to the "architect-as-artist" stereotype, he cites architects that employ credible scientific research, such as "the innate human attraction to nature's patterns of space, shape, and texture" in their design methodology.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lance-hosey/the-failures-of-architect_b_6445858.html

Architects that specialize in custom residential design are seldom lumped in with the "starchitects" that dominate national architectural debate, yet the work we do designing homes and, by extension, neighborhoods certainly has the power to connect or disconnect with the public.  So what do you think?  Are we best serving the needs of society?  Or, have we lost touch with the aspirations of the general population?

For other commentary on this topic, please see the following:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/22/opinion/the-architects-together-and-apart.html?_r=0