Committee on Design

  • 1.  Follow-up on My Repositioning Comments

    Posted 01-14-2015 09:44 AM
    This message has been cross posted to the following Discussion Forums: Regional and Urban Design Committee and Committee on Design .
    -------------------------------------------


    I got off the point in the Process section of my previous submittal. The section discussed projects and contingencies that have been a pet peeve of mine. In my opinion architecture creates prototypes and contingencies represent the cost of anticipation required. A prototype does not become a final product without an adjustment cost, but this is another topic. I'd like to make the points I should have under the following sections of my submittal: Process, Goals & Objectives, Awareness and Goals.

    PROCESS

    Architecture is a prototype that serves a limited special interest. Its public benefit has been mandated but not embraced. An emphasis on public benefit will equate architecture to medicine and law, but this will require additional levels of awareness and expanded goals.

    GOALS and OBJECTIVES

    An architectural prototype is the responsibility of a practitioner, like a doctor's responsibility to treat a patient. It is only an organizational responsibility when support to the entire profession is considered. This responsibility is to improve the tools, knowledge and concepts placed in the hands of a practitioner to improve the public benefit provided. (Repeat of previous text submitted) I believe this distinction is at the heart of an architectural repositioning discussion. The question to be debated, in my opinion, is one of organizational goals and practitioner goals. I'd like to suggest three levels of awareness and three organizational goals that would involve repositioning.

    All text under Awareness and Goals in the first submittal remains, except for the following replacements.

    Awareness

    To recognize that design matters because we must learn to live within geographic limits and function symbiotically. Form and appearance must follow symbiotic function. This is the message of hope from Louis Sullivan and Frank Lloyd Wright. It is a level of awareness that can lead to The Symbiotic Period.

    Goals

    To improve the design of shelter capacity, intensity and symbiotic function for growing populations within a geographically limited Built Domain that protects their quality and source of life -- the Natural Domain. Form, function and appearance will evolve from the policy established.

    -------------------------------------------

    Walter Hosack
    Author
    Walter M. Hosack
    Dublin OH
    -------------------------------------------
    24.06.07 CODAIA24


  • 2.  RE: Follow-up on My Repositioning Comments

    Posted 01-15-2015 06:20 PM
    This entire discussion seems hopelessly naïve, a prime example of why architects seem to be so out of touch with the mainstream of society. Unless mandated by law, architects are a value added. Hence in most cases an architect's services are outside of the financial calculation most people make when a building is required. Do not all of us make that same calculation every day?

    One needs to ask why there are two words in most languages to describe the structures we make, building and architecture. Though you may not find this in the dictionary, architecture is clearly building with something added. Pevsner famously tried to distinguish between the cathedral and a shed, but that overstates the cultural distinction that separates a work of architecture from a work of building. Society values the cultural component highly when that component is needed/wanted. That is the reason there are so many popular shelter magazines. Every object we touch in our lives is infused with meaning, and people are very willing to spend their hard earned cash on things that they find meaningful to their lives. Architects frequently find themselves in the position of denying the meaning of architecture in order to sell their desired approach as rational and beyond the realm of emotional decision making. But to take a technocratic approach and try to reduce architecture to a variety of engineering is misguided. There are many designers of the environment - that is not the privileged realm of the architect.

    -------------------------------------------
    Michael Ytterberg AIA
    Principal
    BLT Architects
    Philadelphia PA
    -------------------------------------------


    24.06.07 CODAIA24


  • 3.  RE: Follow-up on My Repositioning Comments

    Posted 01-16-2015 10:03 AM

    Naivete has gotten us to this point. A building is always a structure but a structure is not always a building. All buildings are shelter. It is naive to claim that shelter is not architecture unless it passes a litmus test of emotion and appearance. This argument says to me that only design award winners are architecture and only the work of practitioners is an issue. I think many architects will disagree.

    This argument seems to miss the point. It is not just the work of practitioners that should be debated and classified as architecture or non-architecture. The support they all receive to improve their value and credibility to the community should also be discussed. To limit the discussion distracts attention from the leadership they need. I realize this is a heretical argument, but architecture by your definition is an artistic religion. Its tenets should be re-examined. The acolytes deserve more than an emphasis on emotion.

    You can stifle my voice by preventing me from submitting blogs. This has already occurred since I'm not an AIA member. You may also ban me entirely, but this will not solve the re-positioning many intuitively realize is required. You may call it naive. I call it anticipation that will be refined. This is the true nature of design and the decisions required to create a strategy.

    -------------------------------------------
    Walter Hosack
    Author
    Walter M. Hosack
    Dublin OH
    -------------------------------------------


    24.06.07 CODAIA24