I'm very happy to have a post by architect and guest blogger Iñigo Amézola:
Between the horse designed by a committee
and the monster of reason
or
How to give power to the people without losing powder
Let’s start
with a statement: Buildings are made for people, that is, for their users and
the community that accepts them.
It seems easy
to agree on that, but getting the job done is proving to be a slippery matter.
Architects begin
their reflection by working with three sources of information:
·A client
·Land, a plot, or another building
·A brief
To which is
important to add:
·The socio-economic and political context
·The technical means available
Not forgetting,
and this is one of the main differences between construction and architecture:
·The cultural response that goes along
with the act of building
In other words,
the responsibility that the new “constructo” will take over in relation to its
context (whether urban, industrial or rural), to Time (past, present and
future) and to the codes of Architecture.
The fact that
some of these variables are difficult to measure (Anything that can be measured
can be improved, Peter Drucker, dixit) places Architecture closer to Art
than to Science. But this condition shouldn’t be enough to forget the
consideration of Architecture as service and the obligation of accountability.
Two extremes
A few decades
ago, at the end of the 60’s, the man with the blue eyes was Christopher
Alexander, the Austrian mathematician and architect who, from his post at
Berkeley University, defended the idea of a “pattern language”, synthesis of
architectural invariants, defined and purified by humans for centuries, and
with which anyone could design anything, from a door handle to a city, giving back
to people their decision making capacity and pushing aside professional
architects, now turned into mere site supervisors.
It was a time,
full of energy, when everything seemed to be possible for a little while and
anyone could be a poet, a musician, an artist and, why not, an architect as
well.
Unfortunately
but not surprisingly, this approach to Architecture was not able to produce
interesting buildings, those which raise matter to its espiritual condition.
And little by
little, the public debate in democratic societies, a job market with an
increasing tendency towards specialization and a political class reluctant to
lose their reason for being, were leading to the consensus that it was neither
practical nor efficient to oblige people to face problems of a certain
technical complexity, even when they were directly concerned. (1)
At the other extreme,
as a result of the less naive years passed between 1985 and 2005, we have the
architect as the sorcerer of the tribe, the only one in contact with the will
of the gods, the only one able to transmit their desires. The architect as a
self-absorbed figure with a complete (and sometimes tyrannical) control of the
project that has led, more than once, to a raising of a “monster of reason”, to
use Goya’s words: “The dream of reason creates monsters”. (2)
It is very true
that the lack of social controls during these two decades of excessive growth has
brought wasteful spending, empty buildings, and
increase of carbon emissions. But it is also true that this period of
time leaves a legacy of important achievements and findings and some pieces of
excellent architecture.
What will the
future bring?
The
pendulum of cycles follows its path impassively and now is moving to the center
again. But History never repeats itself in the same way, and it will be vital
to understand that architecture appears as interaction among many different
players. In this new scenario, architects will hardly be playing the leading
role. We have to learn from our mistakes and humbly accept that any approach to the project will be limited, temporary and perfectible;
well defined characteristics of the human condition.
It will be a safe guide to keep
in mind that, at the end of the day, it is for people we are working. We are not the only ones with the skills
to face complex problems in an uncertain world (everybody does it today on a
daily basis, let alone experts on the subject, like physicists or financial analysts),
and we shouldn’t be afraid to feel, if not passion, at least affection for the
virtues of the camel: highly efficient machines for
their function and not merely misshapen horses.
Notes
1.- In a very
recent revival, it is useful to mention the fiasco (for the political
establishment) of the popular consultation about the renovation of Diagonal
(Barcelona main avenue) in 2010, when people voted massively against the official
proposals.
2.- The “City
of Culture” in Santiago de Compostela and “The City of Arts and Science”, in
Valencia, are two good examples.
No comments:
Post a Comment