Re: community design | <– Date –> <– Thread –> |
From: Graham Meltzer (g.meltzer![]() |
|
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 94 16:54 CST |
I feel someone needs to defend architects here. There probably are not too many who subscribe to the list ... and I think Rob's criticism calls for a response. Not that I am a practicing architect ... I teach it ... and design AND build the occassional house. I have a background in what we call bush-carpentry ie. self-taught building of our own houses and those of friends and fellow communards. Rob ... it's difficult to repsond without knowing more of the specifics of your house design. But I would say that architects often work with ideas that are abstract or with qualities of spaces such as your living room. It's not easy to quantify in dollar terms, the effect your architect might have intended with his non-standard wall height. Perhaps it was simply to induce a greater sense of refuge around a cosy hearth or social space. I don't know. But I think it's a mistake to think that your contractor appreciated the consequences of the change in spatial terms. I know that $500 at the time seemed like a good saving, but spread over the life of the building, would it compare with the added psychological comfort that the original scheme offered all who sit in that space? As I said, I have experience of both building and architectural design. As a result I always design with buildibility in mind. That doesn't mean however, that the most expedient, cost-effective design strategies are the best. Again, it's qualities and subtleties that architects work with ... and sometimes, not always, that incurs a cost premium. This does not mean that the process of architectural design need be mysterious. If your architect deserves any criticism, it's that he failed to communicate to you the value of having the walls at 6 foot 6, so that you could better decide if it was worth the $500. And that's where the title of this thread comes in. Community design where architects are involved, is about demystification of the design process and a debunking of the traditional architect's role as artist-genius ... remote and unchallenged. In a cohousing context, it's an empowering of the group ... both by the architect and the group itself ... such that members feel involved in the design process and in a position to make critical decisions WITH the architect. Not many architects are prepared to step down from there pedestals in this way, nor incur the loss of income that such time consuming processes incur. But they are around and it seems to me, almost essential for cohousers to seek them out or forever feel that they don't own the design of their physical environment. On the other hand, if a group doesn't want that responsibility, the consequences for the architect are either lauding or scapegoating depending on whether the project is completed on time and within budget and little appreciation of their contribution beyond that expected of a draftsperson or building contractor. Graham Meltzer
-
Re: community design Eric Hart, November 13 1994
- Re: community design shedrick coleman, November 14 1994
- Re: community design Rob Sandelin, November 15 1994
- Re: community design Graham Meltzer, November 16 1994
- Re: community design Shedrick Coleman, November 17 1994
- Re: community design Rob Sandelin, November 17 1994
- Re: community design Stuart Staniford-Chen, November 17 1994
- Re:community design Graham Meltzer, November 17 1994
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.