"The real key imho is for designers to begin to frame the arguments for their project within terms of value added. As opposed to simply based on having a better designed building. This value added could be PR, or ecosystem services via greenroof/urban ag, greater social inclusion or whatever. This seems to me to mirror the trend towards a performative evaluation of projects (net-zero etc) but involves extending performance to include less traditionally architectural issues. "
"If architects could quantify the impact of their designs, the discipline would be much more powerful — and questions of social change would occupy the main line of the profession and the academy."
Architecture does not create social change, people do. And typical for MoMA to be so selfish.
I think the principal idea behind this is things like:
-- Determining an area that has a significant concentration of low-wage jobs where a successful, non-prison like environment could be built that can provide housing at a specific range within a walkable distance.
-- Lowering malaria transmission rates by providing window screens or adaptable window screen systems.
-- Meeting a specific energy consumption goal without a necessary pretense.
spacefraud, architecture certainly *can* either enhance social change or impede it.
One building won't likely save the world, but a good school building can impact a whole lot of people. Kahn's Salk Institute may have inspired the researchers there to better thinking and solving bigger questions.
Or it may not have - that's that hard part, is quantifying how much the architecture has to do with it and how much is driven by people/politics/policy.
But do you really question MOMA's line that you quoted: do you believe that if architects could show, empirically, how a good design can improve a client's life/business/work, that the discipline would not be more respected, more sought after, and, thus, more powerful?
Yes... but Wright also specifically designed a three-legged chair to prevent people from lounging at the desk lest they risk tumbling over. That's not only patently absurd... that's absolutely humiliating.
I'm all for psychological terror and mental anguish in architecture but physical harm is a tough bridge to cross.
Oct 20, 10 11:45 am ·
·
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.
MoMa Exhibit - Humanitarian Architecture
makes me sick
spacefraud,
what does exactly?
"The real key imho is for designers to begin to frame the arguments for their project within terms of value added. As opposed to simply based on having a better designed building. This value added could be PR, or ecosystem services via greenroof/urban ag, greater social inclusion or whatever. This seems to me to mirror the trend towards a performative evaluation of projects (net-zero etc) but involves extending performance to include less traditionally architectural issues. "
Nam made my argument!
awww shucks.
thanks ug
maybe im retarded but...
"If architects could quantify the impact of their designs, the discipline would be much more powerful — and questions of social change would occupy the main line of the profession and the academy."
Architecture does not create social change, people do. And typical for MoMA to be so selfish.
Architects are people, too.
I think the principal idea behind this is things like:
-- Determining an area that has a significant concentration of low-wage jobs where a successful, non-prison like environment could be built that can provide housing at a specific range within a walkable distance.
-- Lowering malaria transmission rates by providing window screens or adaptable window screen systems.
-- Meeting a specific energy consumption goal without a necessary pretense.
-- Design apartments that are bed bug resistant.
spacefraud, architecture certainly *can* either enhance social change or impede it.
One building won't likely save the world, but a good school building can impact a whole lot of people. Kahn's Salk Institute may have inspired the researchers there to better thinking and solving bigger questions.
Or it may not have - that's that hard part, is quantifying how much the architecture has to do with it and how much is driven by people/politics/policy.
But do you really question MOMA's line that you quoted: do you believe that if architects could show, empirically, how a good design can improve a client's life/business/work, that the discipline would not be more respected, more sought after, and, thus, more powerful?
Wasn't there empirical evidence of improved (worker) efficiency in Wright's Johnson Wax building?
Yes... but Wright also specifically designed a three-legged chair to prevent people from lounging at the desk lest they risk tumbling over. That's not only patently absurd... that's absolutely humiliating.
I'm all for psychological terror and mental anguish in architecture but physical harm is a tough bridge to cross.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.