Chances are this is not a design problem but a socio-economical one.  Are the neoclassical spaces you're cherry picking happen to be in well-off, expensive parts of town? 

Look up the current poor-door syndrome in most urban centers.

The real elitism here is the suggestion that interior design is a factor worth considering as a solution to a social problem.

The elitism starts when interior design is re-branded interior architecture ;-) 

^good catch.

People do get social cues from their environment. A rich lavish interior with an expensive look (this can be contemporary or classical) does cause people to behave differently. There is a lot of research, but may be hard to find as it is mostly done by and for private companies, on retail environments and how certain price points and per customer basket of purchases are all calculated and manipulated through the interior environments. American (US and Canada) grocery store chains are masters at manipulation. If you observe the subtle changes in lighting and materials as well as the placement along your path as a customer are all done to manipulate your social behavior. Take a look at Grocery stores as they tend to be socially culturally and especially economically stratified and through careful observation you might begin to see subtle but important changes in the design that correlate to the target clientele. In the US this is often closely guarded trade secrets but there is some research out there.

Over and OUT

Peter N

Firstly, I would agree that I should not have referred to my subject as interior architecture. ‘Interior architecture’ is a made-up term that I think people use, including myself because the term ‘interior design’ is often misinterpreted and dismissed by architecture students and a lesser subject. I will be sure no to make this mistake again.

Secondly, I would have appreciated constructive guidance from the two comment above rather than the condescending message I received. As I mentioned, I am a student and I am just beginning to learn about this subject.

I completely understand that there is a bigger socio-economic situation but hasn’t designers got its part to play? After all they decide how a place is going to feel and how it will be used. Philosopher Slavoj Zizek highlight the parallax between architecture and its interiors. He highlights that contemporary designers are producing more and more of these open social spaces where leisure and work are combined into supposed ‘community living’ Ares with trendy interiors. Are they being designed for the peoples genuine need? He says that this 'politically correct' form of architecture if far detached form the real way people live and the design has a false openness. It creates an elite lifestyle that only certain groups can afford.

My personal issue is these renderings I see of happy people enjoying their new luxury homes in the elephant in castle development. One clad onto the front of a building site that used to be one of London’s most notorious estates. These glossy images of sleek apartments that all look the same replacing any REAL homes.

I realise this is because London is changing drastically to suit the market but you can’t dismiss the issue as only being down to socio-economic because designers are aware it is an issue and have the opportunity to make things more accessible. In the past, there were groups like Team 10 who directly acknowledged these issues in terms of design and tried to tackle them. We also have contemporary designers such as FAT who do a similar thing. You really can’t rule out the significant architecture and interior design play.

I am still in the stages of research but will come back to you when I have a strong analysis of the situation... I'm not saying my ideas are right or wrong so please make your future criticisms constructive.

Peter, thank you for your input I will consider this.

I remember just when I was leaving grad school that a large percentage of research projects in progress aimed to solve low income housing problems with interactive street furniture. I kid you not; this was understood, by them, to be the only solution they, as design students, could propose.  It's a shit hipster idea with little functional value but it's a great example of why design is often not the solution to the identified problem.

What Peter alludes to above is the marketing scheme larger retail chains will take with the display of goods depending on the economic strengths (or weakness) or the local population served by their stores. Not really relevant here.

Are you suggesting that for example, if a library or community centre would be built in a lower-income area, it should therefore reflect this? How so, with cheaper materials? lower scaled entrances/lobbies? Avoidance of classical elements? This seems ridiculous.  Although I guess from a narrow int-des perspective this might work, in reality, these are only decorative elements.  The addition of useful program space, multi-use rooms, community boards, etc. 

There are plenty of examples of these types of program addition that aim to serve the socio-economical discrepancies but someone has to pay for this. Why would a property owner focus his time and money on fuelling social needs instead of generating higher property value and profit if that is what the market wants?

"My personal issue is these renderings I see of happy people enjoying their new luxury homes in the elephant in castle development. One clad onto the front of a building site that used to be one of London’s most notorious estates. These glossy images of sleek apartments that all look the same replacing any REAL homes.

I realise this is because London is changing drastically to suit the market but you can’t dismiss the issue as only being down to socio-economic because designers are aware it is an issue and have the opportunity to make things more accessible. In the past, there were groups like Team 10 who directly acknowledged these issues in terms of design and tried to tackle them. We also have contemporary designers such as FAT who do a similar thing. You really can’t rule out the significant architecture and interior design play."

I was going to pass this thread off as angsty undergraduate soul searching, but you have literally lifted these ideas/examples from Roman Moore's "Slow Burn City", while saying it's your personal issue. In the meantime you've also missed his key point entirely, which had nothing to do with elitism as an interiors problem, and everything to do with the failure of planning policy in checking and balancing the private market for housing in London. I'm left to conclude that you read the book as an interiors student and are trying to retroactively fit it into your coursework. They really aren't related.

How's that, pretty accurate?

I am definitely not suggesting using a shabby design aesthetic in a poor area. I guess this just goes to show you haven't seen any examples of good design in which architects address this issue. I recommend looking at any work by MUF architects, an all female group of designers... Bench, I have never read that book so no need to feel so smug about being accurate. Are you all from USA?

"from a narrow int design perspective this might work" are you suggesting that you are better because your an architect? Well that wouldn't be the first time I was undermined for studying interior design.

...and certainly it won't be the last but that was not the point I was trying to make. You're trying to define a problem to fit an pre determined idea.

A younger me might have been very upset by the antagonism that has come from this... Im glad to say the people I have respect for have appreciated the question, challenged me, and helped me develop my argument so I no longer need your input. Thank you so much for your guidance. The generation of students graduating now must be so grateful for people like you, so graciously attacking their ideas with such intellect.

"Mission: The goal of Archinect is to make architecture more connected and open-minded, and bring together designers from around the world to introduce new ideas from all disciplines."

I graduated last year and work in your city. So inaccuracies all around I guess.

My graduate thesis reflected a great deal with the social-economical issues and I cannot understand how you're unable to find examples. Is google that difficult to navigate?

Perhaps high-level intellectual discussion or research in general is not your game. Certainly someone looking for options in their research would have understood the constructive criticism contained in the above responses.

But, if you need your hand held, start by taking a look at this well publicized project by Studio Gang. This is the scale at which things you mention start making sense. Beware, this is real architecture, not interior design.

You must have mid read my above message. I have plenty of research now thank you I don't need your help. Most of which I found in the library and through discussion with industry professionals. It's not all about google you know! If anyone is elitist here its you, you seem to believe interior design is such an inferior subject academically. I imagine you feel you are superior to people without a university degree.... Evidently you cant teach someone to have a open mind... I've had enough of this childish argument im over it

*mis-read

Is int-des an inferior academic subject: Yes, without a shadow of a doubt. Just look at the "depth" you're attempting with your "research"

Am I superior to people without university degrees: it depends on the subject.

Enjoy placing workers in cubicles when you leave your make-believe world while the rest of us put buildings together. BTW, I also often work in int-des too, it's not difficult.

@Alex Harris

Since there is a weak correlation between architecture and interior design, study first elitism in architecture - a well-documented topic - and then you might extrapolate some patterns and causalities to elitism in interior design.