In a recent news article from MIT News, architectural historian Timothy Hyde explains why "every building is ultimately a compromise.”
Hyde shares, “It’s a compromise between the intentions of architects, the capacities of builders, economics, politics, the people who use the building, the people who paid for the building. It’s a compromise of many, many inputs.”
An associate professor, author, and former practicing architect, Hyde has explored the relationships between architecture, politics, and society throughout his career. Having written two books on the subject, Hyde has spent his time dissecting the topics of modernism and democracy in Cuba during the 20th century and has also found connections between architecture and power in Britain.
"I really think about myself first as a historian of modernity,” Hyde explains. “Architectural history is the particular vehicle that I use to explore the history of modernity.”
8 Comments
Hyde put “the intentions of architects“ first when it should have been last, at least according to influence on the project. Most of the time the architect's primary intent is just to get paid. Anything beyond that is a bonus.
I'm sorry, but to play the part of linguist...the use of the word compromise implies an a prior ideal for any architectural design, financial mechanism, or policy directive. Inherently isn't this a fundamentally flawed notion? Wouldn't a more accurate action be "negotiated"? Inherently all of the inputs being described are reactions to other situations/systems, i.e. context. To suggest otherwise is to imply that there is a context-less perfection, which is only compromised by interaction with "human" forces.
Interesting point on reactions over time to various inputs. "Negotiation" seems to suggest full agency by all parties, though. And as we know all too painfully, the architect is often the least-powerful actor, as noted above.
The whole notion of 'compromise' implies settling for less, which is unfortunate. When handled with skill, these compromises can lead to wonderful moments or even whole sale improvements. History is full of these examples. But prepare the student for this reality. Acclimate them and they will bring a much more positive attitude to the table. Other times you just gotta pay the bills and learn from the situation.
I think it was Robert Venturi who practiced the concept of "Both And" instead of "Either Or" I think this provides Thayer's "wonderful moments", yes?
and to be picky; did Hyde's last sentence grate on anyone else's "grammarly" nerve? "Perhaps every building is a compromise — but architectural history don’t have to be one."
Consensus is a much better word. The best public architecture is an act of consensus, where all have buy-in. That’s very different than compromise.
Every aspect of building is decided by economics. Principally ROI (maxed) and cost to produce (minimized). All other considerations are tertiary.
His upcoming, third book sounds super-intriguing. A sort of hauntological history of architecture?
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.