Exactly why you should read javier's post that I linked above. This excerpt is very well put:
What does “informality” do for architects and why do they get so turned on by it? To many architects and planners, when it comes to housing and entrepreneurship, nobody does it better than those who shoulder the worst burdens of poverty. It’s an extreme spectator sport, watching in awe—often just through the web, the Economist, or the movies—as people build out of fridges, scrap metal or whatever comes along. Not to deny the skill of these folks; hey, I wish I could build like that. But once again, what does this fetish really ‘do’ for architects, planners, and even artists?
I have never really understood why the mere mention of slums illicits calls of fetishism.
From the article: Identifying the positive aspects of poverty risks glorifying it or rationalizing it. Such fetishism is clearly not the goal of the article. It seems to be a balanced assessment of the situation and does not fall on easy assumptions/solutions.
On Informality...
Informality is something that has occupied architects for a very long time now. I was happy to see John Turner mentioned in the article above. As an aside, I find it interesting that Turner and Cedric Price went to the AA at the same time. At the heart, Cedric Price's argument is of using technological advances to allow people to interact with their environment, changing it over time. Turner's arguments are actually not that dissimilar, just using different contexts and technologies.
Similar ideas have evolved and are now used elsewhere, specially in landscape urbanism. The ideas there seem to be specially useful as landscape's media (plants, soils, trees, etc...) are constantly changing. If I was going to say that informality does something for architects, is to give us a similar ever-changing medium which we can work within.
Regardless, it seems to me that serious thinking of the slums and of informality gets clouded by irrational fear. Even in the Lagos videos Koolhaas goes far out of his way to make sure to note that his race, national identity, and class should not be a reason to not think about this context. I agree.
I think we can all agree that fetishism doesn't do anyone any good. However, there are real issues and interesting design-based solutions out there.
7 Comments
.
this fetish for slums is getting old!
can we move on?
I second this motion.
Exactly why you should read javier's post that I linked above. This excerpt is very well put:
What does “informality” do for architects and why do they get so turned on by it? To many architects and planners, when it comes to housing and entrepreneurship, nobody does it better than those who shoulder the worst burdens of poverty. It’s an extreme spectator sport, watching in awe—often just through the web, the Economist, or the movies—as people build out of fridges, scrap metal or whatever comes along. Not to deny the skill of these folks; hey, I wish I could build like that. But once again, what does this fetish really ‘do’ for architects, planners, and even artists?
Thanks bb - part II coming soon.
I have never really understood why the mere mention of slums illicits calls of fetishism.
From the article: Identifying the positive aspects of poverty risks glorifying it or rationalizing it. Such fetishism is clearly not the goal of the article. It seems to be a balanced assessment of the situation and does not fall on easy assumptions/solutions.
On Informality...
Informality is something that has occupied architects for a very long time now. I was happy to see John Turner mentioned in the article above. As an aside, I find it interesting that Turner and Cedric Price went to the AA at the same time. At the heart, Cedric Price's argument is of using technological advances to allow people to interact with their environment, changing it over time. Turner's arguments are actually not that dissimilar, just using different contexts and technologies.
Similar ideas have evolved and are now used elsewhere, specially in landscape urbanism. The ideas there seem to be specially useful as landscape's media (plants, soils, trees, etc...) are constantly changing. If I was going to say that informality does something for architects, is to give us a similar ever-changing medium which we can work within.
Regardless, it seems to me that serious thinking of the slums and of informality gets clouded by irrational fear. Even in the Lagos videos Koolhaas goes far out of his way to make sure to note that his race, national identity, and class should not be a reason to not think about this context. I agree.
I think we can all agree that fetishism doesn't do anyone any good. However, there are real issues and interesting design-based solutions out there.
yes by all means let's do away with fetishism but keep working on a challenge that affects a huge chunk of the world. good links.
slums housing is a place for low cast or lower class building that they afford easley.
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.