The Tower of David, Caracas Venezuela

      

Aside from being a great opportunity to root for the underdog,  this story makes clear the ways in which architecture is physically embedded into the infrastructural, political and social fabric of the city. The architecture itself becomes secondary to the way the inhabitants transform the structure into a living social framework. It's true, as Lebbeus Woods points out, that what is going on here isn't a new phenomenon. It's not a story of globalization deteriorating into chaos, it's a story as old as civilization. At it's core the message is more about what can be done, physically accomplished (regardless of individual morals and larger social implications) when economics and social organizations are left to play out in an unique heterotopia taking full advantage of loosened governmental restrictions. Opportunistic? Maybe. Thievery? Possibly. Clear-cut? Absolutely not!

"Another lesson to be learned from the Caracas story is that all those who have been hoping for a social revolution to emerge from the dispossessed squatters and slum-dwellers—the poor—had better think again. What these people want is not a new, egalitarian society founded on ideals of social justice, but only what most others already have—a consumer society with all the bells and whistles and toys. Clearly, the Caracas tower is not a breeding ground for radical social change. It is an unintended parody of the society that created the squatters’ dire situation to begin with." LW.

http://lebbeuswoods.wordpress.com/2011/05/01/slums-to-the-stars/

Design As Politics

These lectures are great because they make the very clear, and inarguable statement that architecture is inherently political because we (as architects) spend other people's money. Also, the work architects do affect the general public on both a physical and social level. It's potentially harmful to the profession to assume architecture can operate on the same level as art. It has the gift and the curse of having a more direct affect on people lives. There's more at stake, making both the potential payoff and potential harm it can have on society that much greater.

Design As Politics Lecture:

http://www.youtube.com/user/DesignAsPolitics#p/a/u/0/orMbCMcyO-0

Design As Politics Blog:

http://designaspolitics.wordpress.com/

The Routine of Practice

“To Think of architecture as a project and not simply a practice, is to have an architectural idea in the first place, one that is iterated and developed through the process of design, itself understood as a thought process in drawn and modeled form… The knowledge that is essential for a critical understanding of contemporary professional practice, - whether of technologies, economics, business practice, legal frameworks, or ethics- is fundamental to the calculation of a project that is not to be consumed by the routines of practice.” Anthony Vidler.

This idea of the “routines” of practice hindering the development of a unique and dynamic “project” is one that struck me as very important to remember, especially for recent graduates experiencing for the first time a project that takes longer than a semester to complete and holds the prerequisite of staying financially viable from a business standpoint. The challenge becomes how to operate in the “real world” (a world that does everything in it’s power to force you to play by its tried, tested, and sometimes broken rules) with a clear sense of purpose and without being blinded by how things have always been.

Another idea comes to mind from a lecture by Michael Speaks at the University of Michigan School of Architecture. In the lecture he explains the concept, first written about by Peter Rice in “An Engineer Imagines,” that true innovation is developed from within a given field by people who truly understand how things have always work then propose a thoughtful substitute or alteration to the tried and true method.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZ4jXUY7i4g

Two interesting ideas. First, not to let the routine of “practice” drown out the possibilities that may lie just outside the lines of traditional thinking. Second, that understanding this routine and how it came to be will give some incite into how to improve the process in the long term.

The "Real World"

The most recent volume of Praxis is titled 11 architects, 12 conversations. You have to love a good conversation!

A few key comments struck me as very telling of the interests of the designer being interviewed as well as other members of their “generation.”

The designer explains: “The way I frame our generation is around the idea of practice and an engagement in the real world, usually through fabrication, construction, performance, or program.”

A little later on the interviewer asks the designer a question to the extent of “who is your audience?” Their answer is:

“Students, maybe. Our peers and friends. The people in our office. And our colleagues. And academics. Not just practicing architects, but theorists.”

The interviewer follows up by explaining: “we are all involved in academia, so we have at least two audiences. One is the students and the academics that belong to the discipline and the other is much broader and is achieved through practice. When dealing with gravel or thatch or hairy things, they produce certain effects and sensations that people register in a particular way. You can own those effects, or not, but they happen.”

What struck me about these two statements was that on one hand the designer (representing a sub-set of the profession, academics who also operate small practices) claims that their generation is defined by their ability to work in the "real world."

On the other hand, when asked about their audience they jumped straight to students and other academics. They totally glaze over people like their clients, city agencies, or the general public. Why aren’t their clients their audience?

Strangely enough, their students may actually be their clients.

Although I’m sure this doesn’t hold true for all academics, the salary they receive from teaching seems to be a large reason they can spend time and capital on these very abstract projects. Universities (and students by default) pay the salaries of this type of practitioner, leaving the practitioner compelled to deliver the type of work that keeps their clients interested.

At the end of the day, this type of work leaves something to be desired. Their work lacks the same sense of urgency or purpose as that of other more socially engaged practitioners. At the end of the day there is very little at steak with these types of projects. It seems like they are focusing on a few of the “real world” criteria that others have to deal with on a daily basis, mainly gravity, but are very selective about which design criteria they allow to affect their work. Why not finance, landmarks regulations or housing for the urban poor? Probably because that stuff is too messy.