I feel that we can all agree that architecture is a public art. It is most likely never the goal of a designer to slave away over models and drawings with the intention of hiding them from the rest of the world. I also feel that we can agree on the multitude of poor design strategies witnessed in society today. Often times, people claim buildings to be too small, too large, excessively decorative, out of context, lacking function, poorly constructed, too expensive, and on and on.
Upon completing any visual arts project there will always be supporters and critics, no matter the designer's level of satisfaction with his or her work. This is a fact that anyone involved with the visual arts scene will understand. The general question I wish to raise is how can public participation effect current design standards? Do you think the involvement of the general public, the people who actually use the spaces that architects create, will have positive or negative results? Are the potentials for better, more effective design strategies great enough to warrant the headache of involving the majority? Keep in mind that participation and public consensus are two very different concepts. By definition, participation refers to the act of being physically involved in a process. On the other hand, consultation simply refers to the ability or allowance of an individual to provide input on a certain subject.
In my opinion, by allowing citizens a greater role in the design process, a greater majority of the people will respond to a design in a postive way. At this time a question regarding consensus arises. If we as desigenrs request the widespread public participation in design projects, how do we achieve a consensus? As I stated earlier there will always be people who respond both positively and negatively to any type of work, so it is probably safe to assume that a total agreement between all parties will never be reached. If this is the case, what should we do in order to achieve some sort of mutual agreement? Should we discredit the idea of public participation? Should we simply use the general public as consultants, but not actually allow them participation when it comes to finalizing descisions? Or maybe we should completely disregard public opinion and design as we see fit? We're the experts anyways, right? Obviously these are not acceptable solutions regarding the issues of public participation and reaching a consensus. But really, what should we do? Is there even one set solution on this issue, or a variety of potential solutions?
Upon completing any visual arts project there will always be supporters and critics, no matter the designer's level of satisfaction with his or her work. This is a fact that anyone involved with the visual arts scene will understand. The general question I wish to raise is how can public participation effect current design standards? Do you think the involvement of the general public, the people who actually use the spaces that architects create, will have positive or negative results? Are the potentials for better, more effective design strategies great enough to warrant the headache of involving the majority? Keep in mind that participation and public consensus are two very different concepts. By definition, participation refers to the act of being physically involved in a process. On the other hand, consultation simply refers to the ability or allowance of an individual to provide input on a certain subject.
In my opinion, by allowing citizens a greater role in the design process, a greater majority of the people will respond to a design in a postive way. At this time a question regarding consensus arises. If we as desigenrs request the widespread public participation in design projects, how do we achieve a consensus? As I stated earlier there will always be people who respond both positively and negatively to any type of work, so it is probably safe to assume that a total agreement between all parties will never be reached. If this is the case, what should we do in order to achieve some sort of mutual agreement? Should we discredit the idea of public participation? Should we simply use the general public as consultants, but not actually allow them participation when it comes to finalizing descisions? Or maybe we should completely disregard public opinion and design as we see fit? We're the experts anyways, right? Obviously these are not acceptable solutions regarding the issues of public participation and reaching a consensus. But really, what should we do? Is there even one set solution on this issue, or a variety of potential solutions?
There is a need for greater public input in design decisions that are meant to be for the public. This goes beyond presenting a proposal to a passive audience, but the process needs to begin with the people who will live with the design everyday. They may even be the catalyst for the project in the first place instead of a development corporation coming up with a plan and then selling it to the public without asking for feedback.
ReplyDeleteConsensus is a tricky thing. Obviously the top down approach to design has some major downfalls-which is what I think you are getting at, but consensus can be just as oppressive. Consensus can encourage everyone to just passively agree, either to get the meeting over with, or because it creates a climate that is kinda hostile if you're the only one disagreeing. But whether the design decision making process uses consensus or some other form, it needs to avoid the condition of pressure to agree. Group members need to be allowed to make decisions independently, which could be an anonymous vote, survey, etc (I'm not sure what real form this would take).
Design inevitably effects the community, and while a corporate designer who receives a commission to create an icon might rationalize that it is ok to plop down whatever comes out of their head without any regard for the consequence, I think more public input would yield something much more genuine.