This message has been cross posted to the following Discussion Forums: Residential Knowledge Community and Committee on Design .
-------------------------------------------
Walter,
Thanks for your messages. I admire the work you are trying to do, but you have to admit that you have an uphill battle in trying to convince a large number of architects to see things your way. The title of your blog seems to characterize well most of its content. As I understand it, you are mostly concerned about larger level issues that correspond roughly to the aspects of city design that are controlled by zoning regulations (an oversimplification of your ideas, I know). I don't see how the entry you direct me too adresses this issue of individual choice and the importance of emotional response until the last sentence which introduces this idea of dignity. Am I missing something? (emphasis added)
In any case, the word "dignity" is slightly suspicious to me. Like the word "authentic" it can be used to justify the judgement and control of the lives of others. (emphasis added)
Michael
Michael R. Ytterberg PhD., AIA, LEED AP
University of Pennsylvania
RE:Design Research
I'm afraid you're right, Professor Ytterberg. I did stress research in my essay, "Architectural Research and Survival with Dignity" and gave scant attention to your other topic underlined above. I'll try to correct that here.
I readily admit that my perspective represents an uphill battle with architects. I don't expect to win it in my lifetime; but I do believe that the study of intensity is a path to a brighter architectural future. It can lead to improved public contribution, benefit and value. I'm simply offering an option to participate for a relatively untapped resource, because architecture represents potential knowledge if it decides to expand its focus from personal talent and achievement to public participation, debate and visibility.
Freedom of choice is governed by the rule of law and the debate over balance will be eternal. In a sense, creativity determines the amount of law required and architecture is not immune. The argument over architectural choice became heated in the 19th and 20th centuries when competition in the name of freedom produced tenements in the name of democracy. It's happening again before our eyes in a different profession as financial competition in the name of freedom plays musical chairs with the future of nations, not to mention the planet.
A principal proponent of individual freedom and choice has been the American farmer. Lower density permits greater freedom that he believed could apply to all, but the introduction of industrial pig and chicken farms is forcing him to reconsider as thousands of gallons of effluent force him to seek protection. The Industrial Age has surrounded the farm and freedom to choose is now bringing another emotional response from all sectors.
Jefferson understood that the enemy is human nature, and his solution was the farm. Invention and population have changed the equation, but not the structure of government; and compromise has become stalemate in the face of complexity that has only grown with success.
I can hear you asking what does this have to do with architecture. My answer is that regulation is needed to guide individual choice in a democratically chosen direction. Architecture cannot be permitted to sprawl with abandon. Carefully chosen intensity patterns that offer lifestyle options within sustainable limits are one solution to an expanding need for shelter with dignity within The Built Domain. Surprisingly, the farmer understands that sprawl cannot continue, but taxation and annexation policy are forcing him sell the land we all need to survive.
Dignity will be defined by the intensity options chosen within a city design for urban form that preserves The Natural Domain. If we leave the definition to Mother Nature, dignity will be the least of her concerns.
Those who believe that architecture is more than individual artistic achievement can distill knowledge from talent based on a foundation of logic and science. Regulation without knowledge is a desperate attempt to solve an immediate problem. This is government in a nutshell, but it improves when new tools and measurement systems permit further research. (This is covered in my book and software.)
I think most will agree that sculpture benefits from its setting. In this case, architecture is sculpture and we all benefit from its setting and appearance. Architecture is also shelter and its setting defines intensity. This influences our physical, social, psychological and economic welfare, but will be a random event motivated by speculation until regulated by the city design of urban form.
Architecture has a chance to introduce dignity if it begins to study the intensity it creates. The devil is always in the definition, however, and judgment will always be challenged in a democracy founded on mistrust and a separation of power. In the end, policy matters. Everything else is a detail where the devil lives. We have not made the decision to comprehensively study intensity in any profession. It is, however, a fundamental issue facing growing populations in need of shelter on an unstable planet with limited resources.
Undertaking the study of built domain limits is a policy decision. Undertaking the study of intensity options is a policy decision. The city design of land use and intensity is strategic planning. The design of buildings is a tactical effort to achieve the objectives.
I don't expect policy and strategy to be resolved in my lifetime, but I do believe that shelter intensity within built domain limits is part of the equation for a sustainable future. There is no question in my mind that those who participate will contribute to public benefit and professional value. Jefferson would appreciate your mistrust of the term "dignity", but would include architecture in his definition.
I agree that any word or phrase can be used "to justify the judgment and control of the lives of others" because of our creative ability to manipulate. The word "freedom" itself can be used to oppress or liberate. "All men are created equal" was ignored to control the lives of others. The "free market" is a deception wrapped in a phrase that controls the lives of others. In other words, the freedom to deceive is not democracy. It is a creative threat to any nation. "Dignity" is an ideal. It is a word subject to definition and intent. From this perspective, "creativity" is the word to examine for motive. Dignity is a definition that follows.
-------------------------------------------
Walter Hosack
Author
Walter M. Hosack
-------------------------------------------