Discussion // What's In It For Me?

Sorry to interrupt, for those of you who are following, my highly entertaining tour of the good ol' U.S. of A., but I discovered a few debates taking place in Los Angeles and New York about the value of architecture in terms of economy and context.

Our first reading for an urban design seminar postulates the theory that we as architects only remodel what is existing, whether it be the landscape, site ecology, urban context, infrastructure, or existing buildings, and can include such things as local economy, cultural traditions and values. The latter more intangible principles tend to incite more debate and outrage among the general public than the former, because they involve sentimentality and the preservation of those aspects of life that are irreplaceable (home, family, career). Design becomes less important.

The New York example is a simpler issue of that sentimental attachment to identity, but the one here in Los Angeles questions why the school system would spend hundreds of millions of dollars on what it called "Taj Mahal" schools; there are currently in the city, each with a cost of over $200 million and the latest at a cost of over $500 million, the costliest in the nation. The article goes into thorough detail about the process through which these projects get built, and the reactions within the community. Many aspects are viewed negatively, and with good reason, because an honest assessment of the benefits can hardly convince anyone that 3 buildings-which few can access in one of the most overcrowded districts in the nation-justify the expenditures. 

[I visited one of these schools today. More to follow on this...]

One example, though, touches on an important aspect of the already fragile relationship between architects and the public. A spokesman for an urban school construction group in D.C. states rather dismissively that "architects and builders love this stuff, but there's a bit of a lack of discipline here." The discipline she refers to, of course, involves the distribution of funds to a select amount of schools, the extravagant use of taxpayer money to fund huge building projects, and the lack of proper administration within the school district to run the new schools. In other words, these projects are for and by the people that control the funding, and are NOT the direct result of architectural irresponsibility or lack of restraint. They highlight the critical disjuncture in public perception of the commission of design versus the result. The commission comes from the city; its provide the budget, the program, and the freedom by which the architects can synthesize a solution. They also choose architects based on past work so the end results can hardly come as a surprise. In a down economy, architects are neither obligated nor motivated to reduce fees or change their design style if the city is willing to accommodate both...or should we be? Do we really have the power to fight money? It's a tough question.

Enough musings for today. Probably didn't make much sense. First day of class tomorrow...