2 ms·
That's all true, but in the end the architect is responsible for much of the bad design. There's no one better positioned to "be the change" when it comes to ar
by waterlesscloud 13y ago
That's all true, but in the end the architect is responsible for much of the bad design. There's no one better positioned to "be the change" when it comes to architecture than...architects.
I don't think there are many (if any) fields that affect people more thoroughly on a daily basis. Of course there's pressure to do take the path of least resistance. You know that going into the field. The responsibility, though, is to overcome it whenever possible.
It's not like software is any different. There's tons of pressure to just get by. It's our responsibility as developers to go beyond that whenever possible.
- twelvechairs 13y agoas an architect - its not possible. its not even like software where if you want to put the time in you can create something "over and above" the brief which is better for users. in buildings improving the "UX" (so to say) will take up limited (and expensive) space, add additional material and construction time and hence cost. you can make small wins but the vast majority of crappy spaces are because the developer will simply make more money that way. the real problem imo is market failure - buyers and leasers of space don't understand their own spatial needs or good outcomes so end up buying something spatially poor because its cheaper.
- waterlesscloud 13y agoWho do you imagine will educate the market?
- twelvechairs 13y agothere is no easy solution. architects can try but generally don't have contact with the market. that is all done through estate agents who are about selling now and don't care whether anything works out long term for their clients.