2 ms·

I wish I could find a link, but I recall years ago an interview on NPR with an architect that designed some building in LA (for paying parking tickets or someth

I wish I could find a link, but I recall years ago an interview on NPR with an architect that designed some building in LA (for paying parking tickets or something). Anyway, during the interview he accidentally admitted to not actually caring about the people that would end up using the space. He then followed up by back-pedaling of course, but I've always remembered that as a moment when my cynicism about "modern" architecture felt validated.

benihana 11y ago
I'm struck by the parallel between architecture in your example and software engineering. You could say the same about the engineers who don't ever consider the humans who will be using their software.
- mercer 11y ago
  I don't really see the parallel. There's a big difference between not understanding the end user (which I'd say is usually the case with bad software interfaces), and actively no caring about the end user or even intentionally creating a negative experience. I don't recall ever using software where I thought the creator intentionally made things difficult.
ashark 11y ago
You may be interested in the Alexander/Eisenman debate[1], if you've not encountered it before. On the one side, an architect who believes in designing buildings largely as a means of communicating artistic messages—even, and perhaps especially, designing the building to make people uncomfortable[2], because to make a building that comforts and reassures is a bit like lying about the state of the world, or doing a broader disservice by reinforcing the status quo. Buildings as statements, buildings as jokes[3], even. On the other, an architect who finds this view practically psychopathic, since, after all, people will live their lives in these places. Buildings, in his view, should serve people over communicating a message and, above all, should please the humans who will look at them and crawl around in them. [1] http://www.katarxis3.com/Alexander_Eisenman_Debate.htm http://www.katarxis3.com/Alexander_Eisenman_Debate.htm [2] http://socks-studio.com/img/blog/eisenman-alexander-01-800x600.jpg http://socks-studio.com/img/blog/eisenman-alexander-01-800x6... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Eisenman#/media/File:Greater_Columbus_Convention_Center.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Eisenman#/media/File:Grea...
- zyxley 11y ago
  Architects who purposefully design buildings to be uncomfortable seem like people who I would find extremely annoying or even infuriating to deal with. Except in very special cases, an architect's job is "design buildings for people to use", not just "design buildings".
- widdershins 11y ago
  >On the one side, an architect who believes in designing buildings largely as a means of communicating artistic messages—even, and perhaps especially, designing the building to make people uncomfortable, because to make a building that comforts and reassures is a bit like lying about the state of the world, or doing a broader disservice by reinforcing the status quo. Buildings as statements, buildings as jokes, even. Yeah, that's pretty much the premise of brutalism [1]. Actually I think there's a place for that kind of thing and some of the best examples in London are really awe-inspiring and interesting places to hang out (e.g. the National Theatre, the Barbican). But of course there are some 'concrete monstrosities' as well. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brutalist_architecture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brutalist_architecture
  - aptwebapps 11y ago
    I don't think that brutalism goes as far as that. It does try to be 'honest' but it does not deliberately try to be uncomfortable.

benihana 11y ago

I'm struck by the parallel between architecture in your example and software engineering. You could say the same about the engineers who don't ever consider the humans who will be using their software.

mercer 11y ago
I don't really see the parallel. There's a big difference between not understanding the end user (which I'd say is usually the case with bad software interfaces), and actively no caring about the end user or even intentionally creating a negative experience. I don't recall ever using software where I thought the creator intentionally made things difficult.

ashark 11y ago

You may be interested in the Alexander/Eisenman debate[1], if you've not encountered it before. On the one side, an architect who believes in designing buildings largely as a means of communicating artistic messages—even, and perhaps especially, designing the building to make people uncomfortable[2], because to make a building that comforts and reassures is a bit like lying about the state of the world, or doing a broader disservice by reinforcing the status quo. Buildings as statements, buildings as jokes[3], even. On the other, an architect who finds this view practically psychopathic, since, after all, people will live their lives in these places. Buildings, in his view, should serve people over communicating a message and, above all, should please the humans who will look at them and crawl around in them. [1] http://www.katarxis3.com/Alexander_Eisenman_Debate.htm http://www.katarxis3.com/Alexander_Eisenman_Debate.htm [2] http://socks-studio.com/img/blog/eisenman-alexander-01-800x600.jpg http://socks-studio.com/img/blog/eisenman-alexander-01-800x6... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Eisenman#/media/File:Greater_Columbus_Convention_Center.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Eisenman#/media/File:Grea...

zyxley 11y ago
Architects who purposefully design buildings to be uncomfortable seem like people who I would find extremely annoying or even infuriating to deal with. Except in very special cases, an architect's job is "design buildings for people to use", not just "design buildings".
widdershins 11y ago
>On the one side, an architect who believes in designing buildings largely as a means of communicating artistic messages—even, and perhaps especially, designing the building to make people uncomfortable, because to make a building that comforts and reassures is a bit like lying about the state of the world, or doing a broader disservice by reinforcing the status quo. Buildings as statements, buildings as jokes, even. Yeah, that's pretty much the premise of brutalism [1]. Actually I think there's a place for that kind of thing and some of the best examples in London are really awe-inspiring and interesting places to hang out (e.g. the National Theatre, the Barbican). But of course there are some 'concrete monstrosities' as well. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brutalist_architecture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brutalist_architecture
- aptwebapps 11y ago
  I don't think that brutalism goes as far as that. It does try to be 'honest' but it does not deliberately try to be uncomfortable.