the article, highlighting many idealistic and uninformed decisions:
https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2016/jan/04/crime-community-designer-social-housing-winnipeg
(also, see the little video)
the response from the architects, defending their work:
http://www.archdaily.com/781246/5468796-architectures-response-to-the-guardian-over-their-failed-social-housing-project
i think this little back and forth can help balance our thinking about our project, and hopefully make it a success for the community.
i think a sort of damning quote from the architect in the video, which kind of showed a desire to bestow some sort of ideological gift to the residents is, "we live big, and we kind of think we should live smaller." this was juxtaposed with a resident lamenting the narrow rooms stacked three stories.
A good article but let it be cautionary not damning and don't let it mean "architects can't do it right", or "architects shouldn't propose solutions".
ReplyDeleteAravena will be keynote speaker at AIA Convention in Orlando 2017. His quote from the article, “Communities know well what is the question that needs to be answered,” said Aravena. “We’ve had an incredible amount of cases when you thought you had the answer to the question, you arrive at the place and the family says, ‘Look, fine, we appreciate that ... but this other thing is a real issue for us,’” he said. “There’s nothing worse than answering well the wrong questions.”
In Addition, the failures in this example are the EXACT reason I want at least some of you to PARTICIPATE in the discussions with the neighborhood, as Jamie and I are...
ReplyDeleteThis article related to our project? The housing project (private spaces), which is not successful, had an idealized, imaginary (non-existent) client. The park (public space), which is successful, had a group of neighborhood stakeholders as client. Where does this leave us? We have an imaginary client for the container (pseudo-private) and a stakeholder group for the gardens (public space). Will we fail?
ReplyDelete