Dèrive, best described by French Sociologist, more importantly, Neo-Marxist, Henri Lefebvre, is a technique of rapid passage through varied ambiances.
It is essential for architects, or perhaps designers too, to have this psychological awareness or journey in which one goes against the flow of their customary endeavors. For designers, it may be exploiting other cultures, while for architects, its to have a psycho-geographical consciousness of urban scale to the miniscule detail of the awareness of individual's behavior and emotions.
Situational Awareness (not what it's really called)
This is a photograph I took at the Museum of Art at UofC when I attended the
Open Hand Studio Meet & Match for my CAT internship
I learned recently about Guy Debord, a Situationist rooted in Marxism, who believed that architecture should free itself from traditional patterns and become organic. By organic he meant, ever changing, adaptable. An organized method in which the design can be timeless. As cultures begin to mix, society 'taste' changes, elements will become adaptive. Imagine a conceptual city designed to withstand movements and periods of time and favors frequent change. One in which units are no longer destroyed or remodeled overtime because a new 'style' has erupted.
the city as a unique organism
This concept was a proposition by architect Ron Herron (1960's) of a city that literally never sleeps. It has the ability to roam the world, one day in Paris, next day in Rome.
Context is very much like culture in a way. The circumstances of designing for social, economical, or political functions are contextual designs. As with the form, location, and size are factors that are governed by the environment, topography, and resources. If you read,What Ever Happened To Urbanism, Rem Koolhaas also indicates that it is impossible to design a building without context. A country is nothing without culture, and likewise, architecture is nothing without context.
A highly recommended book for those interested in architecture theory, design concepts, and historical theory contradictions is SMLxL
Architecture only survives where it negates the form that society expects of it. Where it negates itself by transgressing the limits that history has set for it.
Designers today face numerous boundary inflicting challenges. However, I will only convey the most excruciating issues that are destructive to a designers palette. By designers, I mean anyone that exploits ideas out of the common ground.. Architects, interior, industrial, fashion, artists, and etc.
Economy. Let's step away from the cliche of 'money isn't everything' speech. The reality is, when it comes to design, money sets the foundation. If a project isn't backed up with enough funding, then it automatically withdraws the designers ability to free-design. The once artist is forced to become a entrepreneur. Don't get me wrong, there should be boundaries. For instance, in architecture, I follow the wholesome words of "form ever follows function" - Louis Sullivan. However, there's a fine line between designing something conceptual and meaningful, than to designing something that is a money milker. An easy comparison, Burj al Arab vs almost any hilton hotels out there.
Client taste, Media. Perhaps, its not the fault of the economy. Needless to say, clients themselves are the source to the boundaries. After all, clients are the ones that are limiting funding. Beyond funding, clients are the one's that decide on the final product. It's all about the individual(s) taste. Yet, who's to say that "that doesn't look right." Right, is just something the mass agrees on. Yesterday the death penalty was right, but today its wrong. Countless of brilliant designs were thrown away because of narrow-minded idiots.
Although I argue against this inflicting boundaries, perhaps the open-ended principles or practices of laissez faire will only create destruction. Maybe this the "Adam Smith's invisible hand" of design. Perhaps, this is the composition to design sanity.
During my internship I attended a discussion panel about the Backbone structure of Architecture: The Economy in which architects discuss Architecture juxtaposed with the economy.
Mediator:
People strive for capitalism, save money, improve efficiency. They want more efficiency rather than appearance.
Avram Lothan:
“Our market today doesn’t allow us to make numerous and big steps. Our city cannot afford to be free with its design ideas and instead lean more towards capitalism”
Dirk Lohan:
“The next generation (of architects) would need to concentrate on capitalism rather than design liberty. Less space is needed because of technology. Offices are getting smaller, commercial is getting smaller, all because less personnel is needed”
Avram Lothan:
“Our public transportation is not efficient enough to push people to take it. There is not enough transit lines and these days, more lines are being cut. In New York, nobody needs to drive because public transportation takes them everywhere”
Mediator:
In Chicago, there isn’t enough incentive to take public transportation because public transportation doesn’t take everybody to the necessary locations. That is why big cities like New York are so successful in urbanism. Then the topic slowly shifts towards, people’s incentives to be out in the public.
Eva Maddox:
“People don’t always need to be out to work these days. They would do it in their homes or even off seas. There is less incentive to go out and its hurting our economy.”
Christopher Lee:
“Interaction is slowly losing its quality. Right now there are 2.5 million people in the city of Chicago. In the 1950’s, there are 3.5 million. Where did the 1million people go? They went to the suburbs, in self enclosed walled houses because that is the American dream”
Avram Lothan:
“Well people will always have an incentive to go out and enjoy the public. It seems like Millennium Park and Navy Pier is somewhat successful of bringing in tourists from around the globe.”
Topic of Energy Conservation
Avram Lothan:
“Today, technology allows our planning and design process to be more “linked” We circulate through many ideas and concepts now than we ever did before. Before, the client would only be seeing what they get. Now, even clients are getting smarter and choosing energy conservation.”
Dirk Lohan:
“Sketching was everything for architects. If you didn’t know how to sketch, you weren’t a good architect. Now, nobody knows how to do it and instead creates an almost designable blue prints on their Cad programs on their computers. Craft has been lost but in all for efficiency. It seems like architects take credit for their work with low pay while developers get the money, but don’t go down in history.
To make good architecture, you need good clients.”
Avram Lothan:
“We’re not creating new ideas, we’re just licensing other foreign countries’ ideas. i.e. Hybrid cars. We are at a different level in technological development as Japan or China. Although they have lower wages and that is why we prefer to buy from them because it is cheaper than someone designing that same technology here.”
Frank Lee:
“We need to make our own widgets and techs instead of relying on other countries exports. The reason why we can’t go out and design elaborate buildings like Dubai, Japan, or China, is because our market is getting broke. We don’t make anything in our own country and we rely heavily and spending towards other countries, making them rich and us poor. We need to start relying on our own technology.
Although we do see many people from foreign countries trying to start a new life in our nation, that must mean something.”
