Failure

Failure 

The subject of failure in architecture is a tricky one. We are more inclined to dismiss buildings on aesthetic grounds than to criticise them for practical (function) shortcomings. Perversely, we often choose to defend interesting buildings against such criticism: eminent buildings are allowed to have leaky roofs, draughty windows or uncomfortable rooms. This attitude relates to the higher norms architecture is expected to serve. When a building is primarily judged with respect to the classical canon, modernist morphology, its use of folding or the complexity of its form (as produced with digital tools), then there is little attention for pedestrian circulation, interior air quality or energy consumption.

This also creates tolerance for neglect. If higher norms are the focus of designers, then other aspects may be neglected and roofs may therefore leak. The mistakes designers make are excused or ignored. Of course, humans make mistakes and we should be prepared to forgive them, especially if they do not destroy the whole or if they are honest mistakes, stuff one could not have anticipated. However, one of the human strengths is to correct mistakes: to realise that they were made and do one's best to reduce or remove their effects, even if this entails heavy costs or embarrassment.

The capacity to correct mistakes and so improve buildings and their performance has its place in designing, which we are fond of describing as a cyclical process. Each cycle offers opportunities for improving a seemingly arbitrary concept and progressively adapting it to the problem, but also for correcting mistakes made or detected in the previous cycle. The only imaginable reason for failing to remove mistakes from a design is neglect, often caused by blindness to the mistakes, stubborn attachment to a design or its features, or lack of appropriate training. With today's digital means that facilitate precise and accurate analyses, as well virtual prototyping, there are few justifications for failing to detect mistakes.

So, should we tolerate roofs that leak or rooms with poor air quality because they happen to be in a beautiful building or designed by eminent architects? I guess it depends on the threshold of acceptability, of satisfication: a building should be good enough to justify its existence - not just meet the original specifications but also present enough potential for improvements in cycles of use and redevelopment (the cyclical process is not restricted to designing), including rectification of wrong assumptions concerning use and changes in society. No roof should leak but what counts most is that we are able to fix leaks.