Shifts

Shifts

I just found an old note from a book I'd read in the 1980s (Niels Lund Prak, 1968. The languages of architecture. Mouton, The Hague): architecture symbolises ideal worlds, what people should aspire to culturally as well as materially. Both Classicism and Modernism represent a harmonious system that may contrast with the real world. It is no accident that both stress 'pure' and simple forms from which the rest evolves.

How different the world seems now! Firstly, the dipoles: it used to be Classicism versus Modernism, capitalism versus socialism - always two opposites fighting for a clear prize. Nowadays it's more about pluralism, about all kinds of variations that can coexist (although the latest populist tendencies may put an end to that).

Secondly, the cultural aspirations: architecture has always been about aspiration but for a long time now it has been mostly about the material side. Associations with ideologies, including aesthetic ones, have been weakening rapidly, with lifestyle taking their place, not as a means to improvement (social and cultural) but as a goal by itself. More recently, cultural issues have been promising a comeback, as one can see in the environmental awareness of young people. I wonder how this will turn out.

Thirdly, the 'pure' and simple forms: these no longer constitute the basis of architectural composition and morphology, as one can see in digital architecture. Instead, we are more into complexity, both in form and in the processes that produce form.

Taking all three together, I can't say if the world has improved; it has certainly become less predictable.

Crossroads

Crossroads

I started a recent research proposal with the bold statement that architecture is at a crossroads. My argument was that one could see it at the societal and professional level: many architects are unemployed or underemployed and buildings are being produced with the same mediocre methods, techniques and results for the last hundred years or so. Yet these problems are obscured by the stubborn attachment of architects to the same approaches and attitudes, as well as by local or temporary building booms, e.g. at high-demand areas like London or due to new, often public commissions relating to one-off events like the Olympic or to attempts to stimulate the construction business at times of economic crisis. Still, I claimed, it is undeniable that architecture and the built environment are not progressing at the same pace as other areas. This, I continued, is made abundantly clear at the scientific level: in many national and international research grant frameworks, such as Horizon 2020. architecture is absent from among the disciplines that benefit directly, despite that many issues and subjects in the same frameworks refer to urban environments and buildings, i.e. architectural products, as causes of societal problems as well as recipients of technological innovation.

Looking back at that text, I wonder how one recognises a crossroads. It presupposes first of all that architecture is following a path, possibly towards some end. I doubt that there would be consensus about that in architecture. Is there some progression from where we were e.g. in the post-World War II reconstruction period (an acknowledged high point)? Do we agree as to where we are going? I guess there are many opinions on that but I would be happier with a couple of substantiated views rather than temporary enthusiasm with this technology or that tendency. And if we manage to agree on the route we have been following, where are the crossroads? Which other intersecting routes do we encounter and when are the moments when we could take a decision? Here too one should expect a plethora of equally poorly substantiated options. And it's not just a matter of having too many different opinions in architecture, it's that we have so many aspects in architecture that need improvement. Each aspect seems to have its own evolutionary path and its presence among the priorities changes with the year; just think of the chequered history of sustainability in architecture.

So, in summary, we are not at a crossroads because there are no major roads, just a confused network of many paths. We have been following these paths in a haphazard way, reacting to opportunity and vogue rather than pursuing some well-defined and coherent goals. As for the future, even if we wise up and mend our ways, we may have to spend some more time following paths because there is no single road in front of us.

Perhaps more importantly, one should realise that metaphors have their dangers. They evoke powerful pictures that may explain a lot but the same pictures may also undermine the argument they are supposed to support.