As architects we strive to maintain a
professionally independent and holistic view of the process of architecture.
This is to serve and assist the local and larger communities within which we
operate. Codes of conduct set out by governing bodies such as the ARB reflect
this aspiration but serve only as a minimum standard of behavior expected of
those using the title of architect.
The architect, like the client they work
for and all those who will experience a built piece of architecture, belong to
a community that informs and shapes its own physical environment. All of us are
engaged in this process of creation, whether we are aware of it or not. On an
individual level, our own cognition and perceptual processes fuel our personal
and subjective experience of architecture. Our thoughts, belief systems and
cultural ideologies weave a complex and intricate web of perceptual filters
that interprets an external reality into subjective experience. Our behaviour and
the way we respond are extensions of this experience. This process is the way
we exchange ideas with our environment, thus shaping it. It in turn shapes us, continuing
a complex reciprocal relationship.
This model of experience illuminates architecture
and our physical environment not as inert spaces that we occupy but rather spaces
created by our occupation.
It is an intimate and cyclic relationship between people and space, human
communication and architecture. Our environment is inseparable from the way we
perceive and use it.
This insight leads us to realise we are
ultimately responsible for our own experience. We are continuously constructing
our own realities and creating our environment. The polymath Gordon Pask recognised this intimate relationship we have with our environment describing the
interaction as a conversation, operating with the same mechanics as a dialogue does
in language. To Pask communication and
conversation differ. Communication is a linear process of information going
from A to B, in a rather passive way. Conversation operates at a deeper level, is
participatory and active. It is a looping, recursive and iterative process
between two or more cognitive systems, distinct perspectives or individuals. Most
importantly conversation requires understanding and agreement over the concepts
and ideas, which are shared between individuals. The result of conversation is a
new perspective to both individuals.
Pask considered architecture as one of
the fundamental conversational systems in human culture and that we are
observing beings who construct our view of the world by interacting with it
through conversations. With this perspective Architecture reveals itself as a time-based
phenomenon, which relies on the unique construction of the observer. Viewing
architecture in this light begins to place the architect in an interesting
position not simply as designer of physical form and aesthetic but as system
designers, designing systems that grow, develop and evolve. A building is a living entity, a system which
operates within a larger system (e.g. a city, human society) and it is these
larger systems that the architect also designs.
A conscientious architect, like Pask,
cannot view a building in isolation but will consider the wider context
(physical, social, cultural etc.) with the deeper understanding that a building
is only meaningful as a human environment. Our built environment is
simultaneously serving us and influencing our behaviour.
Our buildings are not static but are growing, living and evolving. As an
architect it is imperative to recognise our role and responsibility in the
development of our society’s conventions and traditions.
We are becoming more aware of the
importance for architects to design with provision for unknown future uses and
the evolution of a design. The ecological crisis that we are currently facing reflects
our civilization’s avoidance of meaningful conversation with the natural
environment. Ensuring our built environment converses sensitively with the
ecological cycles that govern our planet is an urgent activity that all of us
share responsibility in. As architects, city planners and engineers we are in
fortunate positions that our professions can make a significant impact within
these conversations.
Our cities will survive long after us
and will carry with them our intentions and negligence for future generations
to inherit. Buildings, which are ill conceived lack consideration for their
entire lifespan and fail to recognise the interconnectedness between our cities
and our wellbeing. A built environment that is conceived to be static and
non-conversing perpetuates social division, financial deprivation and
ecological instability.
The architect is an enabler of
conversation; not only between buildings, their inhabitants and the natural
environment, but also between the numerous forces and mechanisms, which shape
and influence the built domain. Clients, stakeholders, consultants,
politicians, planners, contractors, public user groups, heritage and
conservation groups and numerous others must all converse effectively with each
other and themselves to achieve common goals that are beneficial to all. This
is often a difficult process. Shared and common objectives are often ill
defined, lack wisdom and holistic thought. Short-term economic and political
agendas all too often take over a conversation reducing it to one-sided
communication. The architect has a duty to maintain professional independence
within this process. He is to ensure integrity whist providing a service for
his client, but also remembering the higher service to the larger conversations
of our cities and planet. Considering the wider context within which we build and
ensuring conservation is one of the most fulfilling aspects of architecture, bringing
more meaning and depth into our work. Sharing this outlook with our clients,
and all those involved in building procurement is essential, as is being open
and receptive to the ideas and perspectives that others also bring to the
conversation.
There have been many architects who have
recognized architecture as a dynamic process, which is given meaning by its
occupants. The visionary architect Cedric Price, who would have been involved
in discussions with Pask at the Architectural Association, explored architecture’s
potential to nurture conversation. Price, although building very little in his
life became one of the most influential architectural thinkers of the last
century. In a series of unrealized projects, Price presented architecture as a
dynamic process between user and building.
Fun Palace (1961) in collaboration with
theatre director Joan Littlewood, embodied conversational philosophies, and
sought to provide a building that was defined by the changing desires and needs
of the users. The project embraced optimism for current technology to provide a
flexible and responsive architecture. Consisting as a kit of parts, a
structural grid of steel lattice columns and beams provided a frame within
which dynamic elements such as hanging theatres, activity spaces and cinema
screens could be assembled, moved and taken apart as required.
The result was playful, free spirited proposal defined by the activities of the
users. Focusing in on the time based nature of architecture paved a way for
subsequent architectural thinking and expanded the potential of architecture as
a social catalyst.
 |
| Plan of the Fun Palace illustrating dynamic elements |
Buildings such as the Pompidou Centre in
Paris clearly echo philosophies of Price’s work. Rogers and Piano’s competition
entry was the only scheme to divide the Beauborg site into two halves, with one
half being entirely given over as a public piazza. The building itself strived for an inherent flexibility
through spacious floor plates uninterrupted by services and vertical
circulation. The strategies employed recognise conversational ideologies by
placing human activity at the heart of the scheme. The public piazza, which
continues to attract performers, museum goers, and a multitude of public life,
has served to regenerate and revitalize a once forgotten part of Paris. The
users of the piazza continually re create it through occupation and use. This
conversation between inhabitants and environment becomes an enjoyable spectacle
in its self, which in turns attracts more users. A successful public realm such
as this is a place for the city to become aware of itself.
 |
| The city becoming aware of itself at the piazza of the Pompidou |
In London, Denys Lasdun (who also worked
with Cedric Price) designed the National Theatre at the south bank, which can also
be seen as a functioning conversational system. One of the great successes of
the National has been its dynamic dialogue with the public. The building’s
concrete landscape provides large floating terraces which serve to reconnect
the site to different parts of the city, such as providing access from the top
of Waterloo Bridge to its underside, and offering intimate views across the
Thames. This increased connectivity facilitates pedestrian movement encouraging
human interaction. This increased animation allows the terraces themselves to become
stages for public life. Often the events outside of the building, such as the
recent Inside Out festival, are as popular as those that are contained within.
 |
Floating terraces and public realm weaves in and out of the National Theatre allowing external performance spaces to emerge
|
Recognising architecture as a dynamic
process, operating as a conversational system makes it impossible to view a
building in isolation. Often a client
will make a set of stringent demands based on financial and political
imperatives. If these obscure a holistic perspective of how our buildings will
operate within the larger context, then our architecture will fail to participate
in meaningful conversation, perpetuating social disparity and ecological
imbalance. As architects we have a civic responsibility to ensure our buildings
are capable of such conversation and have the potential to empower human
activity.
Paul Pangaro, Cybernetics and
Conversation, 1996
