Manifesto by image

Centre Pompidou, Paris, France

1 - 3 - 9

Architecture should be for the people: functional and aesthetic.

Architecture encompasses all levels of design that are intended for use by people. The functionality of architecture means it capably serves the purpose for which it was designed. Aesthetically, architecture should be pleasing in the eyes of all people, not just the architect.

Architecture is not just buildings that people use, but also the spaces created in between buildings, that people move through. All space around a building (on its site and considering surrounding sites) must be considered and designed for. The people using the space should be the most important clients and critics of the space. Architecture that merely fulfills the basic needs of those using it should not be considered good architecture. An architect should go above and beyond in design, thinking past what they might want, and thinking what a non-architect would want. An aesthetically pleasing building that doesn't meet (functionally) any of the needs of those using it, should not be considered architecture. Architects should think about a building from the perspective of a blind person, while they may not be able to see it, they still need to be able to easily navigate through it. However, since not everyone is blind, a balance between functionality and aesthetic should be found and designed for. People who use a designed space are not only those who live/work/spend a large amount of time there, but also those who might only go there once to visit.

The Architectural Experience for Everyone

"Architecture (is) a theater stage setting where the leading actors are the people, and to dramatically direct the dialogue between these people and space is the technique of designing." -Kisho Kurokawa

Architecture is meant to be experienced by people. It is for the people and should directly benefit them in some way. Without a relationship with those who use a building, it should not have been built. When architecture is designed, the most consideration should be toward those who are going to be using or experiencing the building. A structurally remarkable building should not be considered truly great unless, within the astonishing structure there exists, in fact, a useful and functionally workable space. It is not just about people being in or experiencing the space/architecture, but also how they move through the space. I believe that the most successful architecture is that which connects most with those who inhabit it, in all ways that it can connect.

“…all great works of architecture were ‘not so much individual as they are social works;[…] the residue of successive evaporations of human society…’” [1]

Aesthetics also comes into play with the above mentioned connection to people. While most people are happy to live and work in a functionally successful building, they experience even more joy when the building is an aesthetically pleasing building.



While walking around Washington D.C. this summer with a non-architecture friend, I found myself answering his questions about what I thought about the architecture around the city. As I had only been in D.C. once before [before I even decided on architecture as a career option], I was able to look at it as a new experience, with all the knowledge I have gained over the past four years. I talked to him about how I felt no connection with the over-sized government buildings. There seemed to be no human scale, no connection to the people walking by on the street. As I described these feelings to my friend, he begins to understand what I am trying to say.
These details can be small or large; ranging from something as ‘minute’ as a stair detail, to something as big as the height and square footage of the building as a whole. Consideration should be paid to every detail down to the hinges on the doors.



Understandably, on lower budget projects, the architect will probably not have the time or resources to pay extremely close attention to every detail. This does not mean that the architect should not take the time to study the social aspects that surround the architecture which they are designing. Whether it is interviewing those who will be using the space, or, if that is unknown, studying proven successful already existing architecture of the same use/function.



Social aspects of architecture was a considerably interesting class for me. It provided me with a different way to approach architecture that ran along the same lines as I was originally thinking. When I first started architecture school, I was fascinated with residential architecture, mainly single family houses. I couldn’t understand housing developments on an architecture level. Now understandably, they are a quick, easy, and fairly cheap way to build houses, but I couldn’t understand how people could live in them. It’s like a family was loosing their individuality. All they got to choose was maybe the color of the exterior, and possibly which side of the house their garage was on. How could the same house manage to fit the needs of a family of two or three and at the same time a family of five or six? As I progressed through school, my outlook on housing developed more. I was still extremely interested in single family homes, but also became more interested in multi-family housing as well as apartment complexes.

“Architecture and urban design are services. They are responsible for certain tasks which they have to fulfill as well as possible.” [1]

Architecture is able to provide these services on many different levels between its exterior and interior; from the exterior cladding to the interior finishes and furnishings that promote better living or working. [i.e. Genzyme Building] A ‘happy, healthy, environmentally friendly building promotes happy, healthy, energetic people. Architecture has an “emotional element” that is still considered within the range of a service – providing “mental welfare”.



Sustainable design can exist at all scales and cab be adopted (at a slightly less complex level) by lower budget projects.



Architecture changes based on culture and location; which is why, when designing, and architect must first understand the people and culture in the area in which they are designing (as well as climate… i.e. Frank Gehry’s Stata Center leaking)



If a certain existing building is to be torn down an architect must assess whether it would be more economical to restore the building to new use rather than spending the money to demolish it and start fresh. In some cases, it might be found that the building is not worth saving, and it would be more costly to repair it than to start new. However, in some cases it could be saved and more money could be devoted to better fulfilling the new functions/purposes of the building.