Architecture for architects? Aesthetic dissociation between the architect and the client: the case of housing. Arch. Francisco Contreras ChĂĄvez
This article is based on a thesis written in 2008, in the program of Architecture in the Universidad de Concepción, Chile. Methods and results are those obtained at that time. The analysis and conclusions are now rethought in today´s perspective.
Introduction If we contrast the architecture that is actually built with what the current architectural establishment shows in its magazines, we notice a big difference. Pure and colorless volumes, hidden roofs and crystal surfaces are opposed to the ornamentation, historical references and practicality of the architecture of the overwhelming majority of cities. The esthetic taste of common people is opposed to the taste of an architect formed in current academia, and this is why, when deciding on the appearance of their house, people follow the customs of the place, give priority to economic considerations, and use elements with acquired meaning and natural textures. On the opposite side, given creative freedom, architects
create an element that opposes its environment, and is often simplistic and devoid of symbolism. This dichotomy has been present ever since early modernist architecture until today. And even if ideas sometime emerge within the architectural mainstream every other decade (i.e.: historicist postmodern, Hassan Fathy [1], or the New Urbanism [2]), I could not find a conclusive theory that would give a comprehensive answer to this question at the moment of the study. Looking at the history of architecture, it appears like this situation has not always been like this. In the ancient world we find that the most important buildings were full of symbolism, and were adapted to their inhabitants and environment. The cathedrals of the middle ages in Europe, the Muslim houses, or the public buildings in pre-Hispanic America are all proof that at some point in history we ceased to create with the user preference in mind; and even worse, we could be affecting not only the visual comfort of the user, but also their quality of life and health (Salingaros, 2011). After learning from architectural academia, a lot of questions relative to the theoretical basis of the discipline emerge. Based on which parameters do we value an architectonic work in the present era? Are those choices correct from the point of view of our time and priorities? Is it understandable or “normal” that the vision of the architect rarely resembles the vision of the client? This investigation aims to compare both visions of the esthetic of housing — the client´s and the architect´s — so that we can then define an objective framework in which to analyze this problem.
Hypothesis 1.
There is an aesthetic dissociation between the architect and the user.
2.
The aesthetic of housing does not follow theoretical aesthetic trends, but is inspired by historical models with symbolism acquired through time.
3.
The value of architecture comes from its pertinence to the conditions that create it.
Method of sociological research As a means for refining the scope of this study, middle class housing was chosen, involving a value (in 2008) from US $39,400 to US $157,800 [3] To generate a historical and economic framework for the sociological study, a comprehensive investigation was made in the following subjects:
History of the aesthetic of modern architecture and more recent architecture in Chile.
Analysis of the housing market in the chosen scope, in the region of Concepción, Chile [4].
Interviews of influential actors in the subject of architecture and the housing market in Concepción.
The method of sectional social inquiry was used in an experimental approach. This method gives a vision of the subject at a particular time. The scope of the study was a sample of a typical geographical area, in this case the comuna of Concepción, with a population of 226,897 (2002 census). The sample considered only people from 18 to 80 years old, so that we could have answers from people with maturity and at least some experience in the topic. This leaves a total span of 155,739 inhabitants. The sample was probabilistic, simple random, and was separated by city sectors. Finally [4], the needed sample was 156.13 polled people. A short poll was conducted (a maximum of 3 minutes), where we asked about the client’s esthetic taste, his/her opinion about several styles of houses, and also some filter question to enable us to order the information later. One of the questions required that the user choose among several models, the nicest and the worst house (figure 1). These colloquial words (that are deliberately not used in architectural academia) were used intentionally to ease the understanding by a normal (non-architect) user. Another question enabled us to know whether the interviewee had some relation with architecture or the arts (AA),
or not (NA). A full version of the Poll can be found as an appendix in the seminar. Once the poll was applied, results where sorted and analyzed to get the conclusions, considering the theoretical frame previously mentioned.
Figure 1: House example card used in the poll. From here on, capital letters will be used to denote each example.
Results The results of the poll are shown in the following charts: When asked about the nicest house, as sorted by the AA and NA groups. Figure 2
When asked about the worst house, as sorted by the AA and NA groups. Figure 3
Why do you like this house? Sorted by the AA and NA groups. Figure 4
Why don´t you like this house? Sorted by the AA and NA groups. Figure 5
Houses that are most and less liked. Sorting by age group. Figure 6
Most influential factors and their importance in the selection of a house Figure 7
Opinions on houses in their city. Sorted by the AA and NA groups. Figure 8
Opinion about someone’s own house. Sorted according to: self-built, bought, and AA groups. Figure 9
Aesthetic dissociation The first thing that we can conclude is that, definitely, there is an aesthetic dissociation between the architect and the client. Hypothesis 1: “There is an aesthetic dissociation between the architect and the user”.
The house that got more votes as the nicest one in the AA group is precisely the one that got more votes as the worst one in the NA group. The Casa Ponce (house F) (Mathias Klotz, 2003), which follows exactly the preferred aesthetic of architectural academia (or at least used to follow it in 2003), stands for everything that the user does not want. Weird, cold, futuristic, are adjectives that show how the user perceives this house; like something that does not look like a house, so that it escapes the normality that the user needs. There are big differences in the reasons for the AA and NA groups to choose one house instead of another. The academic esthetic knowledge in the AA group makes them focus their perception on design, composition, and expression factors that can provide the house a distinctive and avant-garde quality. Conversely, the common user seeks traditional characteristics that express security and familiarity (for example: country-like, homely, modern). We need to clarify that the word modern is not understood by most of the interviewees in the same way that the AA group understands it. For example, a lot of people tagged the Casa chilena (house B) as modern, showing that in this case the word means something like well-built, or new. The NA group rejects everything that means experimentation. This is due to the fact that, contrary to architects’ preferences, a house means a lot more than just a design. When asked about the factors that influence choosing a house (on a scale from 1 to 5), the factors that get a higher score are: security (4.5), spaces (4.3), functionality (4.3), and finally aesthetic (3.7). This conclusion comes according to what architect Manuel Duran [6] says: “Aesthetic is just a part, in my
opinion, and is the last part of any proposal”. To the user, housing is not something to leave to experimentation, but is rather a matter of certainty, since in most of the cases this is the biggest and most important investment in their life, and the one that will shelter their family.
What about the avant-garde? The study proves that the aesthetic avant-garde in most of the cases never ceases to be just that. Since the beginning of the twentieth century, architects have shown housing models that oppose symbolic and constructive tradition; but those never won the approval of the general population. Among all the houses in the present study, the only one with modernist traces is house H (casa mediterranea), a choice that is probably influenced by the use of natural materials (stone) and because it is currently perceived as a status symbol by the chilean upper class. A clear example of this factor is the case of rationalist houses built in Concepción after the 1939 earthquake [7]. Although these houses are spotted in all of the central area of the city for the past 70 years, people still have a negative opinion about them, this being the typology (house C) that is equally rejected in the AA and NA groups. Based on this finding we can prove the second hypothesis: Hypothesis 2: “The aesthetic of housing does not follow theoretical aesthetic trends, but is inspired by historical models with symbolism acquired through time.”
The house that finally gets built does not follow grounded theoretical ideas. Instead, it follows a process of adjusting historical models with acquired symbolism to its environment and human use. The user’s preference We can state that the common user has a very conservative aesthetic taste, and he/she prefers what is already known and proven. Being asked about the
nicest house, the one with more votes was the Casa chilena (house B) (61%) with a big majority. This model is in big demand by the customer because, besides making the client remember the classic image of home, and having traditional materials and colors, it works better with the local climate and real human use in the region. This conservativeness can also be seen when we asked subjects for the house that they dislike the most. In that case, every most-voted house uses a minimalist and alien esthetic, which people find weird and not nice at all (houses F, C, and E). Experience is also an influential factor. The Casa chilena (house B) is liked by all ages, but this preference is most noteworthy in the section of people from 30 to 40 years old (an age when many people buy or build their own house), which gets more than 90% of the preferences. Conversely, younger users were more open to more innovative designs (houses F-H). This proves that the aesthetic taste of the user is also influenced by the life situation of the user. We can also state that as people become more experienced and understand and evaluate all the conditions of use and operation of a house, they turn conservative and choose proven models. There is a relation between the origin of the house and its user appreciation. If we analyze the opinion of the users about their own house, those that appreciate their house the least are the AA group, with only 25% of them offering a positive opinion. People that have bought their house had a more positive opinion (49% acceptance). But the group with the highest opinion of their houses was the group of people that built it themselves (61% approval). We can derive from this result that this preference is due to two reasons: (1) the symbolism of the personal effort that is required of this family in obtaining the house; and (2) the adaptation that this single house can have for this human group. This supports our third hypothesis: Hypothesis 3: “The value of architecture comes from the pertinence to the conditions that create it�.
Even in cases when we cannot categorically conclude this, everything points towards the fact that the value of an architectonic aesthetic would not be absolute, but would come from its adaptation to the environment and the facts that surround it. This leads us to think that we cannot expect positive results from an approach that does not include an important component of customization by the user´s personal initiative. A deeper investigation about this point could bring more clarity on this issue. The optimal rate between the personalization of adaptability and the efficiency of standardization is still to be discovered.
Comment from the author in 2016 At the time of this investigation, despite an intensive theoretical analysis, I did not have any information about architectural theories or authors that gave some answer to these questions. A couple of years ago I encountered the work of Nikos Salingaros [6]. From knowing his theories I became aware of a group (still small but growing) of architects that are getting increasing attention with their proposals for an architecture that is adequate to human needs as based on scientific knowledge, and which uses the shapes and patterns that are proven by nature and by ancient buildings in order to create a better environment for humanity. * See a full version of the thesis here.
[1] Hassan Fathy was an egyptian architect, author of “Architecture for the poor” (1973), one of the most important architecture books of the twentieth century. In his works he valued the local architectural tradition and the participation of the user in the building process. [2] The “New urbanism” is an urban planning current of thought that started in the beginning of the 1980s; it promotes human scale cities with predominantly pedestrian circulations, using traditional proportions and aesthetics. [3] All values are given in United States dollars (US$). In Chile the houses are offered in a measure unit called “Unidad de Fomento” (UF), which can be
translated as “encouragement unit”. The UF is an accounting unit that is readjustable with inflation. At this moment, the value of UF is around CLP $26.000 (Pesos chilenos). [4] Concepción is a city (250.000 inhabitants) in the central-south part of Chile. Around Concepción there are several small cities and towns, all of them creating a metropolitan area of around 1,000,000 people. It is the second metropolitan area of Chile measured by population, industry, and cultural influence. [5] See full version of the thesis. [6] Manuel Duran is an architect who leads one of the biggest architectural design offices of Concepción. He is also a professor in the Facultad de arquitectura, urbanismo y geografía of the Universidad de Concepción (information in 2008). [7] The Chillán earthquake (1939) was the single deadliest seismic event in Chile (the most seismic country on earth). It caused the death of 28,000 people. [8] Nikos Salingaros is a mathematician and architectural theorist from the U.S.A., known by his works in urban theory, architectural theory, and philosophy of design. He has been a close collaborator of the architect and influencer of computer science Christopher Alexander, with whom he shares his critique of the current architectonical vanguard. He is a professor in the department of Mathematics of the University of Texas at San Antonio.