Thoughts about good architecture-2

Related article: Thoughts about good architecture-1

At this point, I better wrap it up and remind myself of the original theme of this essay. What is good architecture? The definition of good architecture is not the same as what good design consists of, in a way that the aspects of good architecture include not merely an aesthetic factor but also its practical purpose and economic background. Therefore, people have versatile evaluating perspectives on good architecture according to their priorities.

The unique architecture is good?

I continually narrow down the criteria of good architecture by understanding how architects judge one. Architects, the decision-makers, do customized services as their clients request. As one of the creators, we architects are always passionate about being originative, which I also believed to become a famous -it doesn’t mean being successful- architect especially when I was a student. However, when it comes to architecture, architects must set delicate standards of how to realize out-of-ordinary design.

In the previous essay, I gave a few examples of first movers in architecture, seeking originality in architecture by form or material. Of course, they provide fun and rare experiences to ordinary people. Just like architecture in complex geometric shapes or of unusual colored concrete, these new trials are so astonishing and amusing that appreciators are willing to visit such cities of those landmarks. This relationship between unique architecture and a city is comparable to that between a masterpiece and a museum, well-known for this famed piece. As a city planner, a combination of distinctive buildings is like a certified check to make the city wealthier with tourist attractions or an alluring one for dwelling. A building of characteristic appearances, such as a remarkable structure that boasts of the contemporary technology only rich money can realize, is a found object rather than human-centered architecture.

The nature of architecture

So-called good architecture has its originality. But originality does not mean leading a trend. It is different from what could transform with the flow of the era. For example, I have thought the difference between interior design and architecture is whether it has mainstream that changes over time. Unlike interior design, which is fashion-conscious of the latest style of commerce or residence, architecture somewhat exists longer and is incredibly time-and-money-consuming. Once an architecture project begins, it should be a solution for the best fit for humans in the only site. Otherwise, we may bear it with a generous mind until the decision to demolish is made.

Therefore, no matter what materials are chosen and how a building forms, the entire configuration of good architecture is all for human experience, which suggests an optimized solution for a space program that reflects society such as social networking, communicating, resting, focusing, and all that intertwined cultural and relational environment. Although some space planning merely refers to traditionally familiar ways without questioning, I have experienced some of the brilliant building configurations that deeply comprehend the hierarchy of the occupants and sometimes even dare to destroy and rebuild a system, proposing brilliant experience that suits components of an organization.

For instance, the Centraal Beheer office building, by Herman Hertzberger, shows what good architecture should be. The unexpected array of voids creates visual connectivity between occupants from one another departments in the distance and light grid passages along colonnades of layered-space column units. This ambiance with uniform configuration brings about a surprisingly efficient workplace and originality of the architecture in the end.

As a participant in good architectural design

Likewise, there is always an answer for good architecture without flash weapons. To begin with, scrutinize traits of the site, space program, the relationship of occupants, clients' wishes, building code, plus economic, cultural, or social surroundings, and most importantly, come up with a great idea based on the comprehensive analysis, then coordinate with talented teams to solve thousands of issues including mechanical, electronic, plumbing engineering, building energy performance, structure optimizing, safety, materials in an envelope and fixing details and so on, while adhering to the initial idea for its actualization.

To make sure of all these requirements, a design proposal should be verified in advance to draw the scheme into the real world. There could be other ways according to architects to clarify their thoughts during the process but there are certain attitudes as an architects team aiming for an ambitious one. I believe a shared vision and discussion are the most critical. Due to such heavy burdens, architects cannot work alone. So, a single player would not get survived in architecture, and an architect must learn how to co-work and respectfully communicate with others. A shared vision is a shortcut to realizing good architecture.

Most of all, a high level of team communication will allow architects to convince each other, pinning down each member’s perspective of good architecture by mutual sharing to satisfy members’ questions. Ideas on good architecture vary and one man’s vision is hard to be pushed through without reciprocal agreement. Therefore, this process of consensus is always necessary. Sooner or later, one’s vision is affected by and affects one another anyway.