(This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license.)
The
following passage from Bill Kleinsasser’s
self-published textbook Synthesis outlined
his belief in the need for an inclusive, always-to-be considered structure of
true architectural principles: a coherent theory base (and value base) to help
architects make genuinely good places for people.
Throughout
his teaching career, Bill’s faith in his hypothesis never wavered. He was
convinced of the need for an emphasis upon commonly understood frames of
reference. In particular, he impressed upon his students the essential
importance of developing physical conditions that are experientially supportive
for people.
Bill
often expressed a disdain for others who dismissed the notion of such a structured
approach to design. He zealously preached the need for a comprehensive yet
concise framework of considerations that could be adjusted or changed when
necessary, and that could be used again and again in design. He rejected the
view that the use of such a framework would reduce intuitive effort or
otherwise impair creativity.
Looking
back, I am convinced of the rightness of Bill’s approach to design education. Many
designers flounder outside the safe harbor of time-tested design principles. Synthesis
provided Bill's students with an easy-to-understand and fundamental way to
approach design. It was his singular contribution to architectural theory,
one which remains as applicable today as it was when he was with us.
Experiential
Support
In the design of man’s surroundings, it is not enough to respond
exclusively to technological theory, constructional expediency, economics,
dimensional requirements, academic organizational principles, and other
relatively measurable guidelines. This kind of design leads at best to
impersonal surroundings and at worst to surroundings that are inhumane.
The most essential objective of environmental design is the
development of physical conditions that are experientially supportive for
people; that is, the development of conditions that will provide opportunities
and meanings that people will need daily through time and continuously through
space—conditions that will explain themselves to people, evoking physical,
sensual, and intellectual response. Experiential supportiveness in the man-made
environment is aimed at helping people develop to their full potentialities as
human beings.
An environment which is experientially unsupportive is an
environment where there is little variety and choice (people are forced into
this or that), where too much is fixed (people can effect little and will feel
ineffective), where isolation (instead of community) is the rule, where
experience is fragmented and connections are difficult (connections to nature,
to other people, to activities and events), where there is too little of the
richness and eventfulness that encourages people to discover new patterns and
to renew themselves. An experientially unsupportive environment leaves out much
and is limiting. It does not add to the meaning of life. It is apt to
contribute to depression and hostility.
For many people today, the man-made environment is
experientially unsupportive. Many facilities and options that should be there
are missing or inaccessible. Many spatial characteristics are restrictive and
constraining. Misfits are caused constantly by change, inflexible rules, poor
definition of requirements, failure to recognize opportunities, and sameness.
This deficiency exists because we lack a well developed,
universally accepted, humane value-base for environmental design. People are
unaware of what is missing and what the man-made environment could be like.
Designers do not have the theory base to know what to do. Supportive design is
more the result of good luck than informed intention.
Without a humane value-base, environmental design is vulnerable
to practices that are self-defeating. For example:
- The man-made environment is usually developed in large chunks and discontinuously, both in time and space, as if each piece had to be auspicious and autonomous, or as if each had to be done all at once and once and for all. This practice has caused much negative contextual impact. It has also spawned the habit of not developing spaces with the richest experiential potential: those between buildings.
- Economic and technological considerations often dominate and distort humane development instead of facilitating it.
- Experiential character is determined by land-value formulae, technical convenience, codes, and arbitrary budgets, instead of by careful, thoughtful consideration of the supports and opportunities that will be needed by people as time passes and circumstances change.
- Often the users of the environment are not consulted about their own places, causing immediate misfits and alienation.
- Often the environment is designed to suit first purposes and first users only, causing rapid obsolescence.
- Often users who wish to stay in new places (or must stay in them) have no way of adjusting or changing them, which causes them to seem impersonal and out of control.
- Often models and
lessons which explain the success or failure of similar places are not
used, causing repeated mistakes, frustration, and loss of trust.
To aid in the generation and organization of such criteria, a
framework of considerations about human environmental needs over time is
required. While imperfect at any moment and ever-changing, the framework will
allow designers to consider many aspects of man’s relationship to the
environment and to form many related ideas for design. The quantity and quality
of the ideas will depend upon the experience, knowledge, time, and heart of
those who do the considering, but the framework—because of its
comprehensiveness and its many sub-frames—will expand substantially the design
base of all who use it.
WK/1973
No comments:
Post a Comment