Gummi Bears are sweet, tart, chewy and gone really fast.
On the other hand, a steak dinner prepared really well, is meant to be taken slowly. Too fast - - expect to choke. Each bite is meant to be enjoyed and savored. The meal contains proteins, carbohydrates (can't forget the baked potato and garlic bread), vegetables, and a beverage of your choice.
Experiencing the built environment is like that... depending on its design, it can be more like a Gummi Bear - in that it may be consumed quickly - - or like a steak dinner... consumed more slowly. Both Gummi Bears and Steak Dinners (I'm hungry while I'm writing this) have their places. But, let's face it, a Gummi Bear has little nutritional value.
Some may debate as to whether the steak dinner would kill a person faster than the Gummi Bear... that's not really our concern at this point. The point is, though, that some things are meant to be enjoyed over time and other things are meant to be appreciated quickly, with no regard for depth of experience or meaning, etc. The Gummi Bears are what they are... no more, no less.
So, let's stretch our brains for a few minutes and try to take the ideas I just mentioned and look at architecture (generally as something that is built by people for people to inhabit and use) from the same point of view.
In considering experiences in general and the design of experiences in particular, there is a sliding scale - a spectrum - when it comes to enjoying the built environment.
On one side, we have the Gummi Bears. An architectural equivalent of Gummi Bears would be the themed environments of Disneyland. Now look, I enjoy Disneyland as much as or even more than the next guy. Hey, I even worked for Disney Imagineering for a time. But, for all of the care that Imagineers put into the design of the place (and other places at other theme parks and other companies as well), you have to admit that Disneyland and places like it are designed to be consumed instantaneously... the person looking at it "gets it" and then moves on to the next 'land' or themed environment.
At the other side of the spectrum, we'll call this the Steak Experience side of life, there are buildings that are not instantaneously consumed. There are alot of examples I could give, but I would like to settle, for a moment, on the Getty Center by Richard Meier. It is impossible to 'get it' upon only one visit to the Getty Center. There, we see a depth of experience for the visitors of the space that goes past the experience one has at Disneyland.
Since we are examining the big picture of what 'Architecture' is and the role of the architect, we now move to 'connect the dots'. The role of the Architect is that he provides a service that will enable one to live in and / or experience a place that a person enjoys over time. The function of a place must be there (see Got Architect, Part 2), but the consideration of the experience of the place over a long time must also be considered.
Ever wonder why Disneyland has to be continually updated?
It gets old. People get bored. They want something new. Disneyland provides a good Gummi Bear for people to chew on, but the fun is over way too soon. The 'shelf life' (so to speak) of an instantaneously consumed building is quite low. Its price, from design to construction, is often quite high. It's a vicious cycle, because as soon as Tomorrowland is updated (!), it starts to get old. Even the reworking of Tomorrowland isn't looking to the future - it's looking to the past!
A set of buildings like the Getty Center, though, has a very long 'shelf life'. It isn't instantly consumed. It provides a level of resistance to the cravings of those who want Gummi Bears. It gives them a steak dinner. The messages of the Getty Center are less easily consumed, and thereby experiencing it in its fullness takes more time.
I can hear it now, "...but the Getty Center is boring. It is modern looking. Disneyland is fun, interesting and exciting." True; and both have their places. But in hiring an Architect you have to consider what strategy you want him to employ in designing your building - do you want to live in a Gummi Bear? Or, do you want to have a Steak Dinner every time you come home? It's your choice.
To be honest, the way that many buildings look out there, it seems as though people love Gummi Bears more. And that's O.K. It's O.K. to love Gummi Bears!
But, before we leave this topic, think about this: the house a person lives in, or a building that is built for them, is going to be around for a long time. To make a building as thrilling as Disneyland is going to be expensive and will eventually need to be re-worked in the future. Why not invest the cash spent on the building in a way that is intelligently designed and though not as 'eatable' as a Gummi Bear, provides increasing levels of interest and satisfaction over time?
There is also a third option.
That third option is the one we call dessert. Having a mixture of substantive and superficial areas of interest provide a means of satisfying one's desire for both Gummi Bears and Steak Dinners. So, as a client, you need a designer who won't give too many Gummi Bears, and also will not give a steak dinner that you will choke on. Tender steak, in my opinion, is better than thick and chewy steak. On the other hand, I like Gummi Bears to be chewy.
As the designer, our responsibility to you, the client, is not to be the judge of your values, but rather, to help you realize the things that you value in the design of the building or structures that you want made.
As our client, the choice ultimately is yours. At Grizzly Bear Architecture and Design, our goal is to make you happy with the end product - our service to you. We provide both steak dinners, Gummi Bears and dessert. We love to design, and we love to make our clients happy.
No comments:
Post a Comment