Philosophy of Design: Why should people design their own living environment and why this is a good idea and appropriate for our times?
All people have an innate ability to design and build. An argument can be made that this knowledge and ability is passed on in some manner from generation to generation culturally if not genetically. Even though you might think yourself completely open to new forms, you are introduced to spacial arrangements at a time of your life when they become imprinted.
In the past, each group of peoples developed their own unique expression based on the environment or culture, the results ranging from Hopi settlements to Mediterranean cliffsides which actually show remarkable similarities. With our “division of labours” much has been lost for immediate access. But it is there. I have seen it emerge during my design process.
In earlier times, people could not afford to have someone else build their home and wouldn't even think of it. They had watched their parents build who had watched what their neighbours did which worked for local conditions. Sometimes they brought ideas from the countries they emigrated. If their inherited outward forms were unsuitable, they would bring in their ancient culture through detailing and decoration.
One of the reasons uniformity of design is not seen as much today is because of the loss of authority in the western world. Democracy, according to Alfred Adler, has the side effect of diminishing authority figures and the rising of individual opinion. We no longer want to be “told what to do or like”. However there are regional differences. My clients in British Columbia were more influenced by the modernity of US west coast. Clients in more conservative Ontario were less willing to experiment with new ideas even though they instantly realized the value of their input. Western clients seemed more open to process, eastern ones were more business like and wanted it all done for them and fast. At least this was my experience. All this is in flux, of course, as the culture of areas change and blend with immigration, and increased access to information.
A more immediate reason for diversity is marriage and travel. In the distant past, it was more likely that people stayed close to home and married within their group. None of this is standard today. Almost everyone has traveled and experienced different environments, foods, etc and this is reflected in what they want for their homes. Mixed marriages are more common. In one house, we had a prairie raised fellow tied to a West Indies lady and what a design resulted from that! (see Reimchen and Holsti houses)
I don't believe it is possible today to say that a particular architectural expression represents a country or even area. With current heating, ventilation and insulation systems all building styles are comfortable and so environment differences are not as important. Although glass houses don't do so well in sub zero locales. However, city councils often find it necessary to have design panels to enforce conformity. It is a losing battle. If the form of architecture really fits an area it will be copied and endure. It may also be the reason why there is almost a frantic effort to keep fine old buildings from being torn down. We are reluctant to let it go even though it doesn't reflect our values anymore. There is a certain loss of inner security if change comes too fast. Some old buildings were not very good or representative in the first place and should be torn down. However, the people who protest or make these decisions are often not the most qualified.
All people have an innate ability to design and build. An argument can be made that this knowledge and ability is passed on in some manner from generation to generation culturally if not genetically. Even though you might think yourself completely open to new forms, you are introduced to spacial arrangements at a time of your life when they become imprinted.
In the past, each group of peoples developed their own unique expression based on the environment or culture, the results ranging from Hopi settlements to Mediterranean cliffsides which actually show remarkable similarities. With our “division of labours” much has been lost for immediate access. But it is there. I have seen it emerge during my design process.
In earlier times, people could not afford to have someone else build their home and wouldn't even think of it. They had watched their parents build who had watched what their neighbours did which worked for local conditions. Sometimes they brought ideas from the countries they emigrated. If their inherited outward forms were unsuitable, they would bring in their ancient culture through detailing and decoration.
One of the reasons uniformity of design is not seen as much today is because of the loss of authority in the western world. Democracy, according to Alfred Adler, has the side effect of diminishing authority figures and the rising of individual opinion. We no longer want to be “told what to do or like”. However there are regional differences. My clients in British Columbia were more influenced by the modernity of US west coast. Clients in more conservative Ontario were less willing to experiment with new ideas even though they instantly realized the value of their input. Western clients seemed more open to process, eastern ones were more business like and wanted it all done for them and fast. At least this was my experience. All this is in flux, of course, as the culture of areas change and blend with immigration, and increased access to information.
A more immediate reason for diversity is marriage and travel. In the distant past, it was more likely that people stayed close to home and married within their group. None of this is standard today. Almost everyone has traveled and experienced different environments, foods, etc and this is reflected in what they want for their homes. Mixed marriages are more common. In one house, we had a prairie raised fellow tied to a West Indies lady and what a design resulted from that! (see Reimchen and Holsti houses)
I don't believe it is possible today to say that a particular architectural expression represents a country or even area. With current heating, ventilation and insulation systems all building styles are comfortable and so environment differences are not as important. Although glass houses don't do so well in sub zero locales. However, city councils often find it necessary to have design panels to enforce conformity. It is a losing battle. If the form of architecture really fits an area it will be copied and endure. It may also be the reason why there is almost a frantic effort to keep fine old buildings from being torn down. We are reluctant to let it go even though it doesn't reflect our values anymore. There is a certain loss of inner security if change comes too fast. Some old buildings were not very good or representative in the first place and should be torn down. However, the people who protest or make these decisions are often not the most qualified.
