Intervention
An architectural intervention is always a response to a specific problem, either private or social; an expectation that becomes a demand that needs to be met.
An architectural intervention is always a response to a specific problem, either private or social; an expectation that becomes a demand that needs to be met.
This problem is presented to us, designers, in the form of a program, a brief that represents the prerequisites (restrictions in essence) and expectations to be answered.
Instead of restrictions, let’s refer to them as design challenges: There’s a place; a client to work with/for (private or a public entity representing a community); the client’s brief, goals and beliefs; a budget and a fee. Also, there’s planning authorities, the contractor that often acts simultaneously as the client and a multidisciplinary team of consultancy. We must also bear in mind that the whole process is dependent/contingent upon market conditions and the economic climate.
“Architecture comes from the idea, not the execution itself.
The program is not just a jigsaw puzzle that has to be reasoned out and solved from a logical and technical perspective. Instead, it’s the starting point of a creative process as it influences the perception of the place where the intervention is to be carried out. There will be natural conditions, built precedents, a history, a scale, spatial relationships, proportions, a character and an identity to that specific place to be intervened. A re(new)ed interaction is created. That very same place will be experienced differently and generate new impressions and emotions to its users.
How will we transform this context into something better? How will we add quality to it?
There might be many answers but never a sole solution. There might even be similar problems but any ready-made solution would never be able to solve this particular problem as all interventions are unique and subject to their physical/social context, time and environment.
Even if design intention or inspiration were coded, or automated, a successful design solution would be virtually impossible to achieve. An architectural project is a composition, the arrangement of many design factors which interact during the design process. Moreover, it is directly related to social, cultural, emotional and aesthetical values which can be subjective and due to interpretation.
The answers given by us, designers, are the result of a creative process of concepts and ideas expressed in the shape of volume, composition, rhythm and space that allied to the technical aspects of creating a building provide a solution to the problem.
It becomes a rather challenging equation to balance out. Thinking of a hierarchy of priorities, how much importance is given to the creative process, or the concept that supports a proposal? How pertinent is it and more importantly, how much is it worth when everything is weighed up? Is the creative expression of architectural acts overshadowed in relation to the other variables in the equation?
A creative approach is somewhat laborious to define or quantify and it doesn’t necessarily have to result into something surprising. It’s the search for the best idea or solution, the “aha” moment, and it is inextricably connected to values such as novelty, originality, quality and above all meaningfulness.
Against the misconception that design is expensive, creative solutions are better understood if presented efficiently. Expertise and experience are required to support creative ideas, ideas that work. I suppose that everyone would agree with creativity being a designer’s most valuable skill. It is something that comes from one’s inspiration, enthusiasm, and motivation.
Are we, designers, also depreciating it? Are we jeopardizing the creative process ourselves?
Nowadays, optimization and form generation tools are widely used by designers and required by clients. Advanced digital technology has made it possible for designers to produce and deliver architecture very efficiently. It takes a couple of days until something that replicates reality can be presented. To a certain extent this promotes a “What are we going to do here?” approach. Is the anxiety for seeing/presenting something palpable making us jump into rushed conclusions so that we can cope with the fast paced and very competitive reality we live in? How does this affect the quality of our designs and how architecture is delivered?
“How are we going to do this here?” Shouldn’t this be the question to find an answer for? Shouldn’t architects be more thoroughly involved in the design and implementation of the built environment?
We interact with what we build constantly, either by using it, looking at it or even just passing by.
References: “Textos do arquitecto Manuel Taínha”, Manuel Taínha, Estar Editora
J Filipe Pimentel
Arkitekt SAR/MSA ARB (UK) OA SRS (PT)
Filipe studied Architecture in Lisbon and has worked for international studios based in Lisbon, Dublin, London and Stockholm. After graduating in 2003, he has acquired experience in most building sectors through collaborating on a wide range of schemes from inception to completion.
Filipe is a registered architect in Sweden, the United Kingdom and Portugal.