In Chapter Three, various models of design decision making are discussed. Which one do you feel you most relate to? Why?
Other things to consider:
In the chapter, it is noted that if a utilitarian model were made possible "The benefits of design could be better appreciated by the public if those benefits were expressed in quantitative terms". What are your thoughts about this?
Take a look at more information about the Presidio of San Francisco on the following website: http://www.albionmonitor.com/presidio/presidio.html
Then tell me if you believe that maximizing the good is reasonable and if so, how you think it should be determined.
Isn't it impossible to create an environment of impartiality?
Should the architect consider what people 'ought' to think, or what they 'do' think?
These are a few of the things you might consider in the reading, but if you want to explore something completely different about it, go ahead...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIt is an interesting idea that Tom Specter brings up the issue in the designer on the first page, claiming that if a design fails to surmount all difficulties, it reflects badly on the designer, proving that either the architect did not try hard enough or just simply “lacks talent.” This is a strong statement that puts a lot of pressure on the architect, because it provides them a task that if not completed perfectly, inordinately results in pure failure. And because there is no “answer” in architecture, more multiple solutions, every project should fulfill the requirements of its design. Therefore, an issue is developed that can blame the ethics of the architect on poor design. Whether the architect did not try hard enough or lacks talent, an architect of this nature is ultimately a failure simply because every project undertaken by an architect should be worked until a proper solution is found.
ReplyDeleteAccordingly, the architect must strive for a solution that is for the greater good. In the case of the San Francisco Wherry Housing project, the architect need not necessarily be involved in the decision of whether a housing sector should be torn down or not, especially if the architect is uninvolved in the construction of units in its place. Therefore, it would be probably be most ethical for the architect to take no side on the issue as his or her personal life and career will be relatively unaffected by the outcome. However, should the architect need to be involved, it would be simpler for him or her to take an impartial stance on such an issue. And because “people are ill-informed and shortsighted in their decision making,” the architect would be the best person to turn to in such an issue to find an appropriate answer. While an architect’s view may be one of the best to refer to due to impartial beliefs and design experience, it is appropriate to say that it is ridiculous for an architect to be making decisions for society. Accordingly, it would be more relevant for the architect to take some ideas from those of the public rather than use personal ethic to change the views of others.
I was very interested in the question, "Should the architect consider what people 'ought' to think, or what they 'do' think?" Just recently, I went to the lecture "WW" and the presenters touched on the fact that architecture is out there for everyone to see. Architecture is design that everyone uses and views on a daily basis and therefore is rightfully forming an opinion. This is different than the art world in which the audience is more specific, or, for example, the indie film world. These worlds assume that most of their audience is knowledgable and therefore most likely to already think what they "ought" to think. Architecture is different. It's out there for the public to see and use so, I think we should be sympathetic to what people think.
ReplyDelete- Lexie Lowers
I think the idea of "maximizing the good" is reasonable because that is what we, as architects, should strive to always achieve. Personally, I think as a profession we must be humanitarians as well as designers. We should design with purpose no matter the circumstances. If a designer is not willing to take a stand on a situation because it may hinder his/her career or possibly ruin their career then so be it. That is fully his/her choice, however if a designer is to make a definitive stand for one side or another then I feel that the designer, as a professional, should maximize the good in every aspect. Granted, in many cases this could be a very daunting task but as designers is it not part of our job to solve the hardest of problems in the most logical and reasonable way possible? Secondly, the question involving whether an architect should consider what the public "ought to think" or what they "do think", once again is going to come down to that professional and that professional alone. That being said though, I think both aspects have to be taken into account at the same time. Naturally the architect is going to have some influence on the "ought to think" from their own beliefs and thoughts, but listening to the public and what they "do think" has the ability to enlighten the designer on other views. From there, a possible median could be reached on the situation. Again though, it is definitely a situation easier said than done.
ReplyDeleteChapter 3 | Utilitas from The Ethical Architect poses an interesting dilemma, how to act when choosing between two sides both possessing equal or rather of significant value. Do you choose to improve the “human condition?” Or do you “eliminate the an impediment to visual pleasure?” Each poses a significant argument, appropriate and favorable, though in this instance there is no sort of middle ground that can be reached, and it is either one or the other. In instances where large numbers will ultimately be affected our democratic society suggests to us that voting on such matters is the most just, yet paradoxically, “the ethical choice becomes whichever one receives the most votes,” touché. Whether it is one’s own morality that ultimately dictates their decision, it must be argued that, “no moral theory completely determines what to do in every situation.” So if our moral compass cannot point us to the “right” decision, where then can we turn to solve these moral dilemmas? I have no answer for that, though I think the most reassuring advice that Amartya Sen and Bernard Williams concludes with is, “the refusal to choose…[is] clearly an inferior alternative” and Spector adding, that we have the, “individual responsibility for taking moral action” whatever our morals (assuming that they are good and just for whatever side they ultimately support).
ReplyDeleteI feel that rationalization, along with many other issues, is just one aspect of architecture that needs to be addressed individually, and if forcefully imposed on us, could strip us of the artistic quality that can make architecture so great. Although I do see the merit in implementing a set of quantitative standards, I feel as though this should only dictate the integrity of aspects of architecture. For instance, the LEED certification list is based on a very stringent set of guidelines, and I believe it [as an idea] works because of the generally cut-and-dry nature of attaining sustainability. However, I don't think architecture is holistically black/white enough to follow such rigid standards.
ReplyDeleteI believe that it is impossible to create an environment of impartiality. Because everyone is unique they will hold their own morals, values and bias' even if they don't realize it. Weather it is from the way they might have been brought up as a child or some kind of personal experience that you or I might have gone through no one is completely impartial. At a smaller level such as an individual or a committee might be easier too control the bias' towards the benefit of society, but within a project such as proposal L (in which an entire city may be affected) one needs to look at every aspect but you will never be able to please everyone.
ReplyDeleteI believe that as an Architect it is important to strive for designing something that is "good" because we have a direct impact on society. We promote ourselves as creators of space that people will interact with, and hopefully begin to integrate into the design. The only problem is that each one of us will have a different idea as to what is good or what is important in a certain setting. I do not believe that because a majority votes as to whether or not something is right, wrong, good or, bad that the object being voted on becomes ethical based of their opinion. For example, during the roman empire the audience used to vote on whether or not a person, gladiator, would die if the crowd cheered for death is it ethical. I do believe a democracy can be ethical, but the democracy as a whole must have a clear understanding of a written moral code.
ReplyDeleteIn relation to the topic at the beginning of the chapter about architects having to “design their way out of problems” and those that fail at this lack the talent of a good designer is something I feel strongly towards. To me those who cannot adequately bring a beneficial design solution to the problem at hand are, in fact, bad designers because as an architect this is our sole responsibility. As architects we must consider both what people ‘ought’ to and ‘do’ think because in developing our design solutions having an understanding of both allows one to see the problem as a whole, and through this the architect even has to ability to alter what people think through either their explanation of their solution or the emotions evoked by their solution.
ReplyDeleteThis chapter describes the architect’s decision making process when he has conflicting considerations. The author argues that in every project the architect must deal with “difficult trade-offs” and how that leads the architect in to a position of “weighing the odds” so to speak. The author argues that this is where design comes in to play. The architect must design so “that the results will either resolve most of the conflicts or prove so compelling that the trade-offs he or she was forced into making become invisible.” The author states that these designs are based on “Moral philosophy…lodged in the concept of utilitarianism.” The author then examines the case study of an area of San Francisco called “The Presidio”. The area is located near or next to an apparently beautiful National Park. The argument is that the low-income housing of the area should be torn down to benefit the national park, and wildlife, etc. However opponents argue that the city has a housing shortage already and that this would perpetuate the problem. The author goes through the different methods of “weighing the odds” the so called “Proposition L”.
ReplyDelete“Designs that fail to surmount all difficulties generally reflect badly on the designer; either he or she simply did not try hard enough, or worse, lacks talent.” While architects are held to very high standards by others and themselves, sometimes difficulties are not under our control, cannot be solved with budget restrictions, or are not found until too late in the design phase and have to be absorbed. Due to these issues it is not because the architect lacks talent or did not try hard enough, it happens because an architect is human.
ReplyDelete“But what side should architects have taken in this debate?” I was in San Francisco around the time that the naval bases were being closed to attend some of my sister’s cross country meets that were held in Golden Gate Park. My father was in the navy and we would quite often visit the naval bases of places we were visiting for errands, or so he could re-live his past and pass on stories to my family and I. I remember how depressing the base closure was and how most of the buildings there were not the most attractive of buildings. This makes this discussion of how an architect should look at this situation much more interesting.
At what point do we take our own opinions and apply to design, and at what point do we disregard our opinions and rely simply on the opinions of our client or society? In this type of situation nobody was really asking the architects what they thought, so how would we know which role to take? The role of the experienced professional who knows about design and who may know what may be best for this area. Or the role of the informed expert who speaks on behalf of the client, and makes the client’s wishes come true.
I think it is too bad that given a situation dealing with Architecture, society and ethics there was no input on behalf of the profession. I think it should have started in the beginning where architectural designers sit down at the drafting table and intend to maximize the good and take in consideration the environment and what people would think. Failing in that will lead to the idea of good reason or lack thereof and having to see which bad outweighs the other. I think the best way of thinking in this situation is to put yourself in their situation.
ReplyDeleteThe common thread, one I completely agree with, is that there is not one single thing or side that should be considered. The ultimate consideration is the group of everything at stake. It should be noted how each decision will have it’s affect on the permanent community and visiting community. Ultimately that debate leads to the larger constant dilemma each architect faces when engaging in a design. Who should be considered and when is it right or wrong to make changes to a design? When is it right to change a design or delay a project? When should something be torn down or just remolded? These are all questions that are put in front of an architect at some time during their practicing career. And it’s propositions like the one discussed that bring those questions to life.
ReplyDeleteI just want to address one issue stated in the prompt and that is whether architects should address what people ought to think vs. what people do think. The simple answer in my opinion is that of course the architect should consider what people do think. to study what people actually consider and feel instead of a theoretical response of what a society should feel or ought to feel is much more pertinent. However, some theory should be brought into it and I dont think its the theory of what people ought to feel but more of the theory of what people will feel in the future. Since buildings are very public tangible objects that last much longer than 10 or even 20 to 30 years it is important to take into account where society is heading and at least try to plan a little for that.
ReplyDeleteSpector initially addresses the issue of defining utility between architects, but then chooses a public issue in which no prominent Architect gave their recommendation. Rather, organizations, politicians, and activists were at the forefront of the debate, yet outside the “contemporary architectural practice” that the book is focused on. However, the example does seems to strengthen his argument that the vagaries within the realm of utility remain unaddressed by modern architects and philosophers.
ReplyDeleteOf all the theories and ideologies he introduced, I agree most with the Expressive Theory based on ideals. For me, the utilitarian mindset is masochistic and foolish. Utilitarians seek out dissention in order to acknowledge each (moot) point while the idealist creates and then proceeds to stand firm against all potential demur. The idealist can do this because their intentions are in check and their motives, “pure”. In addition, I believe this argument is synonymous with the AIA’s code involving acts of comission and omission. An architect truly operating on sound ideals can not fail through comission. However, it seems that the utilitarian mindset operates in a way that perceives a lack of equality as comission, rather than viewing it as what it utimately may be: a solution.
I also see an underlying ethical delimma that resides within utility. The difficulty is not in the effect, or the argument put forth claiming why a certain resolution is superior (i.e. aesthetic benefits), but rather it is in the value placed to the effect. One can spend countless hours in objectivity contemplating who has not been accounted for, but perhaps it’s for naught. It shouldn’t be strength it number of sides accounted for, but rather strength in value; strength in purpose behind one’s decision.
The utilitarian approach to making decisions, “decide so as to maximize the good that will be brought about by your decision,” is meant to bring problems to those of “means”, not “ends”. The end has been predetermined as achieving the maximum good, therefore, all we must decide is the means to achieve that by. Unfortunately, like most everything else in the world of design, the definition of the maximum good can vary from individual to individual. An architect might see great beauty as the maximum good while a homeless advocate might see more housing as such. With the ultimate goal so indefinable except by the word ‘good’, then the means to get there is difficult to decide upon as well. So long as a designer is being true to themselves and their clients in the decision making and solving of a problem, then they are taking an utilitarian view of the issue.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the architects in that once this became a huge political agenda, they stayed out of it. However, if the AIA and or other architects, preferably just other architects, had been involved in the beginning of the park project, I think they should have advocated one way or another. I think it would have been a straightforward yes or no; yes it should be torn down for the overall quality of the park or no, it should not be torn down for the sake of the historical military base. They could also make the case that not every one of the 1900 buildings on the base need to be kept, just the important ones, not including the Wherry Housing. If it would indeed cost more to remodel than to rebuild, rebuild. Or better yet, spend even less money and just tear it down. Spector summarizes all of that in the philosophical doctrine of utilitarianism “decide so as to maximize the good that will be brought about by your decision.”
ReplyDeleteIn the end, the decision comes down to Housing or Aesthetics. It is all up to a mostly uninformed and “short-sighted” public and its vote. There are good and bad points for either decision and the people will have to pick the lesser of their two personal evils. Apparently the proposition passed without any of the profession’s input. Whether the architects felt they should leave this decision up to the people who are most affected by it, the San Franciscans, or if they were eager to stay out of politics, only they know. The public was probably indifferent to that. Because they stayed out, the public would probably have never thought about the architects and probably never have formed an opinion even if they did. The public could have thought the architects have no business in the matter, unless they are acting as a citizen of San Francisco. Had the architects gotten involved in the proposition and taken one side over the other, there could have been a lot of backlash in the community from the people who sided differently.
An architect cannot simply design his way out of every issue and when issues of this type arise it is important that an ethical conclusion be made in an efficient manner. I think the example of Proposition L was very appropriate. There is obviously no clear-cut answer. Even after finishing the reading I was happy that I did not have to make a judgment call. Many of the ideas presented in the chapter on how to handle Proposition L are complex and do not help give solid reasons for a particular outcome. There is no set measure laid out for ethical decision-making and I believe that that is nearly impossible to create one that could span over every difficult/subjective issue. The idea of the subjective nature of the architecture/design profession has been a continuing theme I have seen throughout the text. The value of utilitas or the utilitarian measure is a tool that has been given to us to help ease the stress of ethical decision-making. As the text points out there is not a set of instructions but more of a mindset and important issues to consider when making the most impartial an ethical decision.
ReplyDelete