I understand that people might have some misunderstanding about a job as an Architect. We make buildings according to what a clients need, who are mostly corporations. In fact, there are some ethical architects who hate their job for being one. As for today, i would like to introduce, BIG, a Danish Architecture established firm started to challenge the existing cycle. Start by picturing a radical architect is the angry young man rebelling against the establishment of today, especially capitalism. So in this case there is always a proposition and an opposition, a good guy and a bad rebel. Think about this as a third party, if your agenda is dependent on either side, the result is always the same – you are simply a follower in reverse.
Rather than being the radical by denying the context, the establishment, the neighbors, the budget or even Earth’s gravity, by integrating the school of thoughts from Utilitarianism and Hedonism, we could actually turn in pleasure within a conflict. This way, we are the mediator between a proposition and opposition. Apart from the obvious society virtues, there are also principles affect the realm of architecture. But as an architect, we need to draw the “fine line” between gray, black and white, the sum of all the little concerns should not be the blocked view of the bigger picture.(Utilitarian concept)
However, if we try to make everybody happy will we be able to find a way to fulfill every desire and avoid steeping on anyone’s toes? Therefor, it is always an “Evolution” need rather than “Revolution”. Because “Change” will cause unhappiness still, but “Mix” will increase the nett happiness. As Darwin quotes ” It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent. It is the one that is the most adaptable to change.” Through his “Cross-Breeding” theory, we can see that by taking the best of a proposition and the best of an opposition, there will be an evolution within its result.
As we would propose to let the forces of society, the multiple interests of everyone, decide which of our ideas can live and which must die. This is because only the surviving ideas will evolve through mutations and crossbreeding into an entirely new species of belief. This concept is interesting as an architect, because as life evolve, our cities and our architecture need to evolve with it. If the population hate pollution within their city, then everyone, including the capitalist should conforms to it. The cities are what they are because that’s how we want them. So when something doesn’t fit anymore, we architects have the ability and responsibility to make sure that our cities don’t force us to adapt to outdated leftovers from the past, but actually fit to the way we want to live.
Here is what the reality is. Putting rats into a box with limited resources, there will be conflict. Similar to our world we are living now. The whole world insists on conflict. The media craves conflict and the politicians craving the media presence need to engage in conflict. So why the conflict? Can we as an architect feed our design from conflicts created by the politicians and media? Yes, we do. By tying conflict interest into a “Gordian” knot of new ideas. An architecture unburdened by the conceptual monogamy of commitment to a single interest or idea. An architecture where you dont have to choose between public or private, dense or open, urban or suburban, Atheist or Christian. An architecture that allows you to say yes to all aspects of human life, no matter how contradicting. AN architecture where we get to have both sides.