Intermediate Reflection

Concluding always seems so final and determinate so I’m considering this more of an intermediate reflection than an end. Given the age of A Pattern Language I’m happy to know that many topics are still readily applicable and the concept of language still rings true.

When designing, especially academically, it’s not uncommon to hear the question; How is this going to affect the practice of architecture? It’s a valid question, after all we have a wealth of knowledge built from ages past that we contribute to every day. But what is the practice of architecture really? Despite four years of school and an imposing graduate thesis around the corner, I still have issues answering it to my own satisfaction. A Pattern Language provides a worthy metaphor however which starts to scratch the surface.

The idea of language to embody architecture resonates well with me because it simultaneously puts the power of architecture in our hands while maintaining impartiality. Expression is an easy parallel to draw. Language is one of the most versatile tools at our disposal for expressing ourselves. We have the freedom to use it as we like and no one has the power to decide how it evolves. So too architecture can be an expression of the designer or the response to a need and no one person can decide what becomes successful. This is the point where communication enters the scene.

Language is straight forward, there is an agreed-upon set of structures to allow for appropriate or at least adequate communication between two people. Architecture however is lacking in this regard. Communication is a key skill in architecture because I’ve learned a specific language in school that allows me to understand architecture, built or unbuilt. As a profession, architecture needs to be able to be universally understood because it’s going to be, more or less, universally heard. All too often, I’ve heard someone people express; ‘what’s so special about that’ or ‘I don’t get it, what’s the point’. This is where architecture is failing to communicate its purpose.

Maybe this is a non-issue and as long as buildings continue to meet the base requirements for shelter and efficiency, we can have our own conversations within architecture. I would argue though that if expression is trapped within the understanding of architects, then we’re designing for architects and not the health, safety, and welfare of the public.