A CREATIVE TENSION

There is a tension between maintaining architecture's intrinsic rigor and engaging in co-creative processes. The selected number of designers that navigate this space demonstrate that such tension can lead to a more creative resolution of wicked social problems. The creative tension emerges as a result of achieving a combination of the following three:

​

1. Intrinsic Rigor

Architecture is an embedded discipline and the meticulous dedication to and exploration of the objectness (conceptual identity) and/or the physicality (material identity) of buildings and cities. In this paradigm, space, form, material, construction method, and craft are primarily defined in relationship to one another and not by social and societal influences.

​

 

Zumthor’s atmospheres, Tehrani’s tectonic grain, Fujimoto’s blurred boundaries, Hadid’s parametricism, Allen’s field conditions, and Lacaton & Vassal’s free space, each offer distinct conceptions of form and space, yet they share a common focus on the intrinsic qualities of architecture, independent of social or often programmatic influences.

​

 

Some residents of this paradigm tend to engage in theorization (e.g., Eisenman), and some are content with description (e.g., Johnston Marklee); some give primacy to innovative spatial explorations (e.g., Lacaton & Vassal), and some prioritize architecture’s physical experience (e.g., Nader Tehrani). In either case, the goal is primarily to enrich the object of the design and the discipline shaped around it.

​

2. Interdisciplinary Engagement

Architecture is a global enterprise and an interdisciplinary examination of how buildings and cities are influenced by and influence societal dynamics, power structures, cultural narratives, and global environmental changes. This paradigm frames architecture not just as a physical construct but as a medium for reflection and transformation of societal, cultural, and urban conditions. Architecture is a lens through which topics of identity, place, climate, power, globalization, media, and technology flow – it’s informed by them, produces a POV about them, and ultimately impacts them.

​

 

Koolhaas’s Bigness, Ingels’s hedonistic sustainability, Frampton’s critical regionalism, and Hilal and Petti’s decolonizing architecture enjoy the dialogic encounter between the intrinsic properties of architecture and aforementioned topics often tracked by social sciences and humanities.

 

 

Related to this category, there is a fringe yet persistent group that defines and examines the impact of the built environment on a cognitive and behavioral scale, as opposed to a socio-cultural one. Concepts such as Evans' environmental stress, Altman's place attachment, Hartig's restorative environments, and Appleton's prospect-refuge have propagated inside a more naturalist perspective.

​

3. Social Process

Architecture is a social practice and a collective imagination shaped with or by communities. This paradigm frames architecture as the condition of knowing things to change them, but as an active process of changing things to know them. 

​

 

At its most disciplinary impactful state, it acknowledges the intrinsic rigor of architecture and the urgency of critical engagement while committing to integrate local knowledge, unlock collaborative creativity, and equitize power dynamics. And it does so by elevating the architecture’s user community from research subjects to change partners.

​

 

Within this framework, three neighboring yet distinct approaches emerge:

​

 

3. a. Vernacular Design: This approach cites the recurrence of elegant design solutions in vernacular buildings – or patterns – as evidence of non-architects’ ability to shape design. Non-designers can create clever and beautiful solutions, or ‘patterns,’ so long as they adhere to an established design ‘language'. The ‘language’, or the localized intrinsic rigor, is a byproduct of the community’s broader value system, or tradition, crafted into a physicality through generations of iteration. It serves as a unifying force among individuals, enabling them to create solutions, and in this case objects, that are inherently interconnected because they all originate from the same foundational principles. This approach to architecture anchors individual expressions in a pre-existing yet evolving local language and rigor, thereby, it produces a sense of continuity, familiarity, and stability. Figures such as Hassan Fathi, Rasem Badran, and Christopher Alexander exemplify this approach.

​

3. b. Participatory Design: Participatory designers advocate that architects’ accountability is neither to the object of design nor to engage in the critical evaluation of the society and culture; rather, it is to recognize the often unfair social and power dynamics of the locale in which they and their users are situated. The mindset stems from a liberal democratic moral imperative to leverage one’s privilege in favor of amplifying the agency of those with less power. In this context, design is a privilege, and its goal, to exercise representation. Prominent figures include Henry Sanoff, James Rojas, Nabeel Hamdi, John F. C. Turner.

​

3. c. Co-Creative Design: This approach challenges vernacular design’s bias towards continuity of tradition, and participatory design’s disregard for intrinsic rigor; although it finds common grounds with the latter’s commitment to joint authorship. Neo-pragmatist in nature, it shifts the mindset from "creation" to "creativity", and prioritizes a focus on collective imagination of a better future, with greater freedom, equality, and solidarity, expressed in novel solutions to local challenges. In process, co-creation relies on nurturing a community of practice around the topic of design, including non-designers, local experts, and designers, fueled by the shared thrill for problem-solving and generating fresh ideas. Co-creators go beyond expressing needs and selecting design options; they are coached through problem-finding, sensemaking, and ideation activities – to unearth exotic insights from seemingly mundane aspects of life and share local hacks. The role of the design team is to be the guardian of the intrinsic rigor, contextualize process in criticality, and unlock participants' creative confidence to inspire the design in new ways. Examples in this group are Alejandro Aravena, Lab.Pro.Fab, and Luciel Kroll.