As architects and designers, we’re taught about the importance of observation. To pay attention to the physical world we occupy and to document the details we see, as they say, to be an artist is synonymous with being aware. You’ve probably come across those reels on social media which make fun of architects caressing materials as they cross along a space, knocking a table to check whether it’s made of solid wood or veneer, or just lightly grazing their hand across a wall because they like the way it feels. We’ve all been there, but have you ever considered why this is such a global characteristic? It’s because we realise that the physical presence of materials and buildings, their appearance, has a significant impact on the user. It awakens a curiosity within us that we satisfy with the physical touch and cataloguing our reaction to it in the subconscious.
Impact on the Non-Architect
The question asked then is, does this only impact the artist or does it also have an effect on the non-architect/designer? In all fairness, architects are guilty of exaggerating the role architecture plays in the human psyche.
“Architecture is perplexing, too, in how inconsistent is its capacity to generate happiness on which its claim to our attention is founded. While an attractive building may on occasion flatter an ascending mood, there will be times when the most congenial of locations will be unable to dislodge our sadness or misanthropy” (Botton, The Architecture of Happiness, 2007)
Architecture can play the same role as that of art. After all, it is an art form if you strip it to its base principles. In the same way, when one stops and appreciates a beautiful work of art, the ordinary person appreciates a good piece of architecture. But there is proof of how architecture can have a stronger impact on the day-to-day of an individual.
Impact in the Home
Consider a poorly designed 250 sqm house, where there isn’t ample light, the windows face the wrong way, are too small, the circulation weaves in and out, making the residents bang into furniture as they go about their day. The residents of this house go about their day with a mild annoyance at best but had this house been built to utilise the space to its maximum efficiency, the residents might have been more productive and not have to rely on active utilities as much. This of course does not ensure that these residents will be happier than had they been living in a well-lit and ventilated house, we need to be practical enough to factor in all the aspects of human life to account for the long-term impact here, such as, family dynamic, financial situation, communal life etc but all this to prove, architecture does have an impact, the scale of which differs in each scenario.
Impact in the Square/ Neighborhood
Architecture, in the setting of a neighbourhood or community, also has a significant impact on those who occupy that space. In today’s day and age, the definition of an architect has changed. Professions have become more specific, we have titles of urban designer, interior designer, residential architect, furniture designer, community architect etc.
In the times of the Romans and Greeks, the time we know as the age of excellence, the architect was tasked with creating order out of all that existed in the built environment. From roads and squares to the sculptures to be adorned within them, to the houses and temples they would all lead up to, and the furniture and decorative elements to the house within, all was the burden of the architect to bear. This may feel overwhelming to the architects of today, but we can’t disagree with how this created cohesion within these cities and their buildings which is something the cities and homes of today lack. It is one of the main reasons tourists still flock to cities in Europe like Rome and Athens.
Another reason for this appreciation is the craftsmanship and detail visible in these buildings and squares. Our shift to the modern and clean aesthetic is in line with the principles of the Bauhaus, with functionality at its forefront. One can argue that the modern square doesn’t afford the richness that a square designed in the classical era does. Let’s take the Millennium Park in Chicago as an example, though a beloved destination of the residents of Chicago, the square offers very few avenues to let the eyes wander and contemplate while resting on an intricate detail. The pavement is straightforward, the line of sight shifting from trees to people sometimes set against the backdrop of a billowing skyscraper, whose detail is too far to make out.
Compare this to the infamous Piazza Navona in Rome, which lets you experience all these stones of varying sizes anchoring the space, a multitude of details orating the facades of the buildings adjacent to the square all within viewing distance. All of these details and ornamentation, these breaks of symmetry in tandem with rhythm allow you to experience the atmosphere in a way that makes you feel connected. Human beings, after all, thrive on connection and of feeling like they belong.
The Architect’s Responsibility
All this, the architect can understand but the common man does too. He may not be able to tally why certain spaces feel homely while some feel cold, but this does not take away from the fact that the experience exists. Residents living in cities with a multitude of skyscrapers, asphalt roads and wide avenues often describe the experience as restless and fast-paced, while someone living in a city with only mid-rise mixed-use buildings at most, paved footpaths and tree lines streets often will describe the experience as full of joy and reflective.
All this goes to show, the impact of architecture and the built environment is substantial. Architects may not solve global issues with their buildings (even though community projects have laid the groundwork!) but they can significantly impact the daily experience of a resident, which urges the question, what more can we do to design responsibly and ethically?
