The article, Building on Society presents many interesting ideas, but doesn't show the ideas limitations. At the end of page 13 and beginning of 14 they talk about New Gourna designed by Hassan Fathy. This is an example of architecture using local/historical methods and using locals for to do the construction. However, according to 100 years of humanitarian design (pg 42/43) this specific town failed because they didn't want to move. Historical building techniques might also no longer be feasible due to reduction of local resources like forests for wood or animals for hides. Some might not have been intended for lasting shelters, but rather be intended to be quickly built. As an example, natives in earthquake ridden areas might have built structures that were only intended to last till the next earthquake. This works for small homes in small villages, but not for larger cities where people aren't close to exits for quick evacuation and with plenty of room between structures.
The article also has a lot of good advice to keep in mind when dealing with underprivileged communities:
"While there is no instant solution to the extreme poverty and other deep-seated problems these communities face, the belief is that such small interventions will, over time, improve living conditions for all residents" pg 18 end of first paragraph.
"standard planning strategies that focus on traditional solutions such as simply inserting streets into the densely populated areas need to be rethought" (pg 21 end of first paragraph) and as an alternative "to create new social facilities while keeping the high density of the neighborhood and not demolishing or forcing people to leave their houses" (pg 20 middle of first column).
In summary, this means to keep an open mind about how to build up a community without first tearing it down either physically or culturally.
I enjoyed the article on successful design teams. Two comment particularly struck me as things often forgotten: "Fun is a powerful motivator. It puts things into new contexts and leads to fresh ideas" (pg 302) and "it can be frustrating if there is never a moment's pause to savor what the team has accomplished together" (pg 306). If people don't enjoy their work, then they aren't as invested in going the extra distance to do the best work possible, but simply doing the bare minimum they need to do. Seeing good results often makes all the effort put into it worth while. With out this conclusion, work seems continuous and looses its appeal. Therefore, my questions to a design team would be:
1) How are members of the team chosen? What professional skills and character traits are needed to create a good team?
2) What happens when there are problems within the team? Are teams members ever changed as a result of conflict?
3) What happens at the end of a project? Does everyone see the final product or get a chance to celebrate?
4) Is the same team ever used for multiple projects to build a stronger team dynamic?
While reading the article on successful teams the same points you highlighted called out to me ironically. I think this may very well an underrated aspect of most teams. I remember a firm i used to work at, our boss was quite heavy-handed and did not tolerate any tomfoolery, so there was always a palpable tension in the office as we worked or when we had our task job meetings. The 'fun' element just didn't exist. I think that sort of affected the camaraderie between the workers and also the creativity as a group. We would usually heave a sigh of relief if we successfully concluded any project because that meant our boss was happy, and if our boss was happy, we were happy.
ReplyDelete