Users Test

Published in 1964, Bernard Rudofsky?s book 'Architecture without Architects' has helped re-establish the user?s honor, trampled under the rational world of modern architecture. Based mainly on romantic photos of architecture that had seemingly developed on its own, the book shows how the 'marginal' role of the user in the design of its building becomes cardinal. One of the twentieth century?s most original architects, Rudofsky emphasized daily activities influencing the building?s design as it develops over the span of its lifetime - eating, sleeping, sitting, cleaning, washing, mating and eliminating.

The use of the term ?lifetime? to describe a medium so inanimate is not accidental, since contrary to common opinion, the stage of designing of a building never ends upon its accomplishment - neither the exterior, nor especially the interior. Rather, it is motivated by market-forces dictating the socio-economic level of its surroundings, the maturity of the substance, resistance to weather conditions, and countless events that no planner can foresee, but yet motivate the ongoing evolution of the building and its environment.

A one-sided perception of the architectural paradigm is summed up in the saying favorite among architects: 'The building is finished, let's photograph it quickly before it?s ruined by the inhabitants'. And indeed, the 'destruction' of the glorified architectural creation begins with the first closet whose doors can?t all be reached, the bed of the second child blocking access to the window of the first one, the aunt?s table that doesn?t suit the neighbor?s old sofa, and the new fridge that can?t fit in the niche of the old one.

The other side of this paradigm is exemplified in the basic difference between photos made by architectural photographers, and those made by non-architectural ones. In the former, the meticulously designed pictures lack the human existence and the personal objects, while the latter depict colorful life-teeming situations.

The notion that the 'subjective event' lends dynamicity to the 'frozen object' has been greatly corroborated in the era of digital cameras, rendering populist dimension to the professional photos, while negating the need for a long shutter to prevent the presence of 'moving' objects. This has in turn taken the monopoly from the professionals - expressing, among others, the user?s presence in buildings. time and user test

who has the final word

In this reality, the architect should no longer be seen as the planner of final situations, but rather as one creating starting points, serving as a 'game board' upon which the users can play as they wish, according to their habits, world view and culture.

As an integral part of any culture, architecture includes, explicitly or implicitly, each of its components. Some are vital to the ongoing function of the building but the rest are mere trivial additions accumulated over evolution, both by the user and the architect.

It is suggested here that even when the planning purposes of the user and the architect are identical, their points of departure differ - often to the extent of being diametrically opposed. It is usually the case of (at least) two different people, so that even given a similar cultural background - there still exists a wide gap in world view, preferences and personal taste.

When the points of departure for the planning suffer from a theoretical gap - both in the factors comprising the programme and especially in the choice of the optimal solution for its realization - there would seem to be a conflict of interests, questioning the role of the architect as the sole determinant of the form and design of the building for posterity.

The sensible solution is a fruitful dialogue, whereby the client expresses his or her expectations, and the architect serves as the professional vehicle for their realization. In this dialogue there is also room for the creative aspirations of the architect, but most emphatically - never at the expense of the user.

Architects often drag to the work-desk patterns of behavior, ceremonies and personal memories irrelevant to the building and its purpose, particularly to the user who ultimately has to cope with them: a romantic view from a Tuscany veranda, a pastoral picture from a Swiss zimmer, films, plays, poems, childhood dreams of father?s home in Poland. All of these have a place of honor in the mental reality of the architect as a creator. However, the unique role of the professional filter is to let only moderate drippings of it affect his professional decisions.

Within this context, one may doubt the legitimacy of the often zealous creativity of architects - especially those who earn recognition for an unusual building form - in many cases, of dubious function. Since the creative dimension is what dictates experimentally constructed buildings, the chances of correlating the architect?s intentions and the user?s expectations are slim. In such cases, attempted adjustments of the building to suit the users? needs will bring about a multitude of changes in the life of the building, resulting in a diminishing of the architect?s image as a super-planner, until he finally loses control over his creation.

Examples of such may be found in just about every building considered a breakthrough: the Bat-Yam municipality planned by Hecker- Sharon-Neuman in the 60s, unfathomable to this day by the user; the Mivtachim rest-home in Zichron Yaakov, planned in 1968 by Yaacov Rechter and presently undergoing essential changes for the third time; and Habima theater planned by Eugen Stolzer and Oskar Kaufmann in 1934, rendered unrecognizable due to its numerous transformations.

No doubt, the social, professional and legal tasks of planning are delegated to the architect, whose qualification process is longer and more complex than that of a lawyer, doctor or accountant. As opposed to these professions, which require only a limited apprenticeship, architects have to develop many skills overseeing all aspects of life. Paradoxically, while the other fields are entrusted almost totally to the professional, that of the architect?s is populist, seemingly requiring no particular skills.

And here lays the crux of the architect?s real problem - while no one sees himself as a doctor, every landowner does think he can design his own private property as he sees fit.

Needless to say, all of this is not intended to encourage planning anarchy. It is also clear that the architect?s role in both outlining the programme and in carrying it out meticulously is not inferior to that of the user?s. However, it is equally clear that more is needed to planning a good building than creative aspirations.

The architect?s big test begins at the building stage. Here he is first tested as to his professional ability to base the planning on reasonable standardization, guaranteeing that the builders are able to cope with its realization. This ensures not only considerable savings in building costs, easy maintenance and material sustainability, but also a good chance that the architect?s declared intentions will withstand the test of time and user. The more wisely the architect foresees the user?s expectations and needs, the greater the chances are that the building will retain its original form over time.

Hence, the emphasis should be on a reasonable dosage of essential and trivial. In other words - between the professional agenda that will ensure a functional construction of the building, and its creative expression. And make no mistake: a lot of function, and a lot less design.

There is no doubt that unique buildings lend a special atmosphere to their surroundings. However, of no less importance is the special interpretation granted them during their lifetime by whatever user, particularly when the planner?s original intention has had to change over time.

To wit - a prison which became a hotel; a Paris train station converted into a world-renown museum; a deserted church in Manhattan - now a drugged disco; and the train line recently converted into the Hi-Line Park. In all, the tension between the original planning and the fluctuating purpose grants life to the structure, stimulating new interest in it long after it had seemed anachronistic.



Ami Ran