MasterPlanning!: Political Development, Apolitical Design: 2
by Tony Chavira
I previously wrote about three factions: the developers, the community, and the urban designer. I argued that developers need to deal with community leaders in an overly political way, lobbying for support and remaining transparent to ensure accountability and appropriateness of design. I wrote about the role of urban planners as political advocates for the needs and future of an appropriately-designed community. I argued for “De-politicizing the Design Process!” for architectural design.
The architect Rem Koolhaas writes frequently about the need for architects and urban planners to remain “idealistic” in their designs, despite the engine of design being fueled by the needs of the economy and not the visions of the artist. Southern California is a unique case in this respect because the groupings of urban designers and architectural designers have different hierarchies, for very different purposes. In the city of Los Angeles, urban designers and planners are political representatives and researchers, creating a cityscape that will provide for socio-economic unity while withstanding constant changes in growth, density and sprawl. Urban Planners have to be involved; it’s part of their job description.
But architects are not developers and not urban planners. The political interface architects must deal with doesn’t begin well, isn’t handled well, and doesn’t end well. The political stress of architectural design differs widely from what architectural students are taught in school: to be creative, original and democratic with every design at any income level. But why is there such a discrepancy? Why is the process of putting together structures unnecessarily political for the architect?
Some factors are unavoidable. You must work with the Americans With Disabilities Act, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and building codes. You want your building to be accessible and healthful, and to be able to stand up. Those are a given.
Beyond that, the problem is that the profession of designing architecture is inherently torn. Pulling at one arm is the community, a community which the architect is taught from the onset to appease with an inclusive and well-programmed structure. On the other arm is the developer, the person or entity who is actually forking over the cash to put something together on land that they presumably control. This is where most arguments for democratic design end.
There is a third set of interests that have a bearing on architectural decisions. The Community Redevelopment Agency has a formal plan for the community mapped out for years to come, a plan based on community input, political will, and smart urban planning and design methods. Urban planners are not part of the architectural design process; instead, they set guidelines for all parties involved as to what the structure can do in the context of the community. In general, it is not the architect’s job to plan a community. But that reality is lost, because most architects see themselves as urban planners and vice versa. Both are trained to understand each other’s design processes, and there are a ton of licensed architects who work as urban designers. So why is there a struggle about who has access to information and who doesn’t? Who determines exactly how many hoops you have to jump through in order to get your structure built?
Architectural designers and urban designers are not the same thing, and need to be treated differently, even by each other. They each have their own roles to play, and they do them well. Architects are drawn into the overly-politicized process of constructing a building and jumping through hoops for their clients because they need to play the role of representatives for their clients. Urban planners and designers need to act as community watchdogs and sole representatives of the community that brought their politician-bosses into office.
We all agree: the economic system for architects isn’t conducive to being democratically infusive, nor to being as civically responsible as you might want to be. It isn’t conducive to anything except appeasing your payer, the person who helps you until you can start developing projects on your own, at your own pace, and for your own motives. Until then, you’re trapped, doing exactly what your deep-pocketed clients say, unless you reject the project, which might not be possible if you’re a very small company. You need a champion; you need a friend. You need a strong, convincing reason to help you stand up to your developer client and say, “I’m the architect. You’re going to listen to me because I am a professional. This is my job. I am an expert.”
An urban planner is like your architectural sub-consultant. They have a wealth of knowledge about the area around you, which you can use as ammunition any time you want: a reason to design an additional green space on the property, a reason to provide streetscaping and proper landscaping, a reason to reclaim that old warehouse, a way to sell your client on the idea of mixed-use, LEED-certified, sustainable, ultra-modern design. They are your ammunition; democratic idealism is your target.
But urban planners need to be willing to put aside their loyalties to the political process. They need to remember why they’re working for the Community Redevelopment Agency, Building Department, Zoning Department, City Planning, Housing Authority, or any agency that requires approvals for plans from their inception through their completion. As an urban planner, you need to remember that the reason you’re working for your agency is that you want to cultivate a community, to give it life or bring it back from the dead. You can do it, but you need to coordinate. You need to help your architect friends at every step along the way, because most of them are trapped in a loveless world of beck and call, at the whim of deep-pocketed developers. You need to extend your righteous hand and help them. Take the politics out of it. You’re still a designer. Please, cut through the bureaucracy. Please, be open and accessible to the architectural design community, which wants to follow your urban plans. Please, de-politicize the design process.
In a couple of weeks I'll be starting a series of articles in which I weasel my way through the city of Los Angeles’s political system, detailing everything you need to do to put together a development, from the developer’s point of view. I’m not entirely sure how long it’ll take, or how many agencies, community meetings, or city council approvals I’ll need; but I will chronicle each and every step for my loyal FourStory readers.
www.racaia.com | tony@fourstory.org
Comments
No comments yet.
