Evaluating Architecture: Objective or Subjective

Roger Lewis in the Washington Post asks: “how can one reliably evaluate architecture to distinguish between excellent design and mediocre or poor design?”

Lewis laments that American officialdom tends to avoid this question.  “Consequently, design standards and evaluation criteria focus on building characteristics that can be assessed objectively: functional performance, structural stability and durability, public health and safety, energy conservation, environmental impact and financial feasibility. Zoning and building codes do not address architectural style, contextual fit, visual composition or aesthetic creativity. Laws and policies do not talk about building scale, shape and proportion, symmetry and asymmetry, texture and color, or details and ornamentation.  Yet these fundamentally determine the aesthetic quality of architecture, whether a house or a museum.”

“Not surprisingly, lack of public discourse about design quality has produced urban and suburban environments full of unattractive, unlovable architecture.  Our utilitarian culture has enabled government and the private sector to develop millions of utilitarian structures — houses, apartments, offices, shopping centers, schools, warehouses, hotels — that are architecturally banal and sometimes downright ugly.”

“[Good] design requires judgment calls that reflect personal tastes and shifting preferences. Indeed, a frequently heard maxim sums it up: ‘Put three architects in a room, and you’ll get five opinions’.”  That’s not a bad thing, I say.

Architects Argue Aesthetics

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s