Is architecture a spectator sport?

Photo: Wiki Commons, Socchi Winter Games 2014
Sochi residents celebrate IOC’s decision to hold 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi

How many of you spent countless hours watching the Winter Games in Sochi? I managed less than a handful – watching people hurtle themselves through space or gliding across ice and snow. Incredible feats of athleticism, thousands of hours practicing for an event that for the most part would last for only a matter of minutes. One can only admire the single-mindedness of purpose and the dedication to their chosen sport. Unfortunately it is all lost on me. If the athletes didn’t fall over they all looked pretty good to me. I guess I don’t have that trained eye to watch winter sports; then again I have never been one to watch sports of any kind on TV. Perhaps it is because I came to America in my early teens – old enough that people thought I understood all the rules of American sports, young enough that I had to play them in high school. Needless to say I was not very good, and as a result I am still not particularly interested in any of them.

This accident of life probably fuels my lack of appreciation of being a spectator at any sporting event and not understanding the nuance of the game. All of which leads to not quite understanding why so many people are obsessed with a particular sports team. Maybe they were much better athletes in high school than I and have that nuanced appreciation, holding a fantasy that they could have played professionally and live vicariously through their favorite teams or better yet through their online fantasy leagues. Friends have commented that with my interest in all things automotive I must be a big NASCAR fan. Simple rules; drive fast and the first guy across the finish line wins, what’s not to like? However, watching a bunch of cars turn left for hours while they drive at breakneck speeds around an oval track is something I find infinitely boring. Unless there is a huge pile up, which one would think is not the point of it all, or is it? I would rather spend that couple of hours behind the wheel of my own car on the open road with a clean windshield, a full tank of gas and nowhere in particular to go – my idea of the American dream.

Are we either spectators or participants? Is architecture a spectator sport or are we all participants? Can you watch someone design a building on TV? Would you want to? Other than Mr. Ed and Mr. Brady, head of the Bunch, there has been little popular culture interest regarding architecture as a spectator event. But is architecture the act of designing, or experiencing the design? Just to get a bit metaphysical for a moment:  If I build a house in the woods and nobody sees it, is it architecture? For the sake of argument I submit it is the ‘experiencing’ and therefore we must all be participants, after all who cares how the hospital or the golf course was designed if you are having a heart attack or just missed your putt. It’s what happens after the facility is designed and built that matters, our clients want to use their buildings after we are done. We all participate in the intended use of the building, living our lives and interacting with each other in our built environment.

But are most people who inhabit these buildings similar to my teenage self? Not really knowing the rules by which to play the game, missing the nuance? After all architects have their own language, archispeak, archibabble, or ever architorture, which on occasion can even confuse us. Are most of our brilliant ideas lost on the occupants, who seem to know what they like, and like what they know? Is it possible to communicate complex architectural ideas to the uninitiated? Or do we just hit them over the head with a big atrium, bet you can’t miss that! I always admired Robert Venturi’s approach to this conundrum. His ability to design at a very high intellectual level yet address Main Street at the same time. He managed to design buildings that satisfied his own intellectual curiosity yet worked with the prevailing vernacular, design that worked on several levels, assessable to architects and the guy on the street.

So, how can we make this highly participatory sport easily understood and more meaningful to the wide variety of users? Or do we really care? Could it be that most architecture today is just designed by architects for other architects who go around giving each other awards? Do architects want to be spectators who just watch how people react to their creations? Who is the joke really on? I would hope we would want to be participants who work with every day users to understand not only what they want but help them understand why we do what we do.