This will lead to architecture. Read on.
To most, I’d be classified as a conservative. I might be given other labels – even associated with a particular political party. Please refrain. I generally eschew, dare I say detest labels, especially anything political. I see myself generally in the middle of most issues including which way one ought to eat an Oreo cookie.
Social Media, especially Facebook tends to favor, or at least highlight, the extreme positions. During the past six months my news feed has been full of click bait for both sides of most every debate. I typically refrain from engagement except for those that welcome sarcasm. Perhaps that polarizes me to one side of a choice of humor – you decide.
The positions I take are generally ones where I aim to consider both sides of the argument. I spend much time thinking. This is something I’ve discovered about myself in the past few years. I’ve been known to be vocal and opinionated and at times; that has gotten me into trouble – perhaps created offenses I am still unaware of to this day. I do hold a strong stance on a few key issues that tie into my faith and values, but I’m quite comfortable wading in the sea of questions – especially related to architecture.
I’m careful to listen to multiple points of view when it’s done with composure instead of vitriol.
My writings and the ensuing conversation are not intended to explore anything beyond the world of architecture. Contact me personally if you’d like to discuss other matters. Yet, where does my ‘middle of the road’ mindset take me as an architect? How does it affect my work? Those are relevant questions I’m interested in exploring.
It’s unrealistic in architecture that any one issue can dominate or prevail at the expense of others. The media appears to spin that otherwise. I’m often dealing with issues of preservation, codes, zoning, economics, client preferences, budget, engineering, function, and even style (despite my uneasiness with that concept).
The aim or the endeavor is always to consider as many of the variables as possible, not giving unnecessary weight to any particular element. It invites lively conversation, it seeks to understand, and then it attempts to address all concerns. It likely only addresses most concerns.
I see it as balance. Balance is an important virtue.
As you troll through social media as well as the general media, you will find endless posts and opinions on all things architecture. Venerating some projects and vilifying some architects. It’s all in a day’s work.
I finished reading a popular biography recently that has somewhat altered my view of one particular architect. I will comment on it in the days to come, but I will say that listening to someone’s story does improve one’s view. It helps us to understand.
Isn’t that what we’re all trying to do?
Thanks for reading and commenting.
P.S. If you don’t like chocolate, you’re wrong.
…all images are mine…except Frogger…he’s on his own.