Protest but through architecture
“Objective” design and a love letter to Neo-Andean Architecture
Is design taste quantifiable?
I’ve been interested in automating “good design” for a while. For example, That’s a Cute House! was an experiment in teaching machines to judge curb appeal. And “Judgemental Jayne” is me, as a Sketch plugin, judging your typography. (Shawn helped me make this plugin a few years ago, but apparently has no recollection of it).
We created repeatable rules and systems that can “objectively” say whether a house or design is good or not without additional human input. But clearly, the basis for these rules is unapologetically just based on my own personal taste. So, I find it interesting to see how this idea of “objective” design rules can play out in the real world.
Objective design standards
California passed a bunch of laws in the past few years with the goal of streamlining housing production (because housing crisis). Now multi-family housing projects can’t be denied on the basis of subjective design guidelines. Instead, they have to meet measurable objective design review standards.
“objective design review standards” mean standards that involveinvolve no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and are uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant and public official prior to submittal. (Source)
Some cities are already working on updating their standards, but many many more will be playing catch up this year. I’ve been collecting these “objective design standards” from different cities to see how they are trying to make good design “objective.” I call it ODDSY:
Reading through all of these standards (and trying to write them as well) raises all sorts of questions for me though. How can we make standards that don't just churn out more “Spongebuild Squareparts” style apartments that everyone complains about? But also, if this is the most affordable way to build new housing, should it be discouraged? Or streamlined?
And whose idea of “good” should be codified as the gold standard? Does preserving “neighborhood character” suggest that the dominant class’ taste is the norm that everyone should aspire to? Design choices are so tied to culture and history¹ and sometimes signal changes in the make-up of a community. Even simple fence choices can say a lot.
A form of protest but through architecture
I came across² these buildings in Bolivia and went down a rabbit hole learning more about this Neo-Andean style. I’ve been thinking about these buildings for weeks. Here’s Freddy Mamanis explaining his work in his own words:
“This is also a form of protest but through architecture, we are showing who we are, what we want, and what we have.” — Freddy Mamanis Silvestre
Obviously, the building's vibrant exuberant exteriors and interiors were the first things I noticed. I love bold choices. But more than that, I love that it is an expression of successful Aymara people celebrating their culture and history. After years of being oppressed and discriminated these owners are showcasing their own idea of fancy, instead of trying to emulate some Euro-centric model.
“I am an Aymara woman, proud of my culture, happy and full of color. So why should my home not show what I am?” — Rosario Leuca
Mixed-use funhouse
I also keep thinking about is how these buildings are used. They’re “a mixed-use funhouse, with commercial space on the ground floor, a double-height party hall above, and a couple of floors of rental apartments, all topped with a house for the owner on the roof, set back on its own terrace.” Sometimes there are also indoor soccer fields above the party hall. And the home at the top is often a duplex.
When these owners became successful they built these structures that create opportunities for new merchants, community gathering space, recreation space, and additional housing. All underneath their own home. This seems so different than the norm here where the wealthy just build large walled-off single-family estates for themselves.
What would happen if the social norm for rich folks in California was to build apartments and community space within their own expensive mansions? What would happen if zoning allowed for these “mixed-use funhouses” in residential neighborhoods?
Anyways, I guess I just hope that when each of the cities throughout California goes through the exercise of making “objective” standards we think a lot about what norms get standardized in the process. I’m really curious to see what effect these new objective standards have on the types of housing getting built in the next few years.
Notes
- Shawn and I have been trying to figure out what kind of window treatments to put up in our new condo. Even though I kinda like the look of “plantation shutters” we’re not into the conservative southern plantation vibes. Then Shawn’s dad told us about this ridiculous commercial he actually sees on TV in Florida. So, I guess we’re definitely not getting them now.
- Discovered it in one of my favorite Facebook groups, That’s it I’m Architecture Shaming, which has a lot of hilariously awful buildings and a few awesome gems like these.
