Freedom
Should Architecture follows the plan or not has become a question that has continued to haunt
the theories and practice of architecture. Even tho it is a simple question, there are a lot of views
and perspectives to consider and it might even change the whole system. It gives a lot of problems
mainly to urban planners. But if “non-plan” has to be followed then what are the consequences that
might affect the world. As it might lead to the power play of the world. As there are advantages and
disadvantages to everything.
The response to the question can be grouped into two broad approaches those which consider the
possibility of non-planning within the context of existing social and economic infrastructures and those
which confront existing structures as limiting conditions which much be transgressed.
The scope for differing and inconsistent responses to the question is great and resulting in which
the post-war period has witnessed testify to the politics and social perspectives that can be brought
to bear on the subject. This is not to say that all authors believe that non-planning is wholly desirable,
let alone achievable.
In 1969, Cedric Price with Paul Barker who is a writer published “Non-plan: an experiment in freedom”
article together with Architecture Historian and geographer and planner.
This book targeted towards Urban planning and the situation might get worse if there is no planning in
the future. The idea makes the architects and urban planners to angry as it went against the things that
have been done in the same way of the built environment.
It is also mentioned that the Architects and planners should think about where people want to live and
how they want to live instead of telling them to live in this way. As this will make the people to get more
comfortable as people have their own ideas and preferences. The idea of the non-plan was to make the
architects and planners and the people to get close to each other and understand each other.
Comments
Post a Comment