The Social Origin Of The Architectural Program

This document arises from the reading of Architect José Villagrán García, mainly from the texts titled “The Theoretical Structure of the Architectural Program” and “The Morphology of Form”. Its intention is to make a recapitulation of his ideas and point out the contributions that Social Sciences in general and Psychology in particular can make to the subject. For many professionals and architectural teachers, José Villagrán is an author out of time.

For professionals, during their practice, there is not much time to reflect on the approaches put forward by Villagrán or anyone else, reflection seems somewhat useless. On the other hand, some teachers confuse theory with current styles, without observing that one thing is the way of giving expressive form to architectural works and another is the way of explaining them.

Given these circumstances, I wish to return to the sense of theory with an academic purpose, understanding it as a comprehensive synthesis of the knowledge that a science has obtained in the study of a certain order of facts. Observing that knowledge is not fashion, it is reasoning that is demonstrated with facts and arguments that, as long as no facts or arguments are found that deny or modify them, continue to be valid regardless of their time.

It is for this reason that I interpret Villagrán, because his arguments are efficient, even when there are new contributions that complement him, as will be explained below.

He analyze the architectural program It is relevant due to the lack of bibliography and agreement on what it is and contains. In addition, it has fundamental importance, since it represents the first stage of conception of the architectural work, which guides, establishes the criteria of the project and the parameters to evaluate the efficiency or otherwise of its results.

It should be noted that when analyzing the architectural program from Villagrán’s perspective it does not represent a design method, it proposes the theoretical tools of a research method to identify the goals that the architectural composition must follow, it represents the initial conceptual process of identification and conception of the demands that the work must respond to fully satisfy the habitability needs of humanity.

Of course the approach and development of these ideas they imply a definition of the architecture and the conception process that can be widely discussed. This work does not pretend to be a finished position, it only seeks to participate in the reflection that the topic requires.

To understand what the architectural program is, it is important to locate its origin and its purpose, that is, to identify not only the causes mechanically, but also to expose the logic to which it responds. Only from these clarifications can we understand the content of making architecture, its teleology.

The purpose and cause of architecture is to build habitable spaces, that is, spaces in which man and society can satisfy their space needs in an integrated and full way. For this reason its origin It is man and society, that is obvious, however it is important to explain how buildings and environments should satisfy spatial needs in an integral way? How can natural space and cultural space be transformed to obtain buildings and cities in which man can live?

Habitability must be the goal of any architectural program, because when it stops being so, the built forms are not architecture, even if they respond to other purposes that, such as habitability, may be essential.

Habitability does not refer only to interior and closed built spaces, but to all spaces that, in the broad architectural connotation, include both delimited and delimiting spaces (the walls and the space they contain), both built and natural or landscaped.

HABITABILITY IS THE ESSENTIAL CATEGORY OF THE ARCHITECTURAL PROGRAM.

To achieve this goal it is necessary understand the culture and use this knowledge to create architectural spaces. Different factors intervene in this process, which will be explained below:

What every architect needs to do to start his work is to know what he wants to build, this fact seems simple, however, it is necessary for the architect to define for what purpose he intends to build, the destination that a work will have, which It depends on the place and the historical moment in which you are.

A common fact is simplify this work through prototypesas if automatically using a model would lead to success. Experience demonstrates its failure through society’s rejection.

Enrique del Moral in his work “Man and Architecture” published by the UNAM points out that when the architect imposes his criteria he generates sterile works, lacking social meaning. Thus, the first step that the architect must take is to understand the spatial needs of the inhabitant, which can only be achieved when the architect himself has knowledge of the way in which a culture lives and manifests his personality. Noting that The understanding of the space problem goes beyond culturesince if this goal is not achieved, the inconveniences manifest themselves economically when the spaces, by not responding to the expectations of the inhabitants, lose value or, when the buildings, by not responding to the demands of society, become a political conflict.

To begin the explanation of how to respond to the demands of space and define the content of architectural works, their destiny, Villagrán invites us to consider what he calls the Chronotopic Law. In it he explains that all cultures are unique and even when they share times or spaces that identify them, the development of each of them is different.

It should be noted that the problem of cultural diversity is also experienced by each individual; The architect himself lives this process and imprints his personal style on his work in such a way that he himself must get to know himself.

For an architect to be able to do his job, he needs to understand what they are. the beliefs and spatial behaviors of the inhabitants, why they act in a certain way, how they judge the facts and place the objectives of their daily life, without knowing this they would act blindly. Even when you know that you have a specific assignment, your imagination will not be able to operate knowing only the idea of ​​the building, the destination alone does not completely solve the problem. The construction will be different according to the place where it is located, not only because of the climate, The soil and culture of the place will also affect it.

The inhabitant and even the architect react differently depending on the historical moment in which they live and the place where they are, for this same reason the destination acquires different profiles depending on its spatial and temporal location.

It is very important to observe that every culture occurs in time and space, in such a way that when any of these coordinates vary, the entire culture changes, changing in a progressive or regressive sense but ultimately changing. From these changes it is possible to observe how identity and cultural evolution or imposition and cultural confrontation are manifested.

When faced with a problem, it is inevitable for any architect to intuit a form. If, for example, you are asked to build a house, the first thing that comes to mind is to formulate a personal idea of ​​what a “house” is. If he developed his work only from that archetype, he would fall into the errors mentioned above, which is why, starting from this idea, from this archetype, it is necessary to ask all the particularities to get away from it and penetrate into the concretion of the particular. .

Ask yourself for example:

• What is this house going to be used for? ¿
• What type of house do you want?
• What capacity will it have?
• What way of living will the people who inhabit them have?

The awareness of what the space needs to contain to satisfy the needs of the inhabitant, identifying the spatial demands is not easy or immediate to consciousness. It is a more practical than rational fact.

Answering the previous questions is not enough to give a full sense to the demands of the space, it is necessary to ask other basic questions along with: Why? It is also essential to know where? The place where a space is going to be built is not a fundamental element to define the purpose, as already explained, the basic principle of demand is found in man and society, however, it will not be possible to give a full response to it without understand the place where the inhabitant is located. Its climate, topography and geology. These aspects determine the various manifestations of culture and the various construction forms that resolve the difficulties that the environment offers to achieve a more habitable space for human beings.

The architect’s problem is to become aware of what the inhabitant experiences, for which he has to carry out an investigation.

Specifically, Villagrán points out that the law of chronotopes applied to the program, that is TO THE IDENTIFICATION OF THE SPACE REQUIREMENTS THAT A WORK TO BE DESIGNED MUST SATISFYis expressed by saying that: to each historical time and each geographical space, there corresponds its own Program and vice versa: every Program is determined by its location, both in space and in time. In other words, each Program is structured according to its chronotopic location and, consequently, no program can belong to a time other than its own or a space different from its own, regardless of whether, at a given moment, the cultures of two different geographical spaces coincide and their physical determinants also coincide equally. The variations are subject to human vital attitudes towards the culture that animates them.

It should be noted that the chronotopic location It provokes various relationships between the subjectivity of the architect and the objective conditions in which the space problem that demands an architectural intervention arises.

The objective of the spatio-temporal determinants is filtered by the subjective of the inhabitant and at the same time by the subjectivity of the architect. These determinants are learned by him and are projected onto the program, creating a “diagnosis.” a first image of knowledge, a principle of creation, the result of the idea that the architect of the problem has, and therefore loaded with subjectivity and relative objectivity, since the diagnosis is based on the determinants of origin that pose the problem .

The subjectivity and objectivity They are categories of the architectural program, observing that it is determined by the problem, both remain correlated but independent of each other, the problem is apprehended by the architect and the program is the result of this apprehension (an analysis is carried out and a synthesis is reached, the parties are identified and subsequently a judgment is made).

There are three elements that are presented in this habitability identification process: the objective problem (in which the subjectivity of culture and the objectivity of the environment in which it is located are present) the architect as subject (which also subjectively filters the objective problem according to their training and personality) and finally the program which thus acquires a subjective and objective character simultaneously.

The architect filters the ideas of the problem in two media, one in the culture in which he operates and the other in his personality.

The prevailing culture establishes circumstantial purposes based on the ways of living and building, and then passes through these same circumstances through the personality of the architect. This provokes styles, marks eras, identifies cultures and makes architecture as diverse as humanity itself.

“These simple reflections show that the problem is outside the architect and that only his apprehension is competent. (not only intellectual, also emotional) and its projection in the program itself to, from this first step of creation, continue towards the other two times of this transcendent process“:

• Experience
• Identification of the expressive demands of society (Diagnosis)
• Formation of ideas

The objective nature of the problem places the architect in front of it and not within it. It is the problem itself, through the mediation of the generic client and the advisors who work in its approach, which provides the architect with the framework against which he formulates the questionnaire that his preparation and talent inspire, with the idea of ​​capturing the best way the totality of determinants that said problem has, through his personal evidence, investigates it, explores it and in the end develops his first creative step, which is the program.

This research process is what we call architectural propaedeutics due to the similarity that this study has with pre-operative medical and surgical procedures; since both tend to obtain the symptomatic data through which the doctor and the surgeon establish their diagnosis and from there propose the treatment that should be followed with the patient.

The architect proceeds in a similar way. From his experience he arrives at the composition. It is necessary to take care to imagine the architect as the source of solution to any problem that arises; it is essential to know the problem before attempting a proposal.

Every program, in its general aspect, apparently refers to a series of essential determinants and purposes that come from habitat and culture; in such a way that the architect of all times has learned these determinants in the geographical – physical and in the cultural geographical; But he must not lose sight of the fact that in all cases, in front of these two massive bundles, the same culture rises as the guide and nerve or soul of structuring, of its apprehension and, importantly, of its self-contemplation.

Among the aspects that the architect must investigate, it cannot be overlooked to know What resources do you have to do the work? Know the amount of financial resources available to carry out the work. Only by having the complete answer to these three points will you have the necessary elements to be able to conceive an idea, in the imagination first, on paper later and finally in the construction itself.

Villagrán explains that a program is: ” the set of requirements that a work to be planned must satisfy“It is vitally important to understand this set of demands.

From the above it can be understood that the demands represent what the architect identifies as spatial demand, after knowing the spatial needs and aspirations of the inhabitant, the place where he plans to locate the space with which he seeks to satisfy his spatial demand and the resources with which that counts.

Villagrán criticizes the creation of an economic or functional list of what the building needs to have because this causes the architectural program to lose its content and become a barely eloquent set of data without meaning and without analysis. Villagrán is interested in the program identifying what culturally, symbolically, the space needs to acquire as content, that this identification motivates and guides the process of composition and construction of the work.

It is obvious that the economic and functional must be present, but it is essential that the architect feels the purposes and desires that the inhabitant wishes to achieve with the space.

The simple and fundamental questions about That ? So that ? Where ? With what? They must be resolved by the architect to clearly determine the habitability requirements that will guide the entire architectural process.

Perhaps the problem is in the word program, meaning a way of ordering activities, like an announcement or presentation of what you plan to do. Perhaps it is more convenient to talk about Architectural Intentions. That is a point that must be analyzed in the academy and that for now only remains as a comment.

Another important aspect to highlight is the approach of solve human needs in a “comprehensive” way When exposing, he expresses his concern that man find satisfaction in his physical, biological, social, psychological, and aesthetic condition. Only by satisfying all requirements would complete habitability and a total conception of needs be achieved.

Identification of these different dimensions of habitability is not an easy task, especially the psychosocial and aesthetic elements, in which culture manifests the way of thinking and judging, to the extent that they modify the judgment of the physical and biological depending on the social formation in which it was developed. a way of thinking. A few more observations need to be made on these aspects.

The way to value a built spacedoes not depend on unique and universal criteria, when observing in different periods, diverse manifestations of being and living, different ways of giving content and expression to architectural works are found, in such a way that the way of evaluating them does not depend on what personally think a critic, it depends on the correct location in time and space of the work and the correspondence between the needs and aspirations of society with the spaces it built.

For the architect to define his professional intentionsIn the evaluation criteria of a built space, it is essential to recognize what the inhabitant of the space needs or wants and what content it provides.

This is not an easy task and from Villagrán’s perspective it depends on the artistic sensitivity of the professional since these aspirations and needs are of a spiritual nature, with a content of infinite diversity. And indeed they are, but it is appropriate to resort to what Psychology can contribute to identify them.

There are various tools that allow us to recognize the way in which inhabitants perceive their space and the way in which they evaluate it, which can be useful to the architect, depending on their appropriate use.

Cognitive maps, semantic networks, environmental simulation, behavioral observation, attitude scales, are some of them.

Are psychometric techniques, formulated by a discipline in training such as Environmental Psychology, does not yet find its place in the professional field of Architecture due to the lack of orientation of the objectives of each, while for psychology the problem is to identify its categories of analysis. (overcrowding or satisfaction for example) or in the best of cases it explains the interaction of man and his space in a general way, for architecture its fundamental problem is the conception of the content that the space requires to have, it also analyzes the relationship of man with space but in a very particular way in architectural works. However, the need to link one and the other is raised in the discourse of architecture itself and its articulation is unavoidable.

This article is merely informative, at PsychologyFor we do not have the power to make a diagnosis or recommend a treatment. We invite you to go to a psychologist to treat your particular case.

If you want to read more articles similar to The social origin of the architectural program we recommend that you enter our Social Psychology category.