A Human and Architecture

Humans and built environment interfaces in a South-East Asian context.

“The art of building emerges from the art of living, just as the art of cookery can be said to be the product of the art of eating” - Witold Rybczynski

Throughout my few years of practice in interior and architecture (pre- and post-graduate) I have often found myself in tension and in question towards the complexity of elements and systems that goes towards designing something. The constant need to interrogate and balance a multitude of aspects forces one to always consider other possibilities, perspectives, and even accommodate other opinions and thoughts. I believe that the dialogue between such topics, and the integrity to question and pursue them enriches design.

This is the start, and Architecture and Human will be a reflection of my architectural journey — an open space to explore ideas, experiments, and curiosities that inspire me. I will be exploring how architecture connects us to the built environment and vice versa. 

Many years ago during my undergraduate studies in Interior Architecture in Sydney, I had the privilege to go on a summer elective course abroad, exploring the ideas and effects of informal architecture in the context of South-East Asia. A vast contrast from the over-regulated and systematic suburban Sydney, it opened up my eyes to how human needs affect the built environment. Although I, myself, am South-East Asian, I always viewed these informal architectural situations as “obtrusive” and “unappealing”. However, since this course, I now question every built form (i.e., why did they design it this way?) and experience a paradigm shift towards such interventions as a method of empowerment and empathy for direct user needs. Where the needs of human life come to the forefront of architecture and urbanism, it shapes a vernacular that is empathetic and vulnerable. An urban dynamism of variety, complexity, and nuances - one befitting of extrapolating the human condition in built form.  

Ever since, the human relation with the built environment has always intrigued me. Such as being present while mindfully eating - to take in your surroundings, the people you are with, and what you are consuming, I aim to do the same by mindfully being as I interact with the world around me. During my continued education in Melbourne for my Master’s degree, my studio projects all sought to explore this tension and dynamism between the human, building, and urban city scales. In architecture and design, we explore these complexities at different scales; from 1:1, to 1:100, even 1:500 to 1:1000s. Since we cannot truly represent a building in its entirety and true size, we utilise these scales to distil amounts of information that represent the outcome. For example, a scale of 1:100 is 1 unit of measurement on paper representing and relating to 100 units of measurement in real life. 

With the scale of Human:Building:City, I was curious with what happens (and could happen) at the colon (:). One thing to another; transitional and liminal. What is the relationship between them? How is information carried across? How does one thing affect the other? This exchange not only happens on paper, but is a daily occurrence with each and every thing we interact with.

Around this period of learning, like many of my peers, Atelier Bow-Wow became a source of intrigue. From their highly polished technical presentation drawing style, to their intellectual thought provoking essays and lectures - their work always opened up discussions in the studio regarding humans and the space they occupy. Their published works such as Pet Architecture, Made In Tokyo, and Behaviorology, further shaped my interest to further explore this connection between human and architecture and what could become. In their writing, they question the relationships between the built environment and the users of the space, which were further exemplified through their own body of work. These ideas were explored through not just the tactile and physical, but the ephemeral and intellectual qualities that affect one’s perception of space. 

Stepping into the realm of architectural practice, I have felt a disjunction. Maybe due to the projects and typologies I worked on - or due to certain differing ethos, or complicated client needs and wants. Whichever it was, I felt a disconnection from the architecture and the humans perceived to occupy the space. Even out in the wild, buildings seemingly devoid of terms such as ‘architecture’, and unintelligible to empathy plague urban fabrics around Australia.

Therefore, I question, how do we navigate this societal paradigm of architecture and reckless gaudy habitats (AARGH!!) and shift this to an empathetic architectural language that is thoughtful of the architectural and human (AAH!) symbiotic relationship? Often this symbiosis and rationale comes with much rigor and expectation. However, when applied to practice, such morals are seemingly lost, forgotten, or not considered. 

Most of everything in our environment has been built; though it poses a question of who was it built for? Such an unassuming question, but by exploring through this lens, we start to provoke design and everything around us. How do we (and how can we) design for the human condition?  

AAH! This is just the beginning, with so much to unpack and explore. Let’s see where it goes!