Spaces are profoundly and continually perceived, often overlooked consciously in our daily lives. The essence of architecture, as articulated by Colin St John Wilson, "is marked above all by the quality of immediacy". Conversations around the experiential have been marginalised since modernism, labeled as subjective, unscientific, unmeasurable and therefore 'wishy-washy,' leading to the production of clumsy or out-of-touch architecture across our cities, worldwide. The challenge is compounded by the elusive task of teaching "good architecture," lacking a consensus or clear methodology for consistent design of such enchanting spaces.
Despite decades of theoretical contemplation, the field remains entrenched in the modernist school of thought in many ways, amalgamating real urban and socio-environmental concerns with the outdated tenet of function as mere 'use' or 'programme.' This type of rationality remains on a pedestal, hindering progress. And just like architecture cannot emerge from simplistic translations of function, a literal translation of a context into built symbolisms and metaphors detracts from the nuanced idiosyncrasies essential for designing a real sense of place.
"The fundamental principle remains that good architecture should be felt, not explained".
Concepts appealing to reason, often prioritised over sensory and emotional engagement, require caution. Well-intentioned concepts can lead to tactless forms causing discomfort, as seen in Libeskind's treatment of voids and verticality in the Maggie Centre. The curvaceous rooms and angular windows evoke doubt about the intended atmosphere, reminiscent of an airport rather than a healing space.
Contrastingly, an alternative lies in embracing experience as a function too, favoring the poetic over the purely conceptual. Flores y Prats exemplify this by mirroring the narrow alleyways of a neighborhood into a peculiar domestic threshold, preserving richness of meaning without resorting to superficial references. This poetic intervention, subtle and contextual in its roots, thrives on ambiguity, illustrating the potential for a more nuanced approach.
As Pallasmaa asserts throughout his body of work, architecture must evoke sensations of life, otherwise, it becomes “a mere formalist exercise" — a reality evident in many cities today. Sensibilities for such architecture are widely thought to be cultivated through experience, experimentation or genius, but that only leads the industry to hit-and-miss concepts, impacting real environments and unaware stakeholders.
In the collective disorientation of the field, good architecture seemingly emerges by chance, guided by the 'good taste and style' of select practices, and in education, there is an over-reliance in experimentation of form over the understanding of space itself. Designing towards ‘good architecture’ therefore becomes elusive since education, lacking frameworks to break the cycle.
The fundamental principle remains that good architecture should be felt, not explained, and progress across the field, from practice to education, begins with that very intention. Paying attention to the feeling of spaces unveils the overlaps in our existence and the ways we sense meaning, hinting at the potential for a more enriching and resonant experience of our cities.
