This is an investigation into the role that architecture plays upon the user and the user upon not only the architecture but other users as well. While this methodological research will be based upon the small to medium scale, much of the current research is that of polar opposites of the minute and the large, offering the possibility of referential data across scales. This scalar relationship will begin to draw conclusions about spatial human behavior and if those reactions or behaviors are “scalable.” Finally an argument will be that that architectures role within “programmed efficiency” is non-articulate and possibly non-existent. This in turn begs the question “What is the role of architecture when the program is efficiency and profit?”
The systematic approach to highly programmed design is that of efficiency based upon ergonomics, which often does not take into account the greater relationships of human to architecture and human-to-human interaction. Furthermore the images, diagrams, and ideas of these spaces eradicate any form of interaction/reaction of the user to the space. Architecture of these spaces has continued these ideas of separation so that the users, whether for work or for pleasure, became that of a hierarchical nature. The response is often of conformability with the commonality, never to articulate the potential volatility that resides in the nature of programmed space. Taken to the next step, the user can begin to question the role of programmed space and the role of architecture.
Specifically this will use site-specific information as an understanding of the human condition within programmed space. Restaurants and bars offer this site-specific nature while adhering to the potential volatility of spatial human behavior. While some would say that there is a significant difference in architecture of these space, I will see if there is or see if there is more commonality based upon user behavior. The research will further analyze other methods of behavior analysis, to discover new ways of design that will address the ideas of volatility within the spaces and within the behavior of the user upon the user or each other. Ultimately this will be an argument against architecture programs based solely of efficiency and often a byproduct of profit minded proliferation. While in turn offering architecture of “programmed randomness.”
While the current paradigm of programmed efficiency has a historical topology, one could argue that the role of architecture has not shifted. This is to say that the role of architecture to be “read” within the space has not shifted and not apparent. This presumes that the role of interior design is to create the typography (one of difference) while that of architecture is that of topography (one of sameness). Furthermore does this existing line between architecture and interior design need to exist? Whether architecture or interior design both, of these terms must be defined so that the roles of such can become clear articulations on the user and thus the users upon other users and upon the space itself.