Though my architecture theory class only meets once a week, we've already covered topics that have radically challenged the way I view architecture, and I have now shifted my own personal approach to design.
One of the more enlightening discussions have been about architecture and the body. I've always been acutely aware of the ways in which the built world is not made with me in mind. As a five foot tall woman, the challenges confront me every day: shelves are too high to reach, mirrors capture only the top of my head, clothes are too big and too long, and gym equipment still uncomfortable at the shortest settings. I mostly adjust without complaint, climbing on kitchen countertops, stretching to my tippy toes, or centering my gym workouts on the machines that accommodate my size. Because I can-- I am short, but I am healthy and able-bodied. But I envision an environment where I shouldn't have to, and different or disabled bodies shouldn't have to either. I'm not talking solely about custom design-- while this is appropriate in personal, residential spaces, it's not always economical for public spaces. I'm envisioning adaptable design.
The majority of architects throughout history and still today are able-bodied, white males. While this is not inherently a problem, it must be better acknowledged that they see the world first from the perspective of an able-bodied white male, and the majority of them respond through design to the world in this way. I'd like to think that the world is growing more socially-conscious, and that technologies like the internet is giving a platform to new voices. Different perspectives and identities are being considered in unprecedented ways. But there is still a ton of progress left to be made. For example, though roughly half of architecture school graduates are women, they make up only 30% of licensed, practicing architects. My thesis class discussed this statistic, and thought critically about why this might be. There are prevailing global stereotypes that women do not think as well spatially; that architecture is a man's job. Our professor shared that oftentimes, architecture firms are not friendly to women, as is the case in many other high-level professions, though the gender gap is larger in the field of architecture. We considered that the long hours and travel are not conducive to a work/life balance, referring of course to motherhood and the other domestic duties that still primarily fall to women.
What then is the solution? I myself am not totally committed to the idea of becoming an architect. A healthy work/life balance seems less achievable in that field compared to others, especially with my workaholic tendencies. And, frankly, a field that is primarily white and male-dominated is intimidating. Is it hypocritical for me to recognize that the field of architecture needs new voices and perspectives, but I myself am not willing to take up the challenge?
Regardless of whether or not I am a catalyst, I believe there needs to be change. First, the architects that are currently practicing should be designing in a way that is more inclusive. There is amazing talent and technology in this field that should be utilized to make the built world welcoming and comfortable for all that might inhabit it. It should not fall solely to minority groups to make architecture and design more inclusive. There is undoubtedly something to be gained from various experiences and identities, and so the field of architecture needs to expand to better welcome women and other minorities. How can architecture consider itself an intersectional practice if it is unwilling to continuously open itself up to different perspectives?
Successful architecture has always been conceived in relation to the body; the human scale. But now it should be considered in terms of all bodies; the range of human scale.