1997_2 |
Anette Sommer
Architects´ language - Users´ language-
Interpreters in planning
1) Prologue
1Imagine you were an architect and you had a contract.
For this project it would be possible to get into contact with the actual future users.
What would you do? Would you take advantage of this opportunity? What would you ask the
people and how would you do this?
And after you got the information, how would you include it into your design process?
Would you consider this information at all?
2) Introduction
2The subject "architecture-language-epistemology" leads my focus on
the differences in the languages that architects on the one hand, and everyday users on
the other hand use when talking about architecture. I am concentrating on the difficulties
in mutual understanding between the two groups.
First I will try to describe how architects, because of their education, relate to
different experiential backgrounds and reality standards concerning architecture than
users do. And this impacts the languages used when talking about architecture.
My question is: Are there possibilities of interpreting these two languages of
architecture? How can one translate the users´ language, based on everyday use, into
architects´ language, based on concepts? Is it possible? And why should one even bother?
In this context I will present some findings of an empirical investigation, that was done
as part of a just realized dialogue-oriented planning strategy here in Cottbus.
3) Language
3Please let me make some rather evident conclusions on the phenomenon of
language in order that I may develop their relevance for my thesis.
Day by day we talk to many people - to intimate friends, family, collegues, acquaintances
of any kind. We have learned what to say to whom, when and how, what is OK and what
isn´t. We exchange our experiences via some kind of language, while there is a consensus
on signs and rules1.
With some we have a better understanding, with some less. Theoretically we are also able
to communicate with people where this consensus is not yet evident, such as people with
other cultural, subcultural or professional backgrounds, even with animals ; if we do want
to understand them and take the time we need to mutually express ourselves.
Basically we have every possibility that one can think of and use, to symbolically encode
our self-expressions: Facial expressions, body gestures/ movements/ positioning, skin
reactions, tones and voices, plus the aid of objects2.
The prerequisite for understanding is a consensus on signs, which implies that
communication partners are able to interpret the signs and especially invest the time and
patience needed to engage into this en- and decoding or rather translation process3.
In our context I would prefer to define language generally as a communication system,
serving in principle as a means of transport, in order to exchange experiences with others
and to understand what others have experienced. Language therefore has a fundamental
social aspect4. By communicating we express our experiences and thereby identify with them.
On the other hand we also receive feedback from our environment, which helps to somehow
classify what we experienced. In this way we receive additional information, and another
quasi experience is made. Language therefore is a means to classify experiences in our
world view and ourselves in this world, testing and developing our concepts at the same
time5.
4Yet we should distinguish: the experiences one makes are not identical with
the coded and communicated information. Experiences and their connected thoughts and
emotions are hardly ever as ordered and consecutive as language suggests, although they
help us to share. Thoughts seem to chase each other, muddle and happen at the same time.
Emotions are often contradictory and can inhibit clear thoughts. Still we try with the
help of a means of expression, which we socially understand as effective, to communicate
our experiences as appropriately and coherently as possible. This implies: we conclude,
reduce, interpret, observe - and depending on the partner receiving this information, the
outcome will vary somehow. Our partner (or ourselves if we are the listener) is concerned
with a back-translation refering to the background of their own experiences and concepts.
They extend, compose, fill gaps as they please, interpret, make prognoses, and translate
the information in a differently structured frame of experience. This implies that, even
if I know the rules, there is no guarantee that I will understand or will be understood,
in a sense that understanding means getting as close as possible to what I intend to
express.
The transport itself is not enough, because it also needs a process of understanding, such
as double checks, and feedback. The more similar the frames of experiences, as in
families, between close friends and collegues, the faster understanding may happen - and
even in these cases explanations and feedback are necessary6.
5Language as a means of expression is socially learned in large and small
groups that we live in: the language of a country, a regional dialect, subculturally used
languages or professional languages.
It´s not the language that in principle distinguishes groups, but these languages
seemingly happen to express most adequately specific experiences with specific aspects of
environment shared among the group members.The used language therefore is the best known
and practiced way for expressing and sharing these experiences -at least within the group.
If one cannot refer to certain experiences, e.g. parachute jumping or reading high
standard city maps, exchanging and understanding are inhibited and intensive efforts are
needed to translate them into another frame of reference. The same happens when concepts
about the world and the environment are structured and coded differently, as is often
found between generations or professional groups.
6Because of their individual, social, physical and cultural experiences,
everyone develops a structured and consistent concept of the world, which increasingly is
revised. Orientation in the environment is optimized and predictions are made, the goal
being a more effective interaction with the world.
If I agree to a mutual process of understanding, I would try to re-interpret and thereby
understand the communicated information from my experiential background, e.g. try to
include it into my system. Confronted with a strange and challenging perspective, which I
couldn´t easily intergrate and I couldn´t really understand, I would be forced to either
extend and make changes in my system or reduce the spectrum of my experiences in order
keep everything as it is - which implies that I wouldn´t really be open for a process of
mutual understanding. Motivation hereby seems to play an important role7.
4) Architecture
7So what about architects and non-architects, talking about architecture?
The subculture with its specialized language in which architects are socialized mainly
refers to observations on ideas, concepts and plans about physical space and quasi
idealized users. The environmental aspects of concern include structure, form, norm,
function, construction and material of the physical environment.
The use of architecture 1:1 in everyday life though is far removed from this ideal; it
lies in individual routines, patterns of action, perception and experience which
are temporarily, socially, individually and physically correlated in a complex way. For
every one of us it is somewhat different, because other aspects seem important at the
time. The experience of architecture in everyday life thus is far from the ideal in the
sense that it is related to a totally different standard with many more relevant
perspectives than the physical or spatial. Experiences of architects (shaped by planning
concerns) and users (shaped by appropriation) are therefore expressed in different
languages.
Users don´t only talk about space and material when they talk about architecture, but
about what they do and how and when and with whom and why and what is important and what
they enjoy and so on. Architecture is embedded in their complex daily experiences with
their individual environmental aspects and isn´t reflected in its specifity, like
architects for example are trained.
8When talking to users about their neighborhood one somehow must
acknowledge that they won´t easily reflect architecture seperately from familiy life and
work. However they could relate a lot about their life in and around a specific building.
When talking to architects about buildings one has to somehow acknowledge that they
will concentrate on concepts, layouts and functioning" (there seems to be an
unspoken consensus regarding this terms meaning...).
Users usually can´t make a lot out of the architects´ "concepts" - if they
should ever learn about it- and architects on the other hand are often disappointed if
talking to users, because they seem to have heard almost nothing "about
architecture" but a lot about "the users´life"8.
Architects´language and users´language both make statements about architecture on the
background of their frames of reference. Neighter one or the other is better or worse than
the other, talking about architecture, both describing reality. In order to understand
both users and architects and to eventually evaluate architecture, those distinct frames
of references mut be explicitly acknowledged. If architects shall understand the users or
users the architects -e.g. during the process of planning- one needs a procedure of mutual
translation and a specially motivated interactive process of understanding.
9What then are the implications for planning and evaluation of architecture?
First one must state -refering to recent planing practice- thet there is a lack of
interaction between users and architects. This is especially true in planning itself. So
far it became clear that a nourishing contact demands for appropriate motivation and
openness on both sides. This, though, usually isn´t available - thinking of time
schedules, money, status quo - if architects don´t make extraordinary efforts or external
interpreters" are asked to moderate -I will soon come to explain this with a
practical example.
10After all, how should one translate? Where is the "dictionary"?
Where the "grammer"? There are approaches to develop translation rules, for
example the tremendous effort done with the "Pattern Language" by C. Alexander,
S. Ishikawa & M. Silverstein (1977). But often such ideas are judged as driving out
degrees of freedom and are therefore neglected by architects. Surely it is a difficult, if
not impossible task to find a commonly accepted grammer or a dictionary, taken for being
granted. But maybe this isn´t necessary in the end? Maybe it is possible to find a common
frame of reference for both groups, which they share besides architecture?
5) A translation approach in two stages
11Considering a setting for planning where interaction between architects and
users could take place with a goal of mutual understanding, how should one proceed in
order to make it work as far as useful outcome, money and time is concerned?
In the beginning you already tried to think of possibilities - let´s take a situation in
Cottbus for further discussion9. There the city asked for a redesign of the "Altmarkt" in a
dialogue-oriented way, meaning to include more citizen involvement than is usual in public
domains where demanded by law.
12Here I will focus on the section where 1) the predesign concept was
introduced to the public and 2) feedback of the potential future users influenced the
re-evaluation of concept. For me the task was to enhance a dialogue on the plan, which
implied that we needed a translation process during the planning stage itself, going in
both directions, based on a process of mutual understanding.
5.1. Translation stage I
13The aim of this translation was - regarding what we already discussed - to
give the citizens any help necessary for them to understand the main features of the
architects approach and concept.
5.1.1.
Theoretical Considerations
14Design process typically deals with ideas, the real project not yet being
constructed. Like that the citizens at this stage had to be confronted with architects´
language. I have already outlined why it would be a problem to get users, without this
experiential background, to think about architecture on that level. - They are specialized
in 1:1 appropriation. Asking them about the concept demands a) an understanding of the
idea and b) the ability to mentally and emotionally move within this virtual in 1:100
abstracted situation, thus relating their experiences.
15Even if users are not familiar with architectural plans and models it is
possible to create reference to a common experience. The thinking in models and
experiences with smaller standards and abstract realities is familiar to everyone who has
grown up in our culture insofar as such abstract operations take place in playing -
children with their model railways, building bricks or dolls - and facilitate a
fundamental step in cognitive development11. This experience remains with us and offers a common reference that
would make it possible also for non-architects to refer to design models, with some
assistance.
Assistance would imply, to encourage people to implement their thoughts spontaneously and
playfully into the model, and in general play with their ideas. It seems to be important
for the interviewer to behave as a model in this context, giving the rules, showing how to
do it and like that - this I consider very important to make the translation work -
motivate others, to open up for a process of mutual understanding10.
In this sense I like to call this whole procedure "model-play-interviews". Even
though this title might have some not so serious connotation it seems to be exactly this
playful aspect that facilitates the process, not only triggering creative potentials but
also cognitively and emotionally creating an appropriation-like experiential frame of
reference yet being within design process. Another important factor for this procedure
lies in the fact, that the design concept is not only described in the architects´ words,
but that it is tried, as good as possible, to describe it in its possible impacts for
everyday life situations, thus relating the abstract idea to practical experiences.
5.1.2. Procedure
16The participants were enabled, by an easy to understand vivid three
dimensional model (1:100) of this predesign concept, created by the architects, where
positions of objects could be changed or objects (i.e. cars, trees, benches, fountain...)
completely removed. People could walk around the model and see it from a birds´eye view
or from a ground level. There was additional material available to quickly create new
objects, e.g. by cutting styrodur.
With the help of this model and in every day examples I explained the idea and showed the
areas and aspects that still had to be discussed. The questions and suggestions of the
participants were directly translated into consequences for the model, e.g. objects were
taken out out or moved to other places. The impacts of these changes for the whole layout
of the area were discussed and checked if they were really wanted11.
The whole process was taped and each final outcome was photographed.
5.1.3. Evaluation
17How did this first stage of translation work out after all? Regarding
previous considerations the citizens should show evidence that they were able to evaluate
the plan in interaction with their experiential background.
In the beginning they often offered cliché solutions, but through the process they
related it to what they experienced in front of this model situation and sometimes came up
with new and unique solutions. They checked their ideas with the probable consequences,
they took the ideas of the architects seriously and tried to understand them, they tried
to think with the larger perspective in mind, and related their personal wishes and needs
to this.
Analysis of the interviews process show, that all participants, having received such
assistance and translation help (ca. 100), were able to indulge into this rather complex
and abstract process of problem solving in front of this three dimensional mini-model.
18Another case I consider important: Sometimes the architects themselves
dropped by and talked to the people. They sincerely tried to explain their approach with
the help of the model and with every day examples, but their problem was, that as soon as
the person understood and then evaluated the concept from their point of view, the
architects became trapped in a rather familiar situation: they started to defend their
concept. Like that they didn´t really succeed in simply listening and trying to
understand.
19A quasi control group of another 40 participants existed also. This group
didn´t receive special help with the model. Although they were able to change things and
were told the main features of the concept, they didn´t receive help in translating their
ideas into consequences for the whole area - a rather normal situation in common public
participation strategies, one could say.
There was hardly any interaction with the features of the predesign concept and the model.
Usually -without the interpreters deliberate assitstance - opinions were mentioned and
problems in general were described without reference to what was there in the model - i.e.
the architects´ ideas how to deal with such problems and opinions possibly, practically
and aesthetically.
It was interesting to see that in this group there was rarely anything to photograph,
because nothing was moved or added or related to the predesign model.
20The different development in those two groups implies that translation help
is indeed facilitating and intensifying feedback directly on the concept model, based on
appropriation experience, if users are deliberately motivated and encouraged to indulge
into interaction with the planners´ considerations concerning their possible future.
5.2 Translation stage II
21The second stage aimed at translating the divers and complex user perceptions
for the architects, e.g. assisting them in understanding and implementing this feedback
into their further design considerations.
Let us go back one step: The user feedback existed as photographed solution options and
taped interview processes. For architects´ language, as we discussed before, practical
spatial solutions fit very well and, accordingly, in this case the architects tried to get
a hold of those photo prints already during the interview process. Certainly one can think
of a concept evaluation on this level but such a translation strategy seems not enough.
5.2.1. Theoretical
Considerations
22Therefore I´d like to explain my theoretical considerations in more detail.
Users are specialists in architecture appropriation, architects in planning. This shall
not imply that non-architects don´t have good ideas or that architects are not themselves
users of architecture. Yet a certain specialization can be acknowledged, e.g.
non-architects overseeing aspects while trying to find spatial solutions, because they are
not used to thinking about spacial features and behavior/experience in that specific way,
and architects on the other hand having a perception of architecture specifically
concerned about the building and therefore professionally socialized and trained.
With this in mind the non-architects feedback shouldn´t be reduced to its spatial
solutions and statements. As a matter of fact a way should be found to communicate the
information based on complex every day use experience, in a way that comes close to the
architects´ way of thinking and designing.
23Assuming that again a commonly shared experiential level for architects and
non-architects should be found, not necessarily refering to space, I thought of the
ability to deal with problems in the environment. Architects are trained to solving design
tasks, i.e. anticipating, analyzing and solving problems on several levels. Users, dealing
with their environment, are confronted daily with conflicts and compromises between their
action goals and the environmental situation, and thus are used to both adjust and adapt13.
So for the architects´ re-evaluation it seemed to make sense to interpret not only the
spatial solutions but also the users anticipation of compromise and conflict, captured in
the taped interview processes. This under the premise that the professionalism of
non-architects with architecture is in practically experiencing problems with the built
environment and the professionalism of architects is in solving problems relating to the
built environment.
5.2.2. Procedure
24The photo solutions did not reveal the process that lead to one and not to
another solution. But if the architects only knew about what concerned the people and what
they might not have considered in that way before, they might become inspired to find new
approaches. The analysis of the interview processes revealed certain subjects, that people
dealt with in different ways, yet obviously trying to concentrate on similar questions14.
5.2.3. Evaluation
25How did the planners actually deal with the feedback? Were they able to
include the named areas of concern into their concept? Were they open for the users´
perspectives, e.g. did interaction take place?
264 stages can be identified in this process:
1) In the beginning there was a longing for spatial options, so, as I mentioned before,
they kept asking for the printed solutions even during the interview process (although
they didn´t receive them then).
2) After the interviews were interpreted and they received the whole feedback
documentation the planners still kept looking for spatial answers. It was necessary to
repeatedly encourage, to deal with the fields of concern in more detail.
3) So it came to a phase were they really read and studied the feedback and tried to deal
with those concerns, even if this implied changes in the concept.
4) Finally they were so familiar with the results that during a pre-presentation they
described the outcome of the model-play-interviews themselves and I didn´t need to add so
much myself. Plus they obviously included important aspects in their re-evaluation.
Still there is scepticism and hesitation on their side regarding this dialogue. This might
have to do with the creators´ vulnerability in creative processes. In the future this
should be considered in more detail.
27Although the intensity of understanding during the second stage can be
discussed and one has to state that in the future even more activity of the interpreter,
especially in this stage should be involved, the process in 4 stages illustrates, that
interaction indeed took place.
Considering the first stage one can imagine that without deliberate assistance the
planners -even though they were open for this dialogue experiment - would have
concentrated on the spatial options only, as they are trained and used to, not really
wanting to or having the time to, and basically not knowing how to deal with the complex
information constructively. Without their basic openness they might as well have ignored
the feedback completely
6) Discussion
28After this empirical excursion I want to come back to my initial question. Is
it possible to interpret between architects´ language and users´ language? Why should
one bother?
The Cottbus project favours the thesis that without interpretation of some sort mutual
understanding is difficult, especially because the frames of reference don´t match and
the education of architects and planners doesn´t explicitly offer help here. They can´t
refer to experience and don´t see the need to act in that direction. Thus grammer is
lacking, vocabulary is limited and no comon frame of reference seems to exist.
29The model-play-interviews Ive discussed here functioned with the
moderating help of an interpreter, so why shouldn´t this then be enough -if such
interpreters were available when necessary? Unfortunately there is no systematic education
of such interpreters, neighter in architects´ language nor in users´ language, yet only
rather accidential in special cases of interdisciplinary work settings, being confronted
with both backgrounds.
30This all is leading to the conclusion that during education of architects
special seminars, or embedded withing design projects, should offer preperatory
experiences with processes of mutual understanding; specific problems between architects
and non-architects and translation possibilities thus could be investigated, evaluated and
optimized.
Such seminars could have 4 goals, regarding the previous discussion:
1) translating and presenting design presmises and concepts vividly and close to daily
life experiences.
2) asking questions about architecture that are not directly related to space, form etc.
but to life in the building and its surrroundings.
3) interpreting information from interviews especially regarding indirect statements about
architecture (one possibility being the analysis of fields of concern).
4) distinguishing constructive feedback concerning concepts from aggression towards the
person.
31But why should one bother with all this, besides all the other demands during
education, if not interested in participatory planning processes?
Ive talked about the social aspect of language and how it serves an exchange of
experiences and observations in order to evaluate them at the same time. Mutual
understanding demands mutual openness and readiness to question ones concepts. There
are several occasions in the routines of architects lives, where they have to talk
to non-professionals, e.g. the contractors. They must talk about architecture in their
different languages and must understand each other, and this often enough causes problems,
struggles, and concerns on both sides. Here again, we must deal with differences in
experiences and their consequences for communiation that Ive outlined - after all it
doesn´t matter if it is an explicit participative planning process or a standardized one.
32Does it after all make sense to help solve the discussed communication
problems and like that bring the underlying and different perspectives on architecture
closer together?
It is not only that on the architects side additional test conditions for the concept
would exist, or for the non-architects enlarged experiences with architecture besides
sightseeing opportunities would be offered and might even lead to a higher identification
and satisfaction with their environment. I especially consider it important because it
offers architects an opportunity to be closer to the people´s life with architecture, to
the relativity and variety of their needs and to their humanity.
7) Fußnoten
1see Austin, J.L. 1972; Searle, J.R. 1971;
Shank, R.C. & Abelson, R. 1977.
2see Crott, H. 1979.
3vgl. Habermas, J. 1881a/b.
4see Apel, K.O. 1976; Bühler, K. ; Mead, G.H. 1934; Thayer, L. 1987.
5see Argyle, M. 1972; Bandura, A. 1978; Bruner, J.S. 1963 und 1981; Vygotsky,
L.S. 1964.
6see Schulz v. Thun, F. 1988; Watzlawick et al. 1969.
7see Kelly, G.A. 1955; Lecky, P. 1945; Epstein, S. 1979; Sommer, A. & Ermer
C., 1993.
8cit. after statements of several architects and students.
9An interdisciplinary team, consiting of the architects (the office of Nagler/Bahrdt,
Cottbus), a architectural critic (Prof. Dr. E. Führ) and the author as architectural
psychologist, worked out the whole planning procedure in detail.
10see: Piaget, J. 1969b; Bruner, J.S 1963.;
Vygotsky, L.S. 1964.
11see: Bandura, A. 1978.
12For example, if people wanted to have more trees in the middle of the area,
we discussed how this would affect the market activities in general and particular. Did
they want these impacts? How could this be solved otherwise? Why were the trees so
important in this area? Could they be somewhere else as well? How would they use the
place? How do they use it now?
Each statement was related to the model.
13see Altman, I. & Rogoff, B. 1987.
14Another example: Historically there was a city hall in the middle of the
"Altmarkt" and one of the questions was whether to rebuild it in some way or
not. Ther were several options thought of by the citizens, but none of them seriously
considered reconstruction. Some wanted a sort of light illusion at night, others wanted
access to the cellar, some prefered signs on the ground and much more alike. All those
different ideas shared a same motiv - the people wanted to be able to somehow experience
the fact of the historic city hall today in the context of their life rather than the
building itself.
8) References
Alexander, C; Ishikawa, S & Silverstein, M.
1977. A Pattern Language. Berkeley.
Altman, I. & Rogoff, B. 1987. World Views in
Psychology: Trait, Interaction, Organismic and Transactional Perpsectives. In D. Stokols
& I. Altman (Eds.) Handbook of Environmental Psychology. New York.
Apel, K.O. 1976. Transformation der Philosophie.
Das Apriori der Kommunikationsgemeinschaft. Bd. 2. Frankfurt/M.
Austin J.L. 1972. Zur Theorie der Sprechakte.
Stuttgart.
Argyle, M. 1972. Soziale Interaktion. Köln.
Bandura, A. 1978. The self system in reciprocal
determinism. American Psychologist, 33, 344-358.
Bruner, J.S. 1963. The process of education. New
York.
Bruner, J.S. 1981. The pragmatics of
acquisition. In W. Deutsch. (Ed.): the Child´s construction of language. New York: S
39-55.
Bühler, K. 1934. Sprachtheorie. Jena.
Crott, H. 1979. Soziale Interaktion und
Gruppenprozesse. Stuttgart.
Epstein, S. 1979. Entwurf einer integrativen
Persönlichkeitstheorie. In S.-H. Filipp (Hrg.): Selbstkonzeptforschung: Probleme,
Befunde, Perspektiven. Stuttgart.
Habermas, J.: Theorie des kommunikativen
Handelns. Frankfurt: Bd. 1, 1981a; Bd. 2, 1981b.
Kelly, G.A. 1955. The psychology of personal
constructs. New York.
Lecky, P. 1945. Self consistency: A theory of
personality. Long Island, New York.
Mead, G.H. 1934. Mind self and society.
Chicago.
Piaget, J. 1969b. Nachahmung, Spiel und Traum.
Stuttgart.
Schulz von Thun, F. 1988. Miteinander
Reden: Störungen und Klärungen. Reinbek.
Searle J.R. 1971. Sprechakte: Ein philosophisches
Essay. Frankfurt/M.
Schank, R.C. & Abelson, R. 1977. Scripts,
plans, goals and understanding. Hillesdale, N.J.
Sommer A. & Ermer C. 1993. Selbstwert und
Kommunikation. Berlin.
Thayer, L. 1987. On communication. Norwood, New
Jersey.
Vygotsky, L.S. 1964. Denken und Sprechen.
Stuttgart.
Watzlawick, P.; Beavin, J.H. & Jackson, D.D.
1969. Menschliche Kommunikation: Formen, Störungen, Paradoxien. Bern. |