Tuesday 15 November 2011

ARCHITECTURE, HAPPINESS AND COMMUNITY

Recently I went to a talk entitled ‘Architecture and Happiness’ at LSE; I have to say I became quite excited at the prospect considering it plays so strongly into my interests expressed on this blog. The event did not, however, quite live up to my expectations; yet in that disappointment I reflected on what I thought of the statements asserted and below are some ideas on the topic that were playing around in my head.

The first speaker, a head of an urban think tank for London, bizarrely talked at great length about his rural summer house before making some last-minute sweeping statements regarding the topic: ‘architects are well-advised not to take happiness into account… it should not be an objective’. A little damning, perhaps, but it was explained somewhat by the conclusion both speakers reached that happiness cannot come if you aim too vigorously for it. To me this seems like… how can I put it? A cop out.

We can’t NOT take psychology into account when making a building or developing an area of the urban fabric just because happiness is an elusive philosophical concept. There have been countless examples of research into how environments – interior or exterior – affect our mood and have the potential to improve wellbeing and contentedness; in fact an entire field is quite clearly dedicated to it: environmental psychology. How far the architecture profession connects with such ideas is difficult to gauge. Although no one wants to veer too strongly towards environmental determinism, there should always be conceptions of how the plan and design are experienced in an emotional way: aesthetics, light, space, function – these all have clear impacts on an enjoyment of a space and clearly filter through to more general emotional wellbeing.

The second speaker, a conservative philosopher, widened the discussion by stating that if we are to aspire to happiness, it must be an ‘architecture of community’. This is an admirable vision, tapping into the current buzz of Big Society and community-oriented planning (neither of which, of course, should be undermined in theory). If we think of an ‘architecture of community’ in practice, it leads us to the idea of design encouraging interaction, which is certainly something to be aimed at, but also – as was the speaker’s angle – architectural configurations built for defined communities. This has indeed been attempted, in utopian communes throughout recent centuries in particular. It has also failed. Building a place so intent on integrating and serving a specific community can in the end just encourage separatism: communities parcelled off unto themselves, so focused on intra-mixing that inter-mixing is forgotten. Of course, this does not create a united and thriving city. Does an ‘architecture of community’ really exist then? Community cannot truly be willed by architecture, although there are spaces which can begin to facilitate it: communal playgrounds, town halls, unrestricted interior and exterior public realm. This is social space, however, and though architecture may sometimes contain it, it does not define it – community is encouraged by people and initiatives, not physical structures (I probably need to say here that architecture of course goes beyond ‘physical structures’, but opening this concept up would render any compact discussion of the topic impossible).

It seems clear that communities which exist, rarely do so because of architecture but because of (pre-existing) social ties. I live in a block of flats: I wouldn’t be able to recognise my neighbours in a line-up. Our communal hall space is empty, with desperately welcoming seats and a sofa hardly sat on. Before, I lived on a lovely non-thoroughfare street of terraced houses – and didn’t know a soul. But I speak only from my very particular situation. It could be that certain buildings encourage people to stop and talk and get to know their neighbours, thus encouraging a sense of community and in this discussion resultant happiness. It could be that creating defined architectural commune-like clusters does the same. It could also be that different people are variably inclined to interact or not interact or feel happy in particular places. So, an architecture of community is difficult if not impossible to prescribe. And though the interaction and friendship inherent in community may aid happiness, I wouldn't say that happiness should not be taken into account by architects purely because an architecture of community cannot be simply built. We need to think on a smaller scale, understand the human need for space, light, safety; architecture can provide and enhance this. For example, one could argue that the ‘space standards’ promoted by CABE are really a demonstration of aspiring to happiness through architecture.

From attempting – and faltering – to define an ‘architecture of happiness’, the speakers then turned to approaching the architecture of unhappiness to make things slightly clearer. It was agreed that architecture in defiance of surrounding urban values would constitute this. While the term ‘urban values’ could be taken to mean an overwhelming array of things, I do agree that to feel connected and integrated is vital, and facilitates what could be called a happy environment. Buildings and developments that do not respond sensitively to their locality (and I am not making a style argument here) are bound to unsettle and upset.

In a more difficult realm of thought, it has often been proclaimed that beauty enhances happiness. There are architectural problems with this: I think the Trellick Tower is beautiful, but that does not mean I would necessarily be happy living in it. While I certainly feel calmer and happier in what I identify as a beautiful space or surrounded by beautiful buildings, this concept is clearly too subjective to use and one that I cannot even begin to explore. Perceived beauty in the built environment results from coordination with perceived beauty in the eye of the architect. Let’s not now get into so-called objective notions of pleasing symmetry/irregularity/novelty/proportion.

So, is the conclusion that you should be the architect of your own happiness? I think now more than ever we realise success lies in collaboration. Happiness is of course deeply personal and tied up with numerous uncontrollable factors – but it is also often facilitated by environmental experience. Speaking in terms of architecture and urbanism, it is high design quality – through, for example, sufficient space and natural light, and the facilitation of functional and social integration – that is potentially a key factor to achieving human satisfaction. But I’m not trying to define happiness; nor am I endorsing environmental determinism. I don’t believe there is an ‘architecture of happiness’. But I also don’t believe that the two concepts should be separately treated.