Open Source Architecture? What’s That?

We’ve recently being seeing quite a lot of mention of the idea of “open-source” architecture, and thought maybe it was worth a little exploration.  It seems to be a topic that defies clear explanation but it also seemed to us to be a good opportunity to talk a little bit about what architects do.

The term “open-source” comes directly from the world of computer software terminology and is used to describe software platforms that are free and available for all users to adopt and change as they see fit. An example of this is the Linux platform, which is free to download and encourages users to use as a format to develop their own programs. This is different from how a program like Microsoft Windows works, where you must pay for each copy of the software, and you are not allowed to alter it, at risk of legal ramifications from Microsoft.  Whether this terminology is applicable to built architecture is questionable but there are some similarities to talk about.

The idea that we should be promoting open source architecture assumes that current architect is somehow “closed-source”. This isn’t true. There is no Microsoft of the architecture world. Sure- there are products, individual pieces of buildings – that are patented, but the architect does not have a patent or rights to the design of their building except in very specific cases. We are free to beg, borrow and steal ideas from all kinds of sources- existing buildings, magazines, our friend’s new kitchen, the plans on file at the building department, product information, napkin sketches or whatever.  Architecture is an inherently iterative process. You can see influences from building A in building B and so on. The use of an idea from somewhere else has been going on since humans first put a roof over their heads. One of the things that makes architecture Architecture and not just building, is taking an element that you like and modifying it to fit the new situation. Straight replication rarely works as each site/condition has its own set of unique challenges.  So where is this call for open source architecture coming from?

As far as we can tell, the term “open-source architecture” has come to mean two things:

1. Buildings should take into account all aspects of their environment and the design should be responsive to all the clients’ needs. The building should be endlessly flexible and unrestrained. (This is described in the following article in domus. http://www.domusweb.it/en/op-ed/open-source-architecture-osarc-/).
2. There should be better sharing of ideas, details and finished buildings throughout the design community and these ideas should also be more available to the general public.  (This is the idea behind Architecture for Humanity’s Open Architecture Network http://openarchitecturenetwork.org/)

Our response to the above is as follows:

1. Designing a building that is responsive to the client, climate, and all other the other myriad of forces that are in play on a project seems to us to be just good architecture. It is also not a conspiracy against the people that bad, ugly, uncomfortable buildings get built. That’s just bad architecture. That said, the utopian situations described in some of these “open-source” descriptions seem to describe something chaotic and un-imaginable as buildings. There are lots and lots of ideas, forces, and limitations involved in designing a building. It is the architect’s job to sort through this thicket of information and design a building that is beautiful, functional, safe, comfortable and timeless.  Architecture is as much a process as a product.
2. This is a great idea, but not really a realistic one. Anyone has access to all the information architects have. They are welcome to sift through magazines, research window details,  visit interesting structures, or even copy the drawings from the building department- but all this takes time and energy and a degree of previous knowledge to make sense of it all. Again- architecture as a product is the sum of many, many decisions via architecture as a process.  The sharing of ideas is great, but you must be prepared to properly analyze and adapt them to your situation. Those open railings you saw on a building in Dwell Magazine are beautiful, but illegal to build in the States. That technology center designed for a slum in Nairobi might strike you as really cool building, but will it work as an orphanage in Costa Rica? Probably not without some significant alterations to make sure it is the right size, fits the site and meets local structural requirements. Do you have the skills to design a new railing that meets US building code, or draw up a set of plans to submit to the Costa Rican government? If not- you will probably need an architect to do so for you. And it is worth noting that once the new project is completed, it is just that- a new project, and hopefully one that will be admired and emulated by others.

We support the sharing of ideas about architecture. Anyone who has ever had the misfortune to hang out with a bunch of architects at a party knows that we can’t shut up about it and we certainly aren’t hiding our secrets. It is an essential part of our own continuing education and hopefully is a great way to engage the public and raise awareness about good design. The more ways we can find to share ideas, the better, and as long as there is a qualified architect to bring those ideas to life, we will create a better built environment for us all.