herman hertzberger on the future of architecture.

So Herman Hertzberger decided [was paid] to come to our uni and share with us all his thoughts on the future of architecure. I must say, this is pretty big coup and the lecture theatre was suitably excited and as such, he was playing to a sell-out crowd. I should preface this by saying that 'Bergers ideology and sensibility have been a big influence on how I approach design, and I am constantly suprised by the quiality of the delivered design and purity of delivered product, for anyone reading this with experience of seeing a project through from concept to delivery will know how hard it is to maintain such strong integrity of concept. I am not so naiive to think that he is faultless; but the strength of his successfull work is so good and so full of revolutionary ideas that he should be judged on that alone. For anyone should recognise that if you are willing to try new things, you will not succeed every time.

The beauty of Hertzbergers revolutionary ideas is that they seem so simple. They are completely human and as such strike me that they should be the cornerstone of designing spaces not some refreshing idea. I think  Hertzberger's major strengths and the basis for his rigorously sociable schemes are his vision and his empathy / humanity... he understands how people will use spaces and what people need even if they, themselves are not aware. His schemes are charmingly simple, this means people find it easy to mock. There was a charming line when talking about his influencve for making informal university working spaces, and was an insight into human nature. Taking the unique productive atmosphere of a library he recognised the importance of being 'alone together' to stimulate and motivate, rightly understanding that surrounding yourself with people with a common goal is crucial to creating the best atmosphere.

I must admit that along with the very reasonable and insightful predictions for more responsive and flexible architecture in the coming years, I have to question his insistance that building 'must' become inherintly flexible, totally adaptable; with the logical development of this idea it suggests a depressing abandonment of purpose built design. This seems extreme and really is dismissive of the role that architetcts will play in the future of building. I wonder if he was a student with his career stretching ahead of him rather than being in its twilight whether he would be so dismissive of the future of design? I think not. If i felt my career would be dictated by 'typical plan' architecture i would quid now! I wouldn't take his extreme position but the principal is important.