“…Buildings are discussed — indeed aspects of them obsessed upon — but almost exclusively in the context of economics. This building went over budget, that surplus of houses led to the foreclosure crisis, that condo broke the record for residential real estate, etc. To the layman, then, architecture is conveyed as little more than something that costs a lot and causes a lot of grief, rather than something with the potential to enhance our daily lives…”
The NYT on architecture and the careless brandishing of jargon, which we get exposed to a lot in architecture school. Just ask anyone who has tried to read Rowe or Forty — not that they are careless in their writing. Read through the comments section for more insight as well.
Is architecture a discourse or a product? Should its discussion be relevant to the masses? Are we living in a more complex time than Jane Jacobs, where a more complex vocabulary is required?
This might have been a part of the articles. I’ve only skimmed these posts, but if communicating to a wider audience is important to you check out Gwendolyn Wright’s talk on Monday at GSAPP.