Voice - Community Architect

Over the last 4 years, I have learned to read and understand the specific lexicon and phrasings most architects use when describing a space or a building. Specific terms and comments always stand out because they lose their meaning when the person you are talking to is not familiar with. Specific words such as parti, HVAC, space, form, function, avant-garde, fenestration, balance, hierarchy, piloti, typology, charette, modular, poché, and vernacular come to mind.S ome of these words are so unique to the field of architecture that they even show up as errors on my computer despite being correctly written.  These words (and many others) are commonly used in the field, yet their intricacy loses meaning when the receiver is unfamiliar with their meaning, specially when architects stack a bunch of these words together to make up intricate phrases. 

“The location of the pilote hinders the hierarchy of the space, ultimately the balance of the parti will have to be resolved with a poché exercise during charette.” 

That was just a made up phrase to show you how absurd architecture is sometimes. Wouldn't surprise me if my studio instructor would say this to me in tomorrow's class. If you are an architect, then you understand what this means. If you are not, then you are probably thinking I'm joking. Believe me when I say I am not. 

Knowing specifics such as these terms and phrases, not only am I able to identify when an architect is writing, but their specific selection of terms helps me identify what kind of architect he is. Half of the terms I listed above are just abstract terms, related to ideas and concepts; while the rest are mostly just technical terms (fenestration is just a fancy word for window). Artsy architects like to use the abstract words, “ no non-sense” architects tend to go for the technical terms. 

With this knowledge in hand, I was surprised by the lack of architectural mannerisms employed by the author in this ( very important and polemic) architecture subject. At first I thought it might have been written by an outsider, but then I find out the author is an architect. The shock then became intrigued, mainly because I rarely come across texts that avoid these terms. Granted, his topic is about modernism as a social movement rather than an architectural style, so there is no need for some of these words. However, the writer does have a strong voice that shines through when he tries to dramatize the situation. By describing the “unfulfilled promise of Modernism”, he uses harsh phrasings such as “bleak windswept plazas”, “housing misery”, “soulless high-rises” and “cold and lacking”. This strong diction, along with certain figures of speech and punctuation (Case closed? Not so fast!, with a shout-out to Jane Jacobs!) characterize the writer’s voice as the voice your father has when he is coaching your football team on a Sunday. It is a very wise and authoritative voice that is still trying to be encouraging and entertaining at the same time. 

This voice is further present by the content of the post. As I said before, the lack of architectural terms make the post much more accessible than normal posts about this topic, and the mention of famous and well-known architects such a Frank Lloyd Wright, Le Corbusier, and Mies Van der Rohe, signal the writer wants to connect to the masses. Just like a dad want to prove his kids he is “mainstream”. 

The author’s mannerisms, phrasings, and diction all convey a sense of familiarity with the subject, which is a very helpful voice to have when writing about architecture subjects. The usual architectural jargon normally turns people away from reading about the subject, so having an authoritative but accessible voice helps audiences understand more about the topic. 

http://archplanbaltimore.blogspot.com/2015/06/the-unfulfilled-promise-of-modernism.html?view=classic