HUMAN ECOLOGY AS AN INTERDISCIPLINARY CONCEPT
49
given to discussion of ornamentation, personal expression etc. ; even her
discussion of space provides no mention of psychology or perception but
concentrates on form and light. Her inclusions are important; my
criticism concentrates on her misleading use of a fad word to indicate a
“with-it” approach to architecture.
If architects are to assume the responsibility for designing and shaping
human habitats, they must also assume the responsibility for seeing that
their methods for doing so are adequate. And that means intensive
schooling in ecology and psychology (at the least), training that is now
largely missing.
Inadequacies result also, when, as a University of Illinois architecture
professor G . Francescato has stated, “90% of design occurs at the
operational level. Very few people engage in theory, there are very few
sources for philosophy.” This comment was passed on to me by a
colleague; it is based on the assumption of a gradation from abstract to
concrete : from philosophy through theory and analysis to methodology,
then research, and finally to operation a t the concrete, applied end of
the continuum.
These problems are illustrated by the recent refusal of an urban
design jury to make any awards or citations in the annual Progressive
Architecture urban design competition. The jury, which included Ian
McHarg, commented that the entries represented planning not by
planners “but planning by architects, which resulted in more orientation towards an architectural product than in a planning process or
concept of land use, organization or development of a whole”.
There are two levels on which it would be particularly advantageous
for architecture to adopt an ecological approach. The f i s t is that of the
individual building, how to make it a better environment for the
humans who will occupy it. The second is in the problem of how to
integrate that building into a common environment, one with many
buildings (perhaps on the scale of a city). Increasingly, as noted above,
architects are assuming responsibility for the design or plan of the
system, including the spaces between the buildings and the shaping of
the activities that take place there (Matthew, 1964). Progress is being
made but there is a long way to go; more success has been attained at
the first level, that of the individual building.
This success is well illustrated in the work of Pitch (1965, 1972). He
underlines the need for an ecological approach, even at the first level.
As he has stated, architecture suffers from conceptual limitations that
can lead to “serious misconceptions as to the actual relationship
between the artifact and the human being”. He frames the failure in
terms of not relating to “experiential reality”. In ecological terms, he
fears that this misconception “suggests that man exists in some
49
given to discussion of ornamentation, personal expression etc. ; even her
discussion of space provides no mention of psychology or perception but
concentrates on form and light. Her inclusions are important; my
criticism concentrates on her misleading use of a fad word to indicate a
“with-it” approach to architecture.
If architects are to assume the responsibility for designing and shaping
human habitats, they must also assume the responsibility for seeing that
their methods for doing so are adequate. And that means intensive
schooling in ecology and psychology (at the least), training that is now
largely missing.
Inadequacies result also, when, as a University of Illinois architecture
professor G . Francescato has stated, “90% of design occurs at the
operational level. Very few people engage in theory, there are very few
sources for philosophy.” This comment was passed on to me by a
colleague; it is based on the assumption of a gradation from abstract to
concrete : from philosophy through theory and analysis to methodology,
then research, and finally to operation a t the concrete, applied end of
the continuum.
These problems are illustrated by the recent refusal of an urban
design jury to make any awards or citations in the annual Progressive
Architecture urban design competition. The jury, which included Ian
McHarg, commented that the entries represented planning not by
planners “but planning by architects, which resulted in more orientation towards an architectural product than in a planning process or
concept of land use, organization or development of a whole”.
There are two levels on which it would be particularly advantageous
for architecture to adopt an ecological approach. The f i s t is that of the
individual building, how to make it a better environment for the
humans who will occupy it. The second is in the problem of how to
integrate that building into a common environment, one with many
buildings (perhaps on the scale of a city). Increasingly, as noted above,
architects are assuming responsibility for the design or plan of the
system, including the spaces between the buildings and the shaping of
the activities that take place there (Matthew, 1964). Progress is being
made but there is a long way to go; more success has been attained at
the first level, that of the individual building.
This success is well illustrated in the work of Pitch (1965, 1972). He
underlines the need for an ecological approach, even at the first level.
As he has stated, architecture suffers from conceptual limitations that
can lead to “serious misconceptions as to the actual relationship
between the artifact and the human being”. He frames the failure in
terms of not relating to “experiential reality”. In ecological terms, he
fears that this misconception “suggests that man exists in some