The Hidden Program

The reading selection from “Restructuring the Hidden Program: Toward an Architecture of Social Change” by Murray Silverstein and Max Jacobson was an eye-opening read for me.  The ideas presented about the architectural program were new to me.  I thought I would share some of the more interesting points (for me) with you here:

• What is an architectural program? On the surface it is simply a list of spaces denoting specific rooms and outdoor spaces, with a gross size for each, sometimes a few key relationships between them, and an overall budget for the project.  Fundamentally, an architectural program, even a very simple one, is a social-physical form.  It’s like a rough skeleton – a million things stand between developing a program and finally bringing the buildings to life.

• According to Silverstein and Jacobson, the argument has been that if programs are so fundamental to the nature of buildings, then they should be developed carefully from the outset by teams that include architects and even specially trained programmers.  And what is more, since architecture nowadays is notoriously alienating to its users, it is just at this point, in the formulation of the program, that user needs should be recognized and made part of the program.

What I found particularly interesting is their observation that people are not simply disaffected with architecture as such; but that they are disaffected with the way of life that is sustained by Modern architecture.

• As professionals trying to grasp this situation, we find ourselves of two minds.  In part we believe that it all makes sense: if we set about to design a shopping center or office building or house project, a good job of programming is important.  And if this work includes the opportunity to study the users, their habits, and their needs, so much the better.  But at the same time, no matter how sophisticated the program, we often feel that the projects we work on do not make sense – that is, they are alienating, wrongly conceived, and/or socially reactionary.

• As professionals, we tend to avoid the analysis of hidden programs, in part because we feel we have no power to explore and act upon them.  It is not easy for an architect to go the roots of a building type, unravel the myths contained there, and still be employable.  It is far easier for a professional to accept hidden programs and go on to demonstrate his expertise with methods and styles that embellish and improve the form.

Silverstein and Jacobson state: “But in fact isn’t this the kind of work society should expect from professionals that seek to define themselves as environmentalists concerned with users?  In our journals we all agree that buildings play a powerful role in their social ecology of a culture; that their programs are drawn from the dominant values, myths, and laws.  But when we are faced with the disaffection of people at precisely this level, we tend to ignore our theories and quietly fall back upon the myth of buildings as purely physicaly objects and thereby obscure our  complicity with these deeper issues.”

From here the authors proceed to analyze the hidden program of a supermarket which is a truly interesting read, but I won’t discuss it in detail in this blog post.  For those who do not attend this class, I highly recommend checking it out.  If you’re interested, though, my classmate Heather talks about the supermarket here.

Sources:

Silverstein, M. and Jacobson M. (1978). Restructuring the hidden program: Toward an architecture of social change. In W. Preiser (Ed.), Facility Programming. Stroudsburg, PA: Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross.

Weisman, G. (2001). The Place of People in Architectural Design.  In A. Pressman (Ed.), The Architect’s Portable Design Handbook: A guide to best practice. New York: McGrawhill. 158-170.

[Image: Nina Ex Interior Design Portfolio]

Filed under: Theory, Architecture, interior design, programming