Or … when bad things happen to ‘good’ architecture …
In recent years, there have been breathless reports of Winnipeg’s “architectural renaissance”, boosted by a steady rise in construction in the downtown core. The Royal Architectural Institute of Canada’s annual festival saw the city’s trendy Exchange District buzzing with events, tours and exhibitions. 5468796 Architecture, along with local urbanism group Storefront MB, hosted the closing soiree – an elaborate “pop-up” dinner on a bridge, the Esplanade Riel. Some 1,200 guests were invited to dine on long tables that ran the length of the bridge, “to experience and discuss the power of architecture and design”.
It was well attended and well received. But it was a far cry from the reality of Centre Village, not much more than a mile away.
“For me, if it’s a true ‘renaissance’, it’ll be that the design actually then reflects the people,” Millar said. “It starts to be what the people need it to be.”
You can’t fault the architects for their execution – much. They seem to have made a few of the errors that British planners made in the 60’s on a more impressive scale (i.e., narrow stairwells, too many access pinchpoints, too many hidden pockets, etc. – thinking largely of Hulme, Manchester). And the ‘rent-to-own’ scheme fell through, which wasn’t their fault either. The buildings are reasonable, if imperfect. And they’ve got to be in better condition than old buildings that are poorly maintained.
The part that puzzles me is how/why architects still think that simply existing in these spaces will somehow ‘elevate’ people whose lives are otherwise still very difficult. You’ve got a new subsidized house whose exterior won a design award. Great. How does that get you a job, or get your brother-in-law off your couch and into rehab, or get your nephew out of that gang he’s been running with? How can the structure alone improve your life? Am I mistaking their intent? I’m honestly curious.