Practical Constraints vs Creative Freedom

While I can't speak from experience and don't quite know the particulars of city planning, I agree with Matthew Johnson's opinion that architects' work is stifled by poor building codes and development strategies, which he asserts in Architecture Doesn't Need Rebuilding, It Needs More Thoughtful Critics. The "Make It Right" houses are an example of this problem. On the other hand, Borneo Sporengurg's development on the northeastern harbor of Amsterdam is an example of the convergence of good planning and guidelines setting up the architect's creative vision for success. The project is able to find aesthetic and practical success through appropriate codes and just the right balance of strict parameters vs creative freedom. The result is an impactful waterfront scene of buildings that contribute to cohesive overall look while asserting their own personality and agenda. The entirety of the neighborhood is just as powerful as the individual homes, which do not outshine one another.

The dilemma of needing just the right balance of codes and artistic freedom reminds me of something my mother used to always say to my sister and I when we were arguing, "You both have your own ideas about what happened but the truth is somewhere in the middle." Infuriating to hear when you're young, immature and know you're the one who is right but she she has a point that applies here. In this particular instance, for mainstream U.S. architecture to have a fighting chance at being valuable and not simply a cookie cutter production, a middle ground needs to be reached. Current codes and planning need to rise up to meet the unique ideas of innovative designers instead of working against them. Like wise, architects need to ground their designs in reality somewhat so they are functional and appealing to a wide audience. Additionally, one must put aside their ego in order to make sure their building plays well with the others just as Sporengurg's project showed. And isn't that how a work becomes an icon? Not because it is haphazardly oblivious to its surroundings and breaks every rule and code but because it succeeds in a powerful and memorable way despite the rules and environment; in such a way that betters the space around it and influences future projects for the better.

Technologystudent.com defined "An iconic design" as "usually a design that is ‘ground breaking’ and one that sets new standards in its field. It is a design that other designers and manufacturers follow, as it becomes a bench mark for other similar products. Furthermore, an iconic design is one that stands up to the test of time, remaining a good design, despite the passing of years, decades and even centuries." So the question in my mind is how do you find the middle ground? How, as designers, do you create something "ground breaking" while also respecting functionality and safety codes? You will most likely always be working within some guidelines or client/user expectations that reign in your creative vision somewhat.  But true success and iconic design comes from finding the opportunity for originality within that somewhat constrained space.