Architecture and Urbanism: Is architecture owned by everyone or by whoever designs it?

Architecture, being a utilitarian art, has a use beyond mere admiration or enjoyment. Architecture has unique characteristics that differentiate it from the other major arts or fine arts, being one of them that is never completely private, since at least its exterior is visible to everyone, unless it is underground, so in some way it belongs to all those who can relate to it, even if only visually from the outside.

In this sense, architecture is part of the urban landscape and as such as, contributes to the daily life of all those who pass in front of it, as a day-to-day scene, and that is why, to a certain extent, it belongs to all those who enjoy or se relate to it.

This is important because by modifying buildings that are known and recognized by many, we are also modifying the landscape of the city, and with it that scene in which people have forged memories and experiences. We are modifying the urban memory of the city, the image of it that is part of the personal and collective history of its inhabitants.

There is also the issue of copyright, a historically rugged and complex issue in the field of architecture. Should the architect author of the work give his approval for the changes that are made in it? Should this be the only one who can make them? The answer is far from simple, but to this day that has not been the case.

The usual thing is that the architect, whether by his own decision or not, at the time of delivering the work, either only in plans or already built, is disconnected from what happens later with his design, and unless the original client, or Subsequent owners of the work, call the architect, there is little he/she can do to prevent his/her original design from being modified.

This is complex, because when someone asks who designed this or that building, the name of the original author will come out, even if the building was not built as it was designed, or it has been modified by a person or company, altering the original proposal. Criticism or praise of the work will not take into account those who modified the original conception of the architect, for better or for worse.

The reality is that although many buildings, either because of their historical relevance or because of their use, are built as they were designed, and are not modified without the consent or at least consultation with the author, or specialists in their work when it comes to of a deceased architect, usually the architecture is constantly modified without the original designer and constructor of the work being taken into account, so that at least for practical purposes, their designs once delivered, no longer belong to them, and they become the property of the person who hired their services.

In conclusion, architecture, in addition to belonging to its owners, who can do with it what they think is most convenient, also belongs to society, it belongs to everyone, so it is common to have a regulation that conditions what its owners can do with it to guarantee that certain characteristics are preserved, and the relationship of belonging of citizens with their environment, with their city, remains and is strengthened generation after generation.

I hope this reflection is useful, and allows us to understand a little better one of the many interesting and exciting aspects of one of the most beautiful professions: architecture.

Thank you very much for reading this post and dedicating a moment of your time. Until next time and remember to leave a comment.