"We shape our buildings; thereafter, they shape us."

I have always enjoyed thinking about how someone might move through my designs in studio. I distinctly remember thinking the animation tool in SketchUp was the coolest thing ever last year – dorky, I know. It was enjoyable to learn that these Formalist (are we calling these architects Formalists now?) thinkers theorized about this very phenomenon of movement through architecture being a sort of cinema and, simultaneously, of architecture being an actor in a larger work of cinema, one of life like Vertov captured. I’ve thought about this concept before. Winston Churchill said, “We shape our buildings; thereafter, they shape us.” We, intimately a part of our culture whether we want to be or not, design buildings dependent on our beliefs, morals, theories, needs, etc. This designed building is then constructed, used, and experienced. It becomes a part of the very society that made it. Depending on its form, its materials, its construction, it has the potential to make a statement back to society. I think the experience of a building is always more potent as it is experienced through movement in real time, especially if it was designed well. But to think of architecture then as an actor, something that causes change because of its form or the greater meaning that can be extracted from it, is extremely compelling. Thinking about it now, I’m not sure how far to take the idea. I believe any person can extract meaning from anything – even if it’s completely idiotic, so how do we as architects go about designing to encourage change in society? Can it be forced? Or does a well-designed building do this on its own?