Sophie Hamer 301025629
1/ 4
BUILD I NG ON DISBELIEF POSITIONINGIMAGEAGAINSTSOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY FORARCHITECTS
Arch 363 Management Principles and Practice Assignment One 3 August 2009 Sophie Hamer
The image of the architect as “ special, gifted and misunderstood” has enjoyed unprecedented popularity in the 21st century, advancing a dispiriting social attitude towards architecture. (Weston and Sharr 99; Prasad 101 ) But despite the aura of elitism, the quantitative impact of architectural services on the built environment is still minimal compared to that of builders, technicians, surveyors and architectural designers (Weston and Sharr 99). The very real, ensuing affects on economic interests and project efficacy are rendering the positioning of architects to societal value systems a topic of serious debate. Perceived elitism – and our refusal to tackle it – is affecting employability, applicability, internal growth, project innovation and the overall efficiency of the building process. The ‘Starchitect’ phenomena highlights high-end design in the public realm. Terminology
Sophie Hamer 301025629
2/ 4
including ‘the Bilbao effect’ and architects from Zaha Hadid to Peter Eisenmann have been accepted into public vocabulary. This popularisation of architecture has been further enhanced by the development of 3D modelling programmes and mass image distribution networks. The celebration of the architectural product has allowed architecture to reposition itself within the world as desirable, and as capable of adding value to the generic built form, following the disillusionment of modernism (Cramer 12). The parallel relocation of the typical architectural experience from real encounter to image-based experience in the virtual realm has had the upshot of a mor e widely accessible architecture than ever. However, the inherent privileging of the visual and the fantastical has created space which is less accessible to the individual in real time and space. The irony of this situation lies in the fact that just at the point where architecture is globally recognised and appreciated, it finds itself furthest from the specific concerns of the individual and from societal concerns. Presentations at the Alternate Currents seminar1 noted that the “level of social commitment among the architectural community contrasts sharply with the opportunism that dominates the profession today.”(Charley 167) The individual starchitects whose work spawned current global appreciation paradoxically base their practices in autonomous endeavour, generating and following a tendency to ‘Fuck Context’ à la Rem Koolhaas2. Historically, architects have tended to work for those with money and power, allowing the development of autonomous design. Charley sneers that “a professional architect is happy to be employed as capitalism’s decorator” and it is true that all practices have to make a profit in order to survive (162). The condition presented is thus largely self-inflicted. Given that the reputation of the profession is built and sustained by the media, the image the profession projects of itself onto the public realm has significance to the ongoing scope of the architectural service. If we can broaden the internal nature and perceived applicability of the service, more market and profit will result. Internally, such elitist attitudes are perpetuated, notably by awards celebrating fantastical design. The RIBA is described as “a club which endows people with an aura of elitism.” (Weston and Sharr 99) The resonating superiority in turn implies inflated fees, enhancing the cycle of architecture for the high end (Bernstein 37). Furthermore, there is a perceived and implemented requirement for an adequate track record in a specific type of building design before a practice will be considered for a project, making it difficult for small and burgeoning practices to become anything more than that, or to apply their design skills and innovation to problems which they are entirely capable of tackling (Prasad). The resulting scepticism about architects has leaked through all surrounding systems. Local council and government projects appear to be based on the assumption that architects cannot be trusted with public money, time or resources (Weston and Sharr 99). At a grass roots level, the backlash is a culture of amateurism; an undermining of the traditional role of the professional through DIY initiatives (99). The architect as The Hand is negated in its entirety, resulting in a view which says the architect has no special skills. Several initiatives aim to reconcile architectural interests with societal guidance. The Architect’s Registration Board of Victoria has introduced an Architectural Services Award recognising good architectural service as distinct from, and equally important to high-end design (Clark 8). It was conceived as a response to a long and commonly occurring list of 1 2
The Alternate Currents conference was held in Sheffield in November 2007. ‘Fuck Context’ is an undercurrent of Koolhaas’ Theory of Bigness, as introduced in his book Small, Medium, Large, Extra-
Large.
Sophie Hamer 301025629
3/ 4
public complaints – inclusive of budget over-run, confusion, lack of communication, poor problem resolution, lack of agreement and poor time management (8). Practices are nominated by clients, promoting an inclusion of public in the architectural world. Other recent developments such as the Design Quality Indicators have similar aims, giving “a tangible expression of what architects bring to a project.”(Weston and Sharr 99) The profession might also look outside itself and its normal projects to promote societal vision. ‘The 1%’ - an initiative asking practices to spend 1% of their time on pro-bono projects – has seen architects emerging as civic leaders and in doing so changing the propagated image of architecture in society (Gendall 32). Architects are fit to be process integrators, leaders and long term idea generators. The call is for a socialist, rather than capitalist, minded architect. The answer, however, is not a full swing to the other end of the scale. While housing projects in developing nations and post-disaster scenarios are of utmost importance, the everyday practitioners taking up the role of design for disempowered peoples is labelled as noble and heroic; assuming a different coat of the starchitect. What the world needs is “a robin hood who can operate on a global, corporate scale,” necessitating a greater public awarenessat all levels of integration, through all practices sizes, types, and cliental (Gendall 32). In order to promote better architectural projects, a better built environment, and a better world, architects need to encourage a far broader appreciation of what we do. However, public appreciation of the architectural service will only ever be encouraged from a visual perception of what architects built. Therefore – in order to change our image, we must change what, how, and for whom we design. The questioning of our core attitudes will call for the application of our creative skills to a more complex problem than the architecture we practice – that of the practices we design.
Works Cited Anonymous. “Heroes, not Stars.” Architect 98. 3 (Mar 2009): 10 Bernstein, Fred. “Getting the Publicity You Need.” Architect 96.2 (2007): 37. Charley, Jonathan. “The Glimmer Of Other Worlds: questions on alternative architectural practice.” Arq: Architecture Research Quarterly 11.2 (2008): 159-171. Calder, Barnabas. “Remembering the forgotten and the excluded: Historians debate architecture without architects.” Arq: Architecture Research Quarterly 11.2 (2007): 109-
Sophie Hamer 301025629
4/ 4
111. Clark, Justine. “Architectural Services.” AA Files (2007): 8 Cramer, Ned. “Professional Celebrities.” Architect 97.5 (2008): 12 Gendall, John. “Pro Bono Work Gains Traction Among Architects.” Architect 97. 13 (Oct 2008): 32 Hawkes, Dean. “Spacesof Encounter: Digital autonomy and social fragmentation.” Arq: Architecture Research Quarterly 11.3 (2007): 189-190 Hoffmann, Susanne, Thomas Fisher and Timothy Brittain-Catlin. “Intellectual and professional processes:Alternative Alternate Currents?” Arq: Architecture Research Quarterly 12.3/4 (2008): 203-205. Kaminer, Tahl. “Autonomy and commerce: the integration of architectural autonomy.” Arq: Architecture Research Quarterly 11.1 (2007): 69 Prasad, Sunand. “The risk of not taking risks: Clarifying complexity.” Arq: Architecture Research Quarterly 12.2 (2008): 101. Sadler, Simon. “Ethics and aesthetics of vision.” Arq: Architecture Research Quarterly 11.2 (2007): 97-98. Tzannes, Alex. “ Architectural Value - Real or Virtual?” Architectural Services (2007): 8. Weston, Richard and Adam Sharr. "Questioning Practice." Arq: Architecture Research Quarterly 12.2 (2008): 99.