Questions of the moment. During two long years struggling to find meaning while living with the Covid-19 pandemic, so much happened beyond confinement, social distancing, washing one’s hands, and wearing masks. While we lived in a homebound microcosm, we were simultaneously made aware of the very same problem striking across the globe, and of the inequality of our ability to respond to the crisis.
Implementing CDC protective measures were a nuisance in the western hemisphere, but elsewhere there were other hurdles: a need for confinement quasi impossible due to different values among family nuclei; social distancing not part of a cultural practice; access to clean water a luxury; and obtaining masks and disinfecting products nearly impossible due to socio-economic challenges. Ultimately, we saw the divide between our ease of obtaining vaccines contrasted with that of far too many individuals around the world.
An untenable situation
At the same time, we witnessed evidence of a political laissez-faire that exacerbated the gulf between the haves and have nots. Covid-19 was a catalyst for acknowledging that society will always find someone in an invented class structure determining who should or should not have access to basic human privileges. At home in the United States, fundamental principles of dignity, and the rights of individual choices are trampled and increasingly abused and disrespected by an elite judicial system who still practice cultural prejudices that keep individuals at large from solving problems collectively. We witnessed public calls to action against a status-quo system that has existed for centuries, demanding a transformation of attitudes, biases, and prejudices, and the inclusion of those who have been historically wronged.
These disparities remain at center stage, and are no longer peripheral noise unfolding in the backyards of others—a noise that was easily dismissed and silenced. Over the past two years, there have been challenges against democracy, growing political polarization, urgency to address climate change, need for universal access to healthcare, access to education, environmental, social, and economic equity—as understood within the larger definition of the three-legged stool of sustainability—and, as importantly, peaceful protests as issues of race, gender, and voting right have moved to the forefront of collective consciousness.
This was all a welcome disruption against societal wrongdoing not seen with such power, conviction, and honesty during my adult life. There is too much talk about the state of inequity, yet as an educator, I wonder how to respond through architecture to the urgent questions and take part in finding long overdue solutions.
Academic opportunities
What does this have to do with my métier and more importantly how does this pressing need fit into the education of architects and design thinkers at large? There are abundant discussions and solutions at hand, each with unlimited promise. But robust change needs to happen now across all the members of the academy.
Some would argue that bringing down the house with slogans, manifestos, and aggressive actions belongs to a viable solution to change societal patterns of behavior. In fact, I wonder if architecture’s historic role has been forgotten. In the past, at certain moments, architecture has reached beyond critique for tangible and humble implementable design solutions. So here is the question: What needs to be done with equal fervor today that addresses the current malaise and urgent need for societal change? I propose that as educators we start by reevaluating two important aspects of our teaching.
Architecture and/for the city
First, there needs to be a conscious and genuine return to an architecture of and for the city; the locus of many current and past crisis and where there is a demand for immediate attention. Since the pandemic, metropolises have slowed their growth and are timidly implementing solutions that restore to their citizens a sense of belonging, a sense of place, an understanding that everyone has a role in creating a model of life; metaphorically, a Central Park for the 21st century. Within the academy, students need to engage early on with the problems and potential of our cities in an architectural manner, using their new-found facility for space making as a locus for transforming lives.
Architecture of necessity
Second, and within the previous context, there is the need for a return to an architecture of necessity. This does not deny the disciplinary lineage educators and architects are heir to, but it is imperative to adjust, update or simply change our curriculum. The twenty-first century is proving to be transformative across all aspects of society. The teaching of architecture—and not solely of the architect—must respond towards a new curriculum, and even better, be at the vanguard. We have recently seen that urgency of change is a pressing issue for students, and we must reflect that in the classroom.
Architecture is no longer a profession dominated by white men, or even worse, a bastion of intellectually created slogans relying on exclusive definitions that belong to other disciplines. We must consider fundamental questions, such as how do people live, how do people interact in our cities, in public spaces, and in buildings. At its best, architecture can improve lives, if we are willing to take an interest in those lives.
I believe that these two points must be center stage of any viable educational model; a model that relies on constant adaptation of situations to provide ideas and consequences for real people, all people, of all races, ethnicities, genders, and beliefs. This call to action promotes a model of life that is deeply organic, adaptable, and contextual; all encouraged with the firm recognition that the public has a voice and a vision to add in building a more inclusive and sustainable environment.
Conclusion
Academia is saturated with iconic images, and students no longer have time to process them beyond instant gratification. Perhaps it is time to acknowledge the media’s role in promoting a culture of masters, or worse, star architects that provide too much room for social commentators to write about the architect’s ego and formal buildings in a manner that does not engage the world outside professional circles.
I long to return to an architecture that is anonymous, done with excellence and genuine passion for improving the quality of life for those we serve.
Architecture Education: any thoughts on the future of architecture?