The Problem is Money
"What kind of city we want is in correlation with the people we want to be and be with"
Architecture seems to be a constant battle between what should be built, what can be built and what we're not allowed to build. At the source: money, politics and power. But if "shaping the city is one of our most important rights" as people, well then shouldn't people be the main source behind what is being constructed instead of a governed power? If government continues to be the hammer in which stops, starts or drives projects, then we are losing the voice of the greater community and building for the political level rather than the collective right where the community determines urban life through landscape and building.
It's a revolving door, we need money to build, government controls money, we need land to build, government controls land uses, and we need legalized documents to build, which you guessed it, government. If we as architects try and bypass these steps we are subject to losing our license, and having our projects dismantled (as seen in the Rebel architecture video) EVEN IF IT IS FOR THE GREATER GOOD, which is our ethical duty, and our ethical duty is also to obey the laws of the government. Yes, the revolving door between what is right and what is legal. Not that what is legal cannot be right, it's just a more strained process into determining conflict and revolutions. Do we deny all current fourth graders the right to continue school because there is no place for them to study and the legalized process of building will take two years? Sorry fourth graders, but your sister in second grade will have it better off, two years to build remember. Or is the greater good to build that school and worry about consequences later?
It seems that this alternative model of citizen participation is a good way to create places for everyone, yet politics aren't always on the side of the masses. The government is choosing where the money goes, whether that be to $380,000 pavement rather than to workable buildings, it is out of the public's hand, and that needs to change. The problem is money and non involved people not listening to fully committed people. "Architecture should be a reason to come together".
Architecture seems to be a constant battle between what should be built, what can be built and what we're not allowed to build. At the source: money, politics and power. But if "shaping the city is one of our most important rights" as people, well then shouldn't people be the main source behind what is being constructed instead of a governed power? If government continues to be the hammer in which stops, starts or drives projects, then we are losing the voice of the greater community and building for the political level rather than the collective right where the community determines urban life through landscape and building.
It's a revolving door, we need money to build, government controls money, we need land to build, government controls land uses, and we need legalized documents to build, which you guessed it, government. If we as architects try and bypass these steps we are subject to losing our license, and having our projects dismantled (as seen in the Rebel architecture video) EVEN IF IT IS FOR THE GREATER GOOD, which is our ethical duty, and our ethical duty is also to obey the laws of the government. Yes, the revolving door between what is right and what is legal. Not that what is legal cannot be right, it's just a more strained process into determining conflict and revolutions. Do we deny all current fourth graders the right to continue school because there is no place for them to study and the legalized process of building will take two years? Sorry fourth graders, but your sister in second grade will have it better off, two years to build remember. Or is the greater good to build that school and worry about consequences later?
It seems that this alternative model of citizen participation is a good way to create places for everyone, yet politics aren't always on the side of the masses. The government is choosing where the money goes, whether that be to $380,000 pavement rather than to workable buildings, it is out of the public's hand, and that needs to change. The problem is money and non involved people not listening to fully committed people. "Architecture should be a reason to come together".
Comments
Post a Comment