Responsibility Schmonsibility

I don’t think you would find anyone in our class who would say that architecture does not have a social responsibility.  We are all aware that as a profession, architecture has a more significant impact than those in other disciplines would initially believe on the way our societies, neighborhoods, communities, and daily life is shaped.  This effect may have been intentional, carefully designed and planned by a group of architects, developers, or city planners, or it could have been a total accident – brought about by competing individual desires, with the average user of the space disregarded.  Soja and Till warn us to be conscientious about the decisions we make regarding the user groups of our designs.  Do they encourage democracy (a sense of ownership and participation)? Do they allow equal access and opportunity?  We all believe architecture has a social responsibility.  Yet after reading the texts and my peers’ blog posts, there is an equally overwhelming amount of dissonance of what that social responsibility consists.

In some senses, I do not believe we have as much power as designers as we think (or wish) we have.  Regarding the flight from the city, architects could have refused to build sprawling subdivisions, ignoring the wishes of veterans returning home to follow their version of the “American Dream”. 

Architects could refuse to do upscale building renovations in neighborhoods with lower incomes, knowing that it will drive up property values and eventually force the economically-vulnerable population somewhere else.  (I realize that these situations are not binary, that there exists some middle ground, but this point exists nonetheless to show how arrogant some of these stances are – that we as architects know what is best for society).  Yes, we should be advocates of social responsibility, yet there is just as much danger resulting from a misplaced belief in thinking we can ‘fix’ society as there is in unflinching obedience to whatever brings money to our offices.

Personally, two striking examples come to mind regarding spatial (in)equality, and while I’m sure there could be better examples, these two will suffice.  The first is a gated neighborhood in a suburb.  Not only does one need a car to travel there, but once one arrives, they need a security code to enter.  Yes it is annoying for those trying to visit, yet it is also completely within their right to have such a neighborhood.  I don’t pretend to have equal rights to their property, and as much as I would like to drive down the street, I understand the private nature.  That’s fine.  Honestly, I can’t think of many people who are upset about not being able to enter wealthy neighborhoods. The other instance is a public park, such as Central Park.  In the midst of one of the most exclusive, expensive locations in the world, this park is open and accessible to everyone, regardless of beliefs, income, or race.  It’s part of what makes Central Park so special.  Yet it would be foolish to think that just because everyone can experience Central Park, everyone should be able to experience full use of the financial district a mile south.  I’d much rather enjoy the park anyway.