(lack of) Scarcity in the U.S.

Scarcity thus has a twofold constitution: first as an actual limit on resources; and then as a socially constructed condition that results in the uneven distribution of resources.

                        Jeremy Till

The article “Scarcity contra Austerity” begins to rethink the architect’s role in design, proposing the role of a “spatial agent” over that of the physical building designer. While I agree with Till’s points, especially the redefining examples of current architects, it seems that here, in the majority of the U.S. (and probably every firm we go to work for), scarcity is not yet seen as a problem. Because we are such a global economy, materials are able to be retrieved from just about anywhere in the world, if money allows. So, designers have not yet been asked to find new ways of thinking because there is a lack of worry about “scarcity” (again, in the majority of America). This could be viewed as a failure of architectural practice; in which we have let economics overrule our innate desire to better our communities. The desire to create iconic, formally and aesthetically pleasing buildings has taken over the basic need of functional architecture. In my opinion, the stronger architect is the one who can reuse materials on a limited budget, the one who rethinks and questions the process, over the architect who generates a beautiful form/space because he or she has all the resources at his or her fingertips. However, the fault is not entirely on the architect. The society we live in today believes that new equals better, which adds another level of difficulty for the architect who works with the conditions of scarcity + austerity. As in the example of the competition to redesign the congested corridor of a school, in which the firm proposes to just change the timing of students occupying the space, architects must begin to redefine the problems into opportunities, thinking about space less physically and more as a social product, capable of reshaping everyday life.