When architecture backfires...sometimes

    One thing that stood out to me in the article “Rural Studio” was a quote from Samuel Mockbee. In the article, Mockbee suggests that, “The architectural profession has an ethical responsibility to help improve living conditions for the poor.” He gives this argument in response to why he continues to poor so much time and energy into his rural studio based out of Auburn University that he has kept running for over a decade. This quote brought me back to a lecture during my Junior year of architecture school, where a guest architect came in and showed how lower-income housing projects frequently backfire and do not serve the purpose they are designed for. A common response to a new low-income housing project is gentrification, where a middle to upper class group of people moves into the stylish-new buildings designed for the poor. This then raises the cost of the apartments due to high demand, and thus the original purpose has been defeated.

     

    Another point that Mockbee makes is that the profession should, “challenge the s
tatus quo into making responsible environmental and social changes.” This was a good point that he made in my opinion, but a flawed view slightly. Because changes like these usually come at an increase in cost, they may be less-likely to be implemental in a consumer-based market. Since a good portion of buildings are built for someone other than the architect, there is a limit attached to building design and the line could be drawn at environmental systems. Maybe this thought process isn’t correct, but in my limited experience professionally this would apply.