Ambiguity of the Architect

“In all epochs, whatever the importance of his role, the architect has been subject to the world view of those in power. Since money, materials, land and authority to act were necessary, and since the ruling power was the only force capable of furnishing him with these means, the architect by definition had to identify himself with it, even transforming himself into its operative appendage.” – Giancarlo De Carlo, Architecture’s Public

The history of the profession of architecture finds itself entangled in a web of politics and societal issues. Often working alongside the elite class, architects [and urban planners] carried out their civil duties without questioning the motivations or consequences of their designs. Founded on a unique composition of practical sciences and fine arts, the profession was always destined to be ambiguous in nature. Still today, this odd coupling hinders progress in regard to both creative expression and technological advancement. The architect is the manifestation of “jack of all trades, master of none”. This vagueness complicates the validity of the profession. What is our role in society? How much credibility does an architect have? Who do we design for?  

Today there is no question that architecture should be designed for the user [and partially by the user]. The most valid design process is one that begins with an understanding of the end goal. We should not just ask ourselves “how do we achieve this?” but also “why do we want to achieve this?”. Through this mentality, we are able to remain critical. Architects must not be ignorant to the power of their work. It is crucial that we understand the consequences of the built environment, and consistently strive to create better though understanding the needs of the intended user.