Architects Should Eat the Rich

 "...in the early 1990s, American architecture had retreated from social and civic engagement to a preoccupation with matters of style... designing increasingly audacious buildings for affluent clients worldwide."


This quote from Samuel Mockbee's "The Rural Studio" stuck out to me, because even though 30 years have passed, I don't feel like this is dated at all. I think there is slightly more recognition of the needs of society beyond the upper class, but architect studios are still primarily concerned with larger commissions and big projects that work as advertisements for the firm. More firms and architects may be interested in helping, but in late stage capitalism with rising prices and higher rates it's not as feasible. More often than not, these firms aren't set up to help the common man, they are set up to help the large clients. 

I think architects and firms alike should step up, and maybe that will happen with our generation of architects with masters degrees who come into positions of power and begin starting our own firms. If America is still a country and the world isn't a nuclear wasteland, I think architects need to be the change that the world is looking for. America doesn't look out for everyone, so it makes sense that architecture has evolved not to here either. We try to in our designs, but ultimately, they're governed by who is footing the bill.






Comments

  1. I have a love hate relationship with starchitects. On the one hand, they create these amazing and unique projects that will definitely affect the field of architecture for years to come. On the other hand, the projects are often so big and stuck in capitalism that they feel disconnected from the human scale. How can we build for humans when many don't have the money to participate? Obviously big projects mean big profit, but I feel we often neglect the smaller projects like those of the Rural Studio that find ways to create unique architecture at a lower price. Low budget projects often create a new set of challenges that force architects to be even more creative with the resources we have.

    ReplyDelete
  2. It's sad to think that architecture has fallen prey to capitalism, but honestly who hasn't? We are all selling our souls to the 9-5 and still feel like we don't work hard enough. I like Taylor's point of using capitalism as a kind of challenge to work more efficiently and creatively. Quality is reserved for the rich but I think that manifests as skill and availability of materials. Taking these limitations and translating them to either a smaller scale or innovations in the way buildings are assembled to offer solutions to the inequity in architecture.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I feel that besides our occupation of being the "future" architect, we are also the end consumers (bottom of the pyramid) within the capitalism scheme. I feel that we need to become the leaders of change for our time. The best way I see to make the change right away is to involve with firms whose works focus on people and communities rather than $$$.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I think if architects are going to be the change the world is looking for, we have to examine our fee structures. Probably upwards of 99% of architecture firms are for profit - you need the big commissions to keep the lights on and the doors open. What I did not realize is that a firm can actually be structured as a non-profit and enjoy tremendous success. Michael Murphy gave a presentation at the cNOMAS conference where he discussed several of the firms projects centered on equity and healing. He founded MASS with a handful of others and their business model is a non-profit. I wasn't even aware this was a thing. If we can shift our focus to the user and not the fees, I really believe we could transform our cities and suburbs. But I've also worked for my share of greedy firm owners, and I know how aspirational that idea is.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Jenn,

    Agreed. Architects seem to be designing for the two extremes of the spectrum. Either for the supper rich with so much money and frivolity or the super generic aka big box stores like Walmart or Home depot. We forget that most people dont fit into those two categories. Most people want high quality spaces to interact in. And high quality doesnt have to mean high price tag.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular Posts