Redefining Architecture
Leadership. Urban Revitalization. Sustainability. These were the three themes of the AIA's national convention, held in Dallas this May 6-9. Taken separately, they are three intriguing topics of relevance in our practices. Taken together, they suggest a new focus for the practice of architecture.
Being three very different topics, making sense of combining them requires nothing less than a globalization of the conception of architecture. The traditional role of architects in the building process allows us only limited influence on the overall quality of the built environment. We work on one small piece of the puzzle at a time, usually within significant constraints imposed by our clients. Fundamental decisions of site selection, building type, mix of uses, and overall environmental impact usually get made before architects are even brought into the process.
Changing this will require our profession to expand its influence beyond its traditional role. We can no longer remain within the confines of our given sites, executing the wishes of our clients without critical scrutiny. We must expand our notion of architecture beyond the task at hand to consider how each project fits into the comprehensive whole of the built environment. We must strive to gain real influence in fundamental planning decisions. Sounds like a tall order, but consider: who is doing this today? Comprehensive, coordinated, and multi-disciplinary planning is seldom accomplished in practice. In Houston, the field is wide open.
Houston, in fact, could be an ideal laboratory for this kind of comprehensive view. Long held up as an example of the virtues of unfettered, market-driven development, there is no question that we have accomplished much. But, the drawbacks are becoming increasingly evident. The dynamics driving both public and private development today are focused on short-term market objectives, with fairly narrow and limited definitions of success. Success is measured in terms of return on investment; environmental impact or overall effect on the urban quality of life is not factored into the equation.
Take sustainability, for example. The keynote presenter, William Morris, presented a dismal picture of wealthy societies living far beyond their means in terms of their "ecological footprint": the equivalent amount of earth's surface and resources required to maintain their standard of living. With the developing nations struggling to catch up, and consumption increasing worldwide, the situation promises to get worse. Fortunately, this is not irreversible. But, starting on the road to a more sustainable built environment will require a widespread acknowledgment of the problem, followed by a comprehensive vision and a concrete plan of action.
Urban revitalization presents a similar situation. Prevailing development models still favor sprawling into the open lands at the outskirts of the urban areas, rather than the re-development of blighted inner city areas. True, we are seeing increased interest in inner-city areas lately, but it still generally requires public subsidies to tip the economic balance. Again, a comprehensive re-assessment of our priorities regarding land use and urban life is called for.
Who better to assimilate a wide variety of seemingly conflicting factors and synthesize them into a solution? Who better to give form to a new vision of the built environment? Architects are uniquely suited to address these new opportunities, but unfortunately, not particularly well positioned to do so. Reversing the trend of wasting resources and re-investing in existing areas will require architects to assume a broader role in the community than our traditional role. Above all, it will require leadership. Not just leadership in the sense of providing a vision, but also a willingness to be politically active. Ultimately, it is through leadership that we will gain greater influence over the built environment.
James Hill, AIA
