Can Architects Be Socially Responsible?

Summarized post-its from our discussion on Thursday!  

Keep in mind that the question from Margaret Crawford's article, "Can Architects be Socially Responsible?" can produce more nuanced interpretations than "YES" or "NO," and hopefully this exercise and our discussion has given you the arsenal to form refined opinions and construct complex arguments. 

Relevant Precedents:

• Good council estate vs. bad council estates in England || Subsidized housing projects in the US
• Architecture for Humanity
• MASS Design Group -  Butaro District Hospital, Rwanda
• Housing Projects
• Citizen Architect - Sam Mockbee and the Rural Studio - Music Man's House
• Shigeru Ban

Yes, architects can be socially responsible:

• The most meaningful architecture goes beyond aesthetics and focuses on utility, can provide architecture and good design to those that need it most.
• Architects can be socially responsible because some choose to go out into the world and help others with their architecture without going over what is needed.  Not all architecture has to be huge and expensive.  ((Pevsner's cathedral vs. Banham's bike shed))
• Architects can find materials and designs to accommodate every social class.
• Architects can be socially responsible depending on why they building something and whom it is for.
• Architects can create buildings that build a sense of community and work as housing--buildings are atmosphere and a good atmosphere is a step towards a better society (but it can't do it alone!)
• Even though most focus is on capital and high design of big buildings in large cities or wealthy areas, still there are some who give back and focus on the less fortunate end of the spectrum.
• What architects design can effect economies, resolve conflict and better communities.
• Architects are able and willing to use their talent and drawings to help create buildings that will foster positive social intersections.
• They can work with the client to meet their needs and design a structure that utilizes the local climate, passive design, materials and labor that functions for the task at hand.

No, architects cannot be socially responsible:

• While a building can influence people, a design cannot bring about positive change on its own.
• No, architecture is not a social service industry, but a long and complicated process and it is difficult to make a living working solely on socially responsible projects.
• Architects need to make a living, most service projects do not generate much income.
• No, architecture is a learned profession that requires highly educated and skilled personnel to draft designs, this alone is too expensive for the budgets of most socially minded projects.
• Difficult to balance commercial interests and social responsibility--however good a project may be, if it is not economically profitable, it probably will not get built.
• Architects focus mostly on high income, high design, high price areas.  Paris, New York , Los Angeles, Tokyo, London, etc. outlying areas often do not receive their attentions
• They cannot be socially responsible because then they would have to focus more on that than creating real/beautiful architecture.
• They cannot be socially responsible because the profession of architecture has been affected in a way that encourages high aesthetics, which usually costs a lot of money.
• The profession inherently favor high design drawings for wealthy clients and supresses those who do not follow that mentality.  Although the Rural Studio helped the community, they could have created functional buildings that required less resources.
• As a profession, architecture is not invested in the lives of their clients, just the buildings they are making and their aesthetics.  They do not think of the larger context of neighborhoods enough.