architecture: a house for humanity

Controversial take: architecture is the most important thing about civilization. I am not saying this because I am a student paying money to learn about architecture and how to design “good” ones. I am saying this because architecture is what creates society, civilizations, communities, neighborhoods, and anything that revolves around people. On the surface, it is obvious that architecture physically does makeup societies and neighborhoods as neighborhoods are created from a collection of buildings and subsequently a collection of people. A visually captivating skyline with iconic buildings meticulously mapped out on several city blocks may define an idyllic society with idyllic architecture. There is something deeper to architecture as a role in society separate from defining the cityscape. It is an art of experience, happenings, moments, and events. Historic moments are made with architecture as the backdrop for the consequences that succeed it. What was the signing of the Declaration of Independence without the Independence Hall where it was signed? What are kings without the castles they reside in? What are families without the home where they share intimate moments in? What am I arguing in terms of architecture and society? All these buildings and structures that are deemed significant, iconic, and historic are this way because of the humans that inhabit them. The human events that occur in these spaces create the significance of their architecture. In this manifesto, I will respond to architecture in the 21st century by addressing architecture as a house for humanity with the following points: how should we approach architectural education, how architecture is a dialogue of the times, and why capitalism is architecture’s biggest opponent.

I believe that if we view architecture through the lens that it is a home for humanity, we will create more meaningful architecture built for people.

1. how should we approach architectural education?

2. architecture as a dialogue of the times

3. capitalism: architecture’s biggest opponent

traditional houses of the tammari people in Togo, Africa

housing projects in new york city

japanese house

Before diving into the points that lead to the argument of architecture as a house for humanity, it is important to define what this means. A house is not only arguably the most primitive form of architecture but it is also the most meaningful, personification of human connection. A home is a place of familiarity and comfort. It is a place for loved ones, families or spouses, where memories are made and waves of laughter are rung. Houses transcend past just a bunch of walls, floors, and a roof; they are places that truly capture the soul of humanity. If we view all architecture as a house for everything, we can create meaningful architecture for every person. The architecture of a library is a house of readers and writers; how can we design a place that fosters an intimate love for literature like a mother and child in the comfort of their home? We need to design places people want to be in, feel safe and comfortable, and overall just catered to humanity. We must design authentic experiences that drive emotion for every user, regardless of the visual language it may

portray. This means that architecture is fundamentally an expression for people that triumphs over architectural style and technique.

how should we approach architectural education?

To begin discussing architecture, I want to propose a framework to architectural education that will become the foundation for architects in the future. To discuss what architecture is and what architects should strive for, I believe it is as important to argue what creates a solid foundation for these architects: their education. Architectural education should be approached in three ways: exploration, immersion, and collaboration which will later relate to my overall argument of architecture as a home for humanity. The first skill that architectural education must incorporate into their curriculum is a seemingly simple and obvious concept: exploration. It should be inherent for all institutions to promote active exploration for all students: exploration of architectural techniques, styles, graphic interpretations, architectural language, and basically anything taught in architecture school. Students should not be restricted in their thinking or capabilities, especially those following the agenda of higher authorities. Students should be free to explore so far that mistakes are made. Going further than that, I believe mistakes are encouraged! Mistakes are critical stepping stones to finding one’s architectural identity, which is what I believe the goal of architecture school should be which is linked to the other practical reasons for architecture school: learning how to design, understanding structure, working with a client, etc. All of this is to say you cannot tell a student what to design, because then they are not designing or, more importantly, they are not learning how to design. Boxing students into different types of architectural practices like two kickball teams on the playground promotes nothing but equally as boxed in thinking. A good architect will understand architecture from all design, style, and technical lenses because, at the end of the day, architecture is fundamentally all the same regardless of what type of facade it has. Students should be encouraged to explore how architecture speaks to them on their own.

how should we approach architectural education?

The next critical component of architectural education is immersion which is important for creating a conscious architect. A successful student will naturally progress to this stage because immersion is the action taken after students explore the subject. Early architects should be immersed in their site and environment to understand how it is to be a user of a space. Students should be immersed in other cultures and architecture unfamiliar to them to broaden their architectural scopes. We are meant to engage with the landscape and embrace it like a lover. If students learn how to immerse themselves in the world of the user, we will begin to understand how to design for people and design for experience. In the end, an architectural design must illustrate the heart of the project and that can only be done if the architect themselves connect deeper with the place and people associated with it. Overall, immersion creates an elevated understanding and consciousness of the project’s needs. Architectural education not only teaches design, but it needs to teach students how to understand people. This quote by David Chipperfield depicts the importance of experience and why I believe immersion is an important component of education: “There is a danger when every building has to look spectacular; to look like it is changing the world. I don’t care how a building looks if it means something, not to architects, but to the people who use it.”

how should we approach architectural education?

The final component of architectural education is collaboration. This is a part of architecture school that is more outwardly exhibited and executed, however, I believe teaching students how to collaborate effectively is most important. First, collaboration is an important life skill, especially for working at a firm; it’s an architect’s entire career! On a more meaningful level relating to immersion, collaboration allows us to view architectural problem-solving from multiple perspectives. We also get the chance to learn from each other and see how different we think and design. While collaboration is crucial for getting to the solution of a design, I believe that, at its core, it is a beautiful depiction of how differently everyone thinks and the differences are what leads to the solution. Knowing and understanding why collaboration is important, how can we teach students to collaborate better? Everyone has experienced a partnership go sour which kills the design spark for any project. Architects must ditch the ego and find humility in their work! If we are striving to design architecture as a house for humanity, the designers have to feel excited, passionate, and humble to understand the people they are working with to design for the public. Successful collaboration will lead to a successful understanding of how to work with and for people.

Next, I want to discuss how architecture is a dialogue of the times. Anyone that has studied history knows that architecture responds to time and place, supported by when Norman Foster said “Everything we design is a response to the specific climate and culture of a particular place.” The “times” today show architecture responding to climate change and harm to the environment. That means building sustainably should not be something to consider in architectural design; sustainability must be implemented in a project’s design. The appearance of the facade, whether classical or modern, should not matter as long as it responds to the sustainability needs of today. A sustainable environment warrants positive human emotion, therefore, it is the sustainable activity and human response that speaks for the architecture. This idea of building for the times can speak to other niches. For example, some countries are seeing their citizens living longer and the aging population increasing. As a result of this, it is not enough to design a beautiful building that stands out as a landmark in a cityscape, architects need to design around the aging person and curate a comfortable experience in the space. Components of architecture for an aging population by The Housing Our Ageing Population Panel for Innovation cite daylighting and the use of timber and natural materials to create a softer environment. This shows how architectural importance is found in space-making benefiting human living. Buildings are meant to be experienced and speak to human experience, not just plastered on magazines and coffee table books. Overall, architecture acting as a dialogue of the times shows how we must design around people and their current situations and accommodations by focusing on designing the experience and the function that follows it above all else.

Human experience transcends any

“architectural style wars”, ornament or minimalism, modernism or classicism.

architecture as a dialogue of the times

capitalism: architecture’s biggest opponent

Finally, I want to steer the architectural conversation in a more politically economic direction by addressing how capitalism is ruining architecture. Architecture has turned into a tool by private industries, governments, or esteemed individuals to make a profit and find acclaim. The art of building has turned into a business venture creating attractions, pushed forward by starchitects and other celebrity architects. David Chipperfield, the 2023 Pritzer Prize winner, responds to starchitecture by saying "It's an architecture of excess, a consequence of there being too much money around”. Looking at this quote, we can conclude whether or not some of these showy buildings need to be built. Why are we pouring billions of dollars into creating a performance piece when, at the same time, we see millions of helpless people without homes or adequate public facilities? A capitalist system has created an architectural culture of showing off that detaches from humanity. Robinson delves into the lack of awareness of human experience in the starchitecture culture, using Eisenman’s House VI as an example saying, “The building is pleasing as an abstract sculpture that evokes traces of its formal conception, but it fails to fulfill one of the basic functions of a house, to shelter its inhabitants both physically and psychologically so that they feel secure and at ease” (Robinson, 339). This quote illustrates how architects are now designing for spectacle and losing sight of the true purpose of architecture which is for humans. If the significance of a building is defined by the happenings and moments within the building, why would architects still fail to design around human experience?

There is also a large imbalance of opportunities for people to experience “good” architecture as many of the critically acclaimed works are in wealthy tourist areas. Most notably, the Guggenheim Bilbao, which kickstarted the “Bilbao Effect”, evidently benefits those living in the cities in which the buildings reside. Architecture said to cause a Bilbao Effect is often highly acclaimed, however, the whole “effect” of traveling to indulge in good architecture leaves the consumption of iconic architecture as something unattainable to most. Architecture has evolved into a game for the wealthy for the privileged. The field needs to recognize architectural success and honor based on factors that truly speak to human experience, accessible to the masses that define humanity. Architects should be praised at the same level for designing refugee shelters that preserve human dignity as a couple hundred thousand square foot performance space because the acknowledgment of human need is more valuable than the acclaim and noise drawn from a glamorous civic building. If we view architecture from a humanistic perspective, one that values the dignity, well-being, and experience of humanity, then architecture will find a more considerate purpose in society apart from a capitalist venture. While this phenomenon is undeniably a policy issue and this proposal is an idyllic solution to longstanding political issues, architecture as a whole needs to be more sympathetic and considerate in its mission and principle. There must be an incentive among architects to design for the greater good, that being spaces meant to uplift human dignity and experience. This starts with steering the industry towards a recognition of architecture that are not just by starchitects, but architecture that characterizes humanity.

Policy and architecture unfortunately have a relationship that oftentimes poses a detriment to certain classes. One situation, in particular, is the homelessness crisis many cities are experiencing, which one could say is a reflection of the times. Hostile architecture has arisen as a policy response to neglect the problem plaguing society, essentially brushing it off. This defensive design approach is defined as “a strategy where elements of a built environment are designed to purposefully guide or restrict behavior ‘in order to prevent crime and maintain order.’” (Ratterree). If the field of architecture truly cared about designing for the times in a sympathetic light, architecture firms would jump at the opportunity to consciously design homeless shelters that aided the rejuvenation of human life. If we acknowledge that architecture should shift with the times, then it would be clear that sheltering the unhoused would be critical. Capitalism and selfish desires influenced architectural priorities so much that public design is doing the opposite of what architecture should do; there is more harm to human dignity than good. Hostile architecture shows us that designing under capitalistic systems destroys the heart and purpose of conscious architecture.

architecture: a house for humanity

Architecture needs to find its place in an aware and purposeful society. Capitalism has painted architecture as a tool for fame and money, which has neglected the key aspect of design which is for people and how they experience space. By incorporating exploration, immersion, and collaboration as key components of architectural education, we can create conscious architects that see the value in designing for human well-being, experience, and the public good. It is not enough to advocate for a more considerate field of work around humanity; there needs to be a foundation put in place to teach the principles that shape considerate architects in their architectural education. The home is a place for human connection and social connectivity. Why should architectural design promoting these concepts be limited to the home? All architects should view space-making as fostering intimate moments that uplift human behavior. By following a philosophy based on feeling, experience, intimacy, and emotion, the public realm will recognize human-centric design and create a home for humanity.