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 made 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 for human experience among the starchitecture culture, using the 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 the 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?

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, but 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 the spacemaking 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.

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 which the buildings reside in. Architecture said to cause a Bilbao Effect are 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 by 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 acknowledgement 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, wellbeing, 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 often times poses 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 acknoledge that architecture should shift with the times, then it would be clear that sheltering the unhoused would be critical. Capitalism and seflish 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 concious architecture.