The (Ir)relevance of Architecture by Thomas Badger

The (Ir)Relevance of Architecture

Contents

One.

Two.

The £100 Chicken

The Image of the Architect

Page 5 - 8.

Page 10 -13.

Three.

Four.

The Complicit Architect

The Activist Architect

Page 14 - 15.

Page 16 - 17.

Five.

Six.

The Anti-Architect

Social & Spatial Equality

Page 18 - 19.

Page 20 - 21.

LSA - Critical Practice Theory Thomas Badger Word Count: 3070

Abstract The essay explores ways of practicing architecture within and against capitalism and neoliberalism in London. Rather than presenting absolutes, a series of opportunities open to the architect are presented. At times these opportunities might contradict one another, but that is reflective of the complex and varied discipline of architecture. The aim is not to conclude the topic but to instigate thought and discussion.

1. The ÂŁ100 Chicken

Chapter 1

The £100 Chicken

“Architecture is now a tool of capital, complicit in a purpose antithetical to its social mission”1

6

If the price of food had risen at the same rate as house prices in London over the last 40 years, then buying a chicken at the local supermarket would now cost £100.­2 The absurdity of London’s property market exemplifies the degree to which the city is driven by capital. In 1996, a home would cost a first time buyer around 2.6 times their income, today that figure is more than 10 times the average income. London’s built environment is driven entirely by economic value. But is there any alternative to building as capital? If architecture is in fact a tool for capital, how can it be practiced ethically?

In the 1970s a conservative revolution swept through America then Britain, bringing with it a new, economically liberal agenda. Cuts to government spending and privatisation followed. A new economic model emerged, in which the return on capital began to exceed economic growth. This observation forms the basis of Thomas Piketty’s seminal essay Capital In The Twenty-First Century. Piketty’s analysis suggests that the ideas of social mobility that existed in the 20th century allowed labour to overtake capital as a means of accumulating wealth3, however, the neoliberal agenda of the 1970s began to reverse this trend. And so began the drive for inequality. Stagnant wages (there hasn’t been a real terms wage rise in Britain since 1976) and rising debts, have resulted in the siphoning of disposable income to an elite, while strengthening the stability of neoliberalism.

Piketty ends his essay by calling for governments to adopt global tax systems on wealth, to prevent such inequality leading to political and economic instability.4 Without intervention inheritance will become the defining factor of class and the possibility for social mobility becomes remote if not impossible, such a future is not hard to imagine (if not already present).

As society faces ever greater levels of inequality, so does the practice of architecture. Once the embodiment of civic ambition and social mobility, it is now at the mercy of the developer and the demands of London’s property market. The 20th century saw architecture’s belief in progress, of great vision and social emancipation. From Le Corbusier to the Smithsons the ideologies of Modern architecture became the dream of social mobility captured in concrete5, establishing architecture as a socio spatial practice with a mission for social equality at its core.

7

1. R. de Graaf, The Architectural Review, 2015, https://architectural-review. com/essays/viewpoints/ architecture-is-now-a-toolof-capital-complicit-in-apurpose-antithetical-to-itssocial-mission/8681564. article, (accessed 13 May 2018).

2. A Minton, Big Capital: Who is London For?, London, Penguin Press, 2017, p. 45 3. T. Piketty, Capital in the 21st Century, Harvard University Press, 2014 4. ibid.

5. R. de Graaf, The Architectural Review, 2015, https://architectural-review. com/essays/viewpoints/ architecture-is-now-a-toolof-capital-complicit-in-apurpose-antithetical-to-itssocial-mission/8681564. article, (accessed 13 May 2018).

As with politics and economics the 1970s saw our built environment acquire a new function. From a means to provide shelter, it became a method of generating financial return. With it the democratic and architectural value of the built environment began to change. Once buildings are established as a kind of capital, there is no choice but to operate according to the logic of the free market. London epitomises this idea, where a building no longer reflects it use and architectural value, but an opportunity for economic return.

Even the architecture that once embodied civic ambition and social mobility, often now helps to prevent it. The neoliberal politics of the ’80s and ’90s have made the values of modern architecture obsolete, with the practice of architecture reduced to decoration and branding, its virtues and traditions rendered irrelevant. Yet notions of social mobility and civic duty still exist in architectural discourse. Here we find a dichotomy between the will of architecture as a discourse and its practiced reality. But with the practice of architecture so inextricably linked to the construction industry (and therefore to capital), can architecture ever be an egalitarian pursuit? How do we expect to consult on how a city is equitably built when we are so aligned with the interests of the developer? What is a chef do with a £100 chicken?

8

Chapter 1

The Image of the Architect

“We are waiting for a dissident group to liberate us from the crushing humiliation of neoliberalism—which delivers only poverty, peonage, crisis and austerity.”1

10

In order to establish how the architect can pursue social and spatial equality, the role of the architect and the relationship to wider society must be understood. Published in 1983 Andrew Saint’s The Image of the Architect gives valuable insight in to how the discipline has been perceived historically. Saint’s work presents a comprehensive study in to the perception of architecture and the architect, tracing the image of the profession from the medieval to present.2 A series of architects (entirely male) are presented; from The Architect as Gentleman, to The Architect as Hero and Genius, to The Architect as Businessman. The prevailing image Saint finds is often one of self importance and self indulgence.The book establishes the creative feats that have been achieved under the title of architecture, but also begins to demonstrate how the profession has become isolated and marginalised through the way it has presented itself.

There is also an overwhelming sense of pessimism towards the motivations of the architect, with Saints findings often pointing towards the financial (perhaps informed in part by his marxist views on history3).

Through these observations the book asks intriguing questions surrounding the image of architecture today and what motivates the profession. What might similar images of the present and future tell us about the role of architecture in society? Like Saints essay, the following chapters explore potential profiles or ‘images’ of the architect. Where Saint’s images reflect on the past, we explore present and projected identities for the architect, imagining how architecture might reshape itself in order to re-establish its social agenda.

Three images are presented; the Complicit, the Activist and the Anti Architect, each has their own views on how best to reform the structures (both physical and meta-physical) governing the lives of London’s citizens.

The three images therefore explore the value in architecture, or more specifically the value in the profession of architecture.

The loss of the idea of the architect as hero is vital to all three images. If we are prepared to get rid of the image of an architect as a ‘visionary’ and focus on more normative forms of design and knowledge generation, we can re-establish the weakened relationships to society and the construction industry.4 The ambition is to use architecture to combat inequality and instability. Each of the profiles believes in the egalitarian city, but disagree on how it might be achieved. Read in parallel the three voices often contradict one another, the result is a debate, attempting to establish where the value of architecture might lie.

11

1. J. Self, The Only Task of Architecture, Archfondas, 2016 http://leidiniu.archfondas.lt/en/ alf-04/jack-self-only-task-architecture (accessed 18 May 2018).

2. A. Saint, The Image of the Architect, London, Yale University Press, 1983 3. Ibid. p.7 4. F. Samuel, Why Architects Matter, London, Routledge, 2018, pp.230-254

12

2. Architect as Hero - Howard Roark in the Fountainhead

13 3. Architect as Gentelman - Frank Lloyd Wright

The Complicit Architect

4. Jack Self - A Trojan Horse in London

Image 1 - Working Within and Against Neoliberalism

14

Working simultaneously with and against the flows of the market the complicit architect appears to exist comfortably within neoliberal society. However, the goal here is to subvert the logic of the market for social gain. The complicit architect does not appear overly political, in fact, there is an underlying acceptance of the status quo. ‘The architect does not govern policy and nor should they!’ Such complicity allows the architect to buy in to the status quo, leaving in tact the ethical obligation to the client. To say that architects should reinvent themselves as politicians, planners, enablers, artists, activists – anything but architects, demonstrates architecture’s disciplinary confusion.

The complicit architect attempts to reestablish architecture as a central figure within the construction industry working closely with councillors, contractors and developers alike. When done well and for the right reasons they provide a resource like no other. Informed by the right research and understanding, they have the capacity to embed positive social change into the city over a prolonged period of time1, irrespective of political circumstance. Few others can do this, their power lies in producing fragments of generosity in the city.

Theirs is a world of section 106 agreements, of GIAs, NIAs and GDPs. The complicit architect fights for detail and material quality, for generosity, for public space, struggling upstream against value engineering and budget cuts. The complicit architect mediates, thinking creatively to produce new fragments of city that benefit its inhabitants as well as the logic of the market. Their practice often contains offshoots for research and design, that can not be pursued through the confines of the construction industry.2

Rather than retreating in to self indulgence, the complicit architect understands the need to reconcile the vast gaps between the architect and those who they work with (design team) and for (client/user). Rather than returning to aesthetic codes and instinct led generalism, they believe the value of architecture can be demonstrated through a clear methodology and design research culture.3 The profession should consolidate and demonstrate its knowledge base to greater effect. If the question is how architecture might regain its social agenda, then one might not look towards its limits but its centre.

At its most extreme this form of practice behaves like a trojan horse4, working within and against the neoliberal framework. At first complicit the architect might fight inequality from within, like the trojan horse the complicit architect establishes a position of power from which to change the systems that govern London life. The complicit architect is a respected citizen, with an ulterior, disruptive personality lurking below the surface.

15

1. Mark Minjan, Is the Architecural Profession Still Relevant? An Interview with Rory Hyde, Failed Architecture, https://failedarchitecture. com/is-the-architectural-profession-still-relevant/, (accessed 19 May 2018) 2. See OMA/AMO. http://oma.eu/office 3. A. Dye, F. Samuel, Demystifying Architectural Research, Newcastle Upon Tyne, RIBA Publishing, 2015, p.145 4. J. Self, The Only Task of Architecture, Archfondas, 2016 http://leidiniu.archfondas.lt/en/alf-04/jack-self-only-task-architecture (accessed 18 May 2018).

The Activist Architect

5. A Better World is Possible

Image 2 - Presenting Alternative Narratives

16

‘Fuck neoliberalism and fuck inequality.’ the activist architect wears their heart on their sleeve.

Neoliberalism feeds on immediate crises in order to close down alternative futures. Simply rejecting the shock tactics of neoliberalism is not enough. As Naomi Klein suggests new and engaging narratives must be presented lead by values not policy.2 The activist architect believes in using their skills as a spatial strategist and storyteller to help present these new narratives. A better world is possible and the architect can play a vital role in presenting it.

Activist architecture is a multidisciplinary practice. The output of the work is not always explicitly architectural, traversing the traditional boundaries of various disciplines. Whether or not the output is a building is the wrong way of framing the discourse3. The focus here is the outcome, the activist architect happens to do built work if that is what is required.

Thinking critically is at the core of their practice (a skill that has been lost within architecture according to Doug Spencer4). The activist architect must utilise critical thought in demonstrating how the city operates, or might operate differently. In doing so architecture is used to hold the guilty to account. It is the pursuit of truth and public accountability through spatial studies.5 Film, photography and written work all become a part of the architects remit.

Paper architecture becomes a key mode of practice. Like the paper architects of the 1980s, activist architects often choose not to take part in a system where building feeds the systems they oppose.6 In doing so the activist architect limits their opportunities to practice architecture and are often faced with unemployment, debt and insecurity.

The activist architect believes that the concept of struggle itself lies at the core of an equal society. A kind of necessary agnostic pressure on the political and economic systems in place. It is through such threats to the system that the social mobility of the 20th century was possible. Even if the system is not be overthrown the presentation of alternative keeps it balanced. ‘Except in struggle, there is no more beauty’, wrote the Futurist Filippo Tommaso Marinetti, ‘No masterpiece without an aggressive character.’7

In collaborating with others, the activist architect can present alternative futures, using their connections to bring their dreams to the mass media. The activist architect embeds themselves in the masses, operating as part of a collective for change.

17

1. N. Klein, No Is Not Enough Defeating the New Shock Politics, Allen Lane Publishing, 2017, p. 12.

2.Ibid. p. 240 3. R. Hyde, Future Practice: Conversation from the Edge of Architecture, Routledge, 2012, pp.42-49 4. D. Spencer, The Architecture of Neoliberalism: How Contemporary Architecture Became an Instrument of Control and Compliance, Bloomsbury Academic, 2016, pp. 161-163 5. See Forensic Architecture - https://www.forensicarchitecture.org 6. T., Awan, T., Schneider, J., Till, Spatial Agency: Other Ways of Doing Architecture, New York, Routledge, 2011.

7. F. T., Marinetti, The Futurist Manifesto, cited in R., de Graaf, Four Walls and a Roof: The Complex Nature of a Simple Profession, London, Harvard University Press, 2017, p. 419.

The Anti-Architect

6. Ai Weiwei - Study of Perspective

Image 3 - Escaping the limitations of professionalism

18

Perhaps Rem was right. In the context of hyper development and 1 neoliberalism architecture really is irrelevant­ , or perhaps it is the profession of architecture that is irrelevant? The anti-architect confronts the battle between architecture as a discourse and profession. They believe in the discourse of architecture but not in its profession, which they see as a usurper, spending its time paranoid, looking over its shoulder.

Driven by dreams of power and influence, the profession’s ambitions and achievements reveal the flaw that will ultimately lead it to its death. The anti-architect believes such a death is required in order for newer, more relevant models of what it means to be an architect.

To be a professional is to protect a knowledge base, by its very nature a profession isolates. The anti architect believes in shared knowledge, in an open discourse, in intelligent people working together. This shift from expert body of knowledge to a broader epistemological understanding of the world demonstrates a move away from architecture as a specific professional knowledge base, towards a more varied, less definable discipline. It allows the architect to be free of the limitations of title and the limitations of building as capital.

The knowledge base traditionally associated with and protected by the profession has already been passed to engineers, project managers and other consulting bodies. So, with the technical aspects of our profession outsourced to engineers, the managerial aspects outsourced to project managers, and the diminishing role of the professions2, the anti-architect asks what is actually left to protect? Surely it is no wonder the profession struggles so hard to assert its relevance? Attempts to protect the word “Architect” only come across as merely self-serving, compounding the architects marginalisation.

The lack of a professional title would allow architecture to share its knowledge more widely, it would allow its students to proliferate other disciplines and professions. In order to redefine architecture as an egalitarian pursuit, the anti-architect celebrates the failed architect. Those who ply their trade outside of the traditional boundaries of the profession and title of architecture, those who use their knowledge to reshape the city from within politics, economy, development (to name a few). The anti architect believes that the profession in its current form can not survive perhaps architects of the future will not be architects at all. They will be engaged in a far wider range of ideas, they will be more entrepreneurial and will operate outside of the limited boundaries of the profession. Following the theories of Friedrich Nietzsche (God is dead and man is free), the antiarchitect believes architecture can be freed by the death of the architect.

19

1. G.Wolf, Exploring the Unmaterial World: An interview with Rem Koolhaas, Wired Magazine ,2000 https:// www.wired.com/2000/06/ koolhaas-2/ (accessed 20 May 2018) 2. R., Susskind, D., Susskind, The Future of Professions: How Technology Will Transform the Work of Human Experts, New York Oxford University Press, 2017, p.2

Conclusion

Social & Spatial Equality

“while the architecture profession has been in ‘crisis’ since its very beginnings it seems clear that a new crossroads has been reached.’

20

Whether the profession continues, reshapes or dies, current levels of inequality (as well as climate change) demand architecture makes a case for an alternative future. Each of the images presents ways in which architecture can reassert its value, and in doing so, help to fight inequality.

The images call for taking a pro-active approach to how society operates.

Key to all three images is an understanding of context.

Context can come in many forms; historical, physical, social.

However the focuse here is on the context that surrounds the profession and discourse. In order to practice with a social agenda the profession of architecture must first understand its own context and image. Whatever image the architect might take, we must examine the context in which we operate and break free of isolation. In understanding the social and professional context we can begin working against the problems that we face as a society.

Patrik Schumacher has written extensively on architecture in the context of neoliberalism and argues that practice has always been at the service of politics and economy. He demonstrates how the styles of architecture often reflect the socio-economic epochs of the time; from medieval vernacular and feudalism to modernism and international socialism. By this logic Schumacher suggests parametricism, reflects the market led economy society we live in today. Parametricism therefore uses its understanding of (and indifference to) political context to become an adversary of the neoliberal developer. Rather than use the understanding of the professions context as a form of political agency Schumacher accepts the neoliberal system and works with it.

Schumacher’s observation asks important questions of the practice of architecture surrounding our relationship to a system (neoliberalism) that is often antithetical to its social mission. Where Schumacher accepts the context of neoliberalism working with its ideologies, this essay calls for a change in context, a change in our relationship to those we work with and for. New forms of practice are beginning to emerge, which demonstrate how this might be possible. Practices (often anonymous to rid us of Architect as Hero) are understanding the context in which the profession operates and reacting to it.The Images present us with three further ways of operating within the context of neoliberalism in London. We must use architecture to create social and spatial equality through open, multi-disciplinary forms of design practice.

21

1. 4. F. Samuel, Why Architects Matter, London, Routledge, 2018, pp.20

2. P. Schumacher, Let the style wars begin, Architects Journal, 2010 https:// www.architectsjournal. co.uk/news/culture/patrik-schumacher-on-parametricism-let-the-style-wars-begin/5217211.article (accessed 20 May 2018 3. J., Self, Does politics have any place in architecture?, Architectural Review, 2015, https://www.architectural-review.com/essays/does-politicshave-any-place-in-architecture/8688945.article (accessed 20 May 2018) 4. See Architecture00 or Real Foundation http://www.architecture00.net http://real.foundation

Bibliography Awan, T., Schneider, T., Till, J., Spatial Agency: Other Ways of Doing Architecture, New York, Routledge, 2011. de Graaf, R., Architecture is now a tool of capital, complicit in a purpose antithetical to its social mission, The Architectural Review, 2011, http://www.wilderness.org.au/2011campaigns/climate, (accessed 25 January 2012). de Graaf, R., Four Walls and a Roof: The Complex Nature of a Simple Profession, London, Harvard University Press, 2017.

Dye, A., Samuel, F. Demystifying Architectural Research, Newcastle Upon Tyne, RIBA Publishing, 2015.

Hyde, R., Future Practice: Conversation from the Edge of Architecture, Routledge, 2012.

Klein, N., No Is Not Enough Defeating the New Shock Politics, Allen Lane Publishing, 2017.

Minton, A., Big Capital: Who Is London For?, London, Penguin Press, 2017.

Piketty, T., Capital in the Twenty-First Century, Harvard University Press, 2008.

Saint, A., The Image of the Architect, London, Yale University Press, 1983 Samuel, F., Why Architects Matters: Evidencing and Communicating the Value of Architects, London, Routledge, 2018 Self, J., The Only Task of Architecture, Archfondas, 2016 http://leidiniu.archfondas.lt/en/alf-04/ jack-self-only-task-architecture (accessed 18 May 2018).

Self, J., Does politics have any place in architecture?, Architectural Review, 2015, https://www.architectural-review.com/essays/does-politics-have-any-place-in-architecture/8688945.article (accessed 20 May 2018) Schumacher, P. Let the style wars begin, Architects Journal, 2010 https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/ news/culture/patrik-schumacher-on-parametricism-let-the-style-wars-begin/5217211.article (accessed 20 May 2018) Spencer, D., The Architecture of Neoliberalism: How Contemporary Architecture Became an Instrument of Control and Compliance, Bloomsbury Academic, Susskind, R., Susskind, D., The Future of Professions: How Technology Will Transform the Work of Human Experts, New York Oxford University Press, 2017.

Wolf, G. Exploring the Unmaterial World: An interview with Rem Koolhaas, Wired Magazine ,2000 https://www.wired.com/2000/06/koolhaas-2/ (accessed 20 May 2018)

The London School of Architecture