Socially Engaged Design: Architectural Interventions and their Impact on the Urban Realm
There has been a long tradition of presumptuous declarations that design can save the world. In recent years, socially engaged and participatory design has provided a new sense of obligation in the role of an architect or designer; it has led to the questioning of their professional role in society and how these roles may employ humanitarian efforts. Participatory design is an attitude about a force for change in the creation and management of environments for people. Citizens working towards collective outcomes are aimed at actions that shape and guide what a community is, what it does, and why it does it.[i] Today, socially engaged processes are being applied to design, and in the broader context of cities and the urban form, these efforts are often addressed through projects that range from temporary architectural and design interventions to large-scale infrastructural projects.
The profession of urban design has shifted from a singular entity to involve a multidisciplinary group of people, all coming from different perspectives, different roles, and carrying different agendas. Architects, designers, developers, federal/state/city agencies, landmark and historically minded groups, and increasingly public citizens sometimes work with, but often against each other to bring forces of change to our cities.[ii] These ideas and forces of change are happening on every level: technological, new forms and modes of transportation, understanding the eventualities of natural and man made disasters, etc. The issues urban designers are attempting to address are often discussed in the context of humanitarian efforts. There is an ethical vision of the socially engaged designer that attempts to satisfy these efforts and values concerning the ecology, economy, and society. With an increasing realization that has forced the once-distant discipline of planning and design to consult, increasingly, with those whose lives it affects, various models of socially engaged and participatory design have formed as attempts to meet these values, all with varying degrees of success.
Core values for the practice of participatory design include that the public should have a say in decisions about actions that could affect their lives and that their contributions will influence the decision. Participants should be provided with the information they need to participate in a meaningful way and be informed how their input affects the decision. [iii]
Although the rhetoric of social engagement sounds attractive, the way in which the concept is understood varies widely. It may mean simply keeping users informed about a project. At other times, designers may study the needs of users and incorporate their interpretations into the project. Going further, there may be processes of community consultation of varying depth. Participation could mean working in-depth with local groups at some or all stages of a project, from design to implementation to post-construction work. The model of participation employed hinges in part on design professionals' understanding of the role of the architect in such projects. Is it to innovate and present people with what the professional considers a better space? Is to study and interpret local conditions? Is it to balance user needs and desires with considerations of design, engineering, costs, regulations, etc.? Or is to facilitate a bottom-up process of design and implementation?[iv]
The key to design being valued in the context of social engagement is that is cannot be thought of as a panacea to everything. The worth of architectural interventions cannot be judged only by other practitioners or as a quest to achieve modernist utopian values through design alone. Socially engaged design should be an inclusive part of the process rather than being a subset of the architectural and design dialogue; rather than turning our attention to, these social issues should instead be the first thought in design considerations. Being aware of social implications of our design choices makes it possible to be the “citizen architect” no matter what the scale of a project. Simply put, to be a socially engaged designer in its true sense and to understand the issues that previously defined the profession is to maintain or even elevate the value and roles of the profession, within the scope of society.
One example of a social issue that is the topic of all urban conversations is the problem of low-income and public housing. Prevalent in every major city, low-income housing can be easy to overlook and dismissed as an economic or political problem. Regardless, social housing is undoubtedly needed; one of the greatest humanitarian challenges the US is facing today is that of providing shelter. 46.2 million people are living below the official poverty line, which is the highest number it’s been in the last 52 years.[v] With the world’s population increasing more rapidly in urban areas, considerations of public housing and these architectural interventions have a more profound impact on the design of the urban fabric than ever before. The physical design of our homes and communities has a distinct impact on our lives, yet too often in poverty-stricken communities, designers take a back seat to simply getting structures up for the citizens. Socially engaged design models have developed out of the experiments of post-modernism; presented are three examples of those models.
Case Study 1: The Rural Studio
Samuel Mockbee and D.K. Ruth, within the framework of Auburn University’s School of Architecture, established the Rural Studio. While there, Mockbee popularized the term “citizen architect”. Receiving nearly universal praise, the Rural Studio seeks solutions to the needs of some of the poorest communities in Alabama within the community’s own context, not from outside it.[vi] The projects that the Rural Studio tackles are designed in a familiar rural southern vernacular, using local materials and local help. The students have completed over eighty projects ranging from houses to chapels to a fire station. The basic framework of the studio engages Auburn students in the local community that contrasts with their own mode of living, they must raise at least part of the funding for construction and material costs, and the scope of their work is primarily architectural. Notable projects have included the numerous 20K houses, the Butterfly House, and Mason’s Bend Community Center. However, in looking at the condition of the Rural Studio projects after their construction, the most compelling result of the projects is widespread material deterioration, the overall quality of the projects lacking in both material detail and construction, and overall state of disrepair and vandalism. The Rural Studio is celebrated for its innovative use of unconventional materials—tires, license plates, window shields, carpet samples, etc.— but it is this exact problem that is one of the major pitfalls of the Rural Studio. In the documentary Citizen Architect: Samuel Mockbee and the Spirit of the Rural Studio, it is said that the rough craftsmanship of the projects isn’t the issue; it’s about the education of the students.[vii] However, the point of the Rural Studio is to take projects within the realm of academia into a broader, much more undefined scope. Outside of academia and dealing with entire communities and people’s lives, there must be a different level of accountability for the design, construction craftsmanship, and choices. The criticism of this model of social engagement in design is that it will first and foremost always be an academic program. The students are “there to learn”, and in some ways will never fully be responsible for the design choices that are made.
Samuel Mockbee is quoted saying: “If architecture is going to nudge, cajole, and inspire a community to challenge the status quo into making responsible changes, it will take the subversive leadership of academics and practitioners who keep reminding students of the profession’s responsibilities.”[viii] Unfortunately the projects of the Rural Studio have not altered the status quo in Hale County, and perhaps have even led to greater problems. Architecture can be a beautiful gift, but unfortunately it is a loaded one. In the same way that those on the receiving end of “Extreme Home Makeover” are often unable to afford the taxes and bills required to maintain and upkeep their gift of architecture, the recipients of the Rural Studio’s gifts have been found in the same condition. The now iconic photographs of the projects, underscore this issue: people sit enjoying their gift with either empty homes, or filled with items that do not fit in their new home; their lives seem as if staged in architecture. Furthermore, several of the Rural Studio houses are no longer occupied by their original inhabitants, which brings into question the blessings versus burdens that the homes inevitably carry.
Case Study 2: Brad Pitt and the Make It Right Foundation
A different approach to social engagement and humanitarian efforts in design is seen in the work of low-income housing in New Orleans, Louisiana. In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, the hardest hit areas of the city were still untouched by redevelopment. The serious lack of rebuilding progress prompted actor Brad Pitt to establish the “Make it Right” foundation. He dedicated himself to rebuilding 150 homes and providing them at a reasonable cost to former neighborhood residents. A modern architecture enthusiast, Pitt called on some of Louisiana’s and the world’s leading designers to draw up replacement homes that would be “stylish, energy efficient, ecologically sound and safer that the previous structures” in the most devastated part of New Orleans.[ix]
Before the hurricane, the neighborhood fabric of the Lower 9th Ward was dotted with “shotgun” style homes, an architectural design prominent throughout New Orleans. Now, with contributions from “starchitects” like Frank Ghery, Morphosis, and Concordia, towering contemporary homes redecorate the neighborhood. The resulting cutting-edge designs with irrelevant flourishes strike as garishly out of place, and at a great expense. Furthermore, architectural renderings show the homes furnished with Le Corbusier chairs and Prius’s in the driveway[x], which as insignificant as it may seem, show the insensitivity to context, and perpetuates in-place stereotypes of designer’s obsession with vanity-seeking projects.
Unarguably a heroic task, and one that certainly has the right intentions, this form of social engagement raises several questions. How much do these projects really help the victims of Katrina in the form of urban regeneration? Will the community be better off? How much can iconic architectural designs help in the practicalities of sustainable and low-income housing in the wake of natural disasters? Narcissism and charity inevitable are close companions, but it’s unclear whether the efforts in New Orleans are a case of the former or the latter. While the houses certainly do not take on the traditional aesthetic that stigmatizes low-income housing, they do look different from the rest of the city. The homes were intended to give displaced Katrina victims a sense of place, however, the modern designs look like they could be from anywhere in the world. Furthermore, the residents are now subjected to guided tours of their neighborhood that revel in the “great architecture”. There are varying opinions on the presence of these tours, but many residents feel that they are disrespectful and ignore the pain of what Katrina actually means to them.[xi]
Case Study Three: Incremental Design
By looking at the role of architecture and design in helping people improve their housing, the architectural group ELEMENTAL, in conjunction with the Chilean government, has contributed positively to the discourse of social housing. The “Incremental House”, on a site called Quinta Monroy explores the question of how to provide a basic quality house, for only $7,500. What began as an initiative to improve the quality of life of lower-income populations has become a “do tank” offering services that cover the entire spectrum of urban development, with the goal of alleviating social deprivation directly by developing new approaches for the reorganization of resources and the potential of the community by means of projects devoted to infrastructure and transportation, and not just the architecture.
The design works within the framework of the existing Chilean housing policy, using a $7,500 subsidy that pays for the cost of acquiring the land, which had previously been illegally occupied for the last 30 years, infrastructure, and architecture costs. Considering the current values in the Chilean building industry, $7,500 allows for just around 30 square meters of built space.[xii] ELEMENTAL identified a set of design conditions through which a housing unit can increase its value over time: by which its residents could still have the capacity to have their home express their own lifestyle. The design conditions ensure that each unit would have access to public space, adequate light and ventilation, and be structurally sound to withstand the many earthquakes that affect the area. But, it goes much further than that. Each family could then add on and expand their house whenever possible, and in many different ways, customizing and individualizing their spaces. Additionally, the families were able to remain on the same site, where they had access to neighbors, shopping, main transportation thoroughfares, and the beach. Where typically social housing tends to look for land that costs as little as possible, the aim was to remain in the same site, instead of displacing residents to the periphery. Cheaper land is often further away from the opportunities of work, education, transportation and health that cities offer. This way of operating has tended to localize social housing in an impoverished urban sprawl, creating belts of resentment, social conflict and inequity.[xiii] With these simple but effective design approaches, non-architectural questions like poverty, can be contributed to using architectural tools.
CONCLUSION
Regardless of the scale of project from simple architecture interventions to broader housing developments, theorists like Jane Jacobs argue that the social problems of low income housing must be overcome through understanding and respecting the forces for regeneration that inherently exist in devastated areas. The projects that the Rural Studio works on are endowed by Auburn University and are in this way somewhat shielded from outside criticisms. However, a serious look at the implications that the projects bring the residents and the entire community shows the perpetuation of already present socio-economic problems that cannot be alleviated through the gift of architecture and prove that the results of these social engagements are far beyond the scope of architecture and design alone.
Valuing architecture as a benefit to the underprivileged has a history rooted in modernism. The belief that a form of high culture can act as a platform for social change and sudden awareness of the human condition is predicated on idealist values, not on social processes of socio-political-economic independence.[xiv] Efforts like the “Make it Right” foundation, while certainly commendable, prove that architectural idealists often impose universal, or perhaps, elitist solutions on a community in the interest of high design, rather than the interests of the intended beneficiaries of good design.[xv] The good intentions within the social engagement are veiled behind contemporary language, obsession with form, and inward focus. While I don’t agree with the statement that architecture can save the world, good architecture is critically important to the broader urban form. The building itself may not solve a problem, but it can be a step in the right direction. For example, it’s hard to provide education to children of a rural population without the educational infrastructure to do so. Unfortunately, on the surface level, “citizen architecting” is merely addressing a single symptom of a much deeper-rooted socio-economic problem. In better models of social engagement, like the Incremental House, articulate the belief that the world in which we live forms an integral part of our identity. The home, particularly its image within the community, tells us much about who we are. Furthermore, these models understand how people integrate into the larger community and the relationship between the physical structure of a neighborhood and its resident’s ability to create a cohesive community and maintain a sense of ownership.[xvi]
The “citizen architect” and social engagement model has taken many forms across the country, i.e. The Rural Studio, Make it Right, Habitat for Humanity, Architecture for Humanity, ELEMENTAL, BC Workshop etc., all which approach the problems of the world differently. The Rural Studio and Make it Right enlists architecture to cancel the mere replication of the built environment that programs like Habitat for Humanity endorse; but at the same time it restrains its social potential with the leash of middle-class utopian desires.[xvii] While all three forms of social engagement models presented to some degree incorporate a level of engagement with the users that the core values of participatory design is centered on, however in many cases, projects like those of the Rural Studio and Make It Right do not go beyond much more than the belief in the transformative power of aesthetics, and a pretty photograph.[xviii] Social engagement should not refer simply to architecture and design, but should include participation in politics, civic networks, business development, etc. Rather, the physical design of the neighborhood should be set so the spaces of an urban fabric maximize social interaction.
The problems of Hale County Alabama and even the rest of the world cannot only be approached from only an architectural and design perspective even though improvements in basic needs like shelter and access to sanitary water could generate positive change. So maybe rather than upholding the delusion that architecture alone can save the world, instead we should insist that it can help make the world worth saving.
[i] Sanoff, Henry. "Multiple Views of Participatory Design | Henry Sanoff - Academia.edu." Multiple Views of Participatory Design | Henry Sanoff - Academia.edu. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Dec. 2012.
[ii] Urbanized: A Documentary Film by Gary Hustwit. Dir. Gary Hustwit. Urbanized: A Documentary Film by Gary Hustwit. N.p., n.d. Web. 15 Dec. 2012.
[iii] Sanoff, Henry. "Multiple Views of Participatory Design | Henry Sanoff - Academia.edu." Multiple Views of Participatory Design | Henry Sanoff - Academia.edu. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Dec. 2012.
[iv] Savchuk, Katia. "Where: Participatory Design in Poor Communities: Beyond the Rhetoric." WHERE: Imagining an Urban Future, n.d. Web. 18 Dec. 2012.
[v] Tavernise, Soaring Poverty Casts Spotlight on ‘Lost Decade’ web
[vi] “Citizen Architect: Samuel Mockbee and the Spirit of the Rural Studio.” Citizen Architect: Samuel Mockbee and the Spirit of the Rural Studio. Big Beard Films, 23 Aug. 2010. Web 1 Dec. 2012. http://citizenarchitectilm.com/about.php/
[vii] Big Beard Films, Citizen Architect
[viii] Big Beard Films, Citizen Architect
[ix] "About." Make It Right. Make It Right, n.d. Web. 18 Dec. 2012.
[x] "Housing for New Orleans." Dezeen RSS. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Dec. 2012.
[xi] "In the Lower Ninth, 'Making It Right' May Not Be." NOLA 10. New York Times Student Journalism Institute, n.d. Web. 18 Dec. 2012.
[xii] "Quinta Monroy / Elemental" 31 Dec 2008. ArchDaily. Accessed 18 Dec 2012.
<http://www.archdaily.com/10775>
[xiii]"Quinta Monroy / Elemental" 31 Dec 2008. ArchDaily. Accessed 18 Dec 2012. <http://www.archdaily.com/10775>
[xiv] Real, Patricio Del. “Ye Shall Receive”: The Rural Studio and the Gift of Architecture.” Journal of Architectural Education 62.4 (2009): 123-26. Print.
[xv] Kaye, Leon. “Making the Ideal More Real.” Architect Magazine. AIA Practice, 1 June 2011. Web. 1 Dec. 2012. http://www.architectmagazine.com/architects/making-the-ideal-more-real.aspx.
[xvi] Alvin Schorr, in his 1963 classic Slums and Social Insecurity
[xvii] Real, Patricio Del. “Ye Shall Receive”: The Rural Studio and the Gift of Architecture.” Journal of Architectural Education 62.4 (2009): 123-26. Print.
[xviii] Real, Patricio Del. “Ye Shall Receive”: The Rural Studio and the Gift of Architecture.” Journal of Architectural Education 62.4 (2009): 123-26. Print.
