Ethics in architecture

[NineInfinity]

I am currently a year away from getting a bachelor in architecture degree and one of the graduation requirements is to take a general lecture class about ethics in architecture. The teacher is a self-proclaimed Marxist and has used the class as a means of instructing us how it is our moral duty to help poor, underprivileged people through architectural design. He also is trying to instill in us the notion that the "community" should have unlimited power in determining what gets built to make sure it's "good". I see lots of practical examples in Philadelphia where developers trying to do something better (unless you consider abandoned factories a higher value than condominiums) get stymied by the "community" who decides that better is bad because higher land values mean the poor people might lose their homes (which they obviously don't own otherwise they'd make a nice profit), or even worse, the new building might disrupt the all-important "culture" which is held as absolutely good even if it includes high violent crime and a host of other urban problems.

He also keeps trying to get us to believe that the end user is far more important than the client and that the architect has more of an ethical responsibility to the end user. He told us how great it was in Sweden when they decided that an owner controlling 90% of the ownership of a factory was "bad" so they passed a law requiring that the workers get a 51% stake. I told one of my classmates that I'd burn the factory down if I were the owner

Now I work at a firm where we design luxury homes for multi-millionaires on Nantucket and to me that's far more moral than any building designed for some unspecified "public benefit."

My understanding of the architecture ethics is that it's a designer's responsibility to design a building solely for the maximum benefit of the client without interfering with any else's property rights (ie dumping a bunch of runoff on a neighbor's property). Any objectivist architects out there with an idea of architecture ethics? It'd be nice to have a rational discussion about the issue instead of having to hear the same commie propaganda every week.

[Chops]

I've gotta ask the obvious: have you read The Fountainhead?

[NineInfinity]

I've gotta ask the obvious: have you read The Fountainhead?

haha yeah I should've mentioned that. I've read it twice.

Rand describes the ideal client/architect relationship as one where the client tells the architect exactly what he wants and then the architect is given complete authority to create what he thinks is the best solution given the parameters. Of course in the real world clients may not know what they want and are prone to constantly changing their minds.

On a related note most architects I know who've read The Fountainhead seem to completely misinterpret what Rand is saying about aesthetics. She never says that a building should be completely devoid of ornamentation (as in modernism) but rather that the ornamentation of a building should be derived from its function. Even the film version of The Fountainhead portrays Roark's buildings as being quite similar to Le Corbusier's work. The irony of course is that Corbusier was an ardent communist along with many other champions of the modernist movement. They were pushing the idea that people should live in an egalitarian decoration-free white world (see: Corbusier's plan for Paris http://www.ecosensual.net/drm/ideas/LeCorbusier1.jpg).

[Alethiometry]

I told one of my classmates that I'd burn the factory down if I were the owner

"When I can’t fire anyone I wish on my paper, I’ll close it and blow up the God-damn building."

-Gail Wynand

[Chops]

The client/contractor relationship is fundamentally the same regardless of the industry. Ultimately, to secure the contract, should you decide that this is a contract worth doing, your concern must be with the client's requirements.

It is likely that your potential client wishes to build, in the end, to improve his bottom line. Which means that you will likely have to give consideration for the end-user as well as the client's requirements. As a professional, however, you're being consulted for your expertise, and as you said, sometimes the customer just doesn't know what he wants - this is why he's coming to you, and this is applicable in pretty much any industry. In my experience when I was a consultant programmer, customers love it when you understand their issue and can offer constructive recommendations to meet their requirements, rather than just taking their requests and merely meeting them exactly as requested (which is usually inefficient due to their lack of understanding). I can't imagine that architecture is different in that regard: Understand their requirements, get their ideas and preferences, and then apply your professional knowledge and knowhow to the situation.

In the end, it's merely an agreement between two parties. If you are able to agree without sacrificing your integrity, then you sign the contract and build. If you cannot come to an agreement, then you have no obligation to do anything for anyone.

[Circulogi]

I'd like to talk to an Objectivist architect as well. I am having a mixed retail/office warehouse constructed contructed. Contact me.

[KevinDW78]

YIKES! I too am currently working toward getting my bachelor's in architecture. Luckily I don't have to suffer through anything like you are describing. I don't know if I would pass lol.

When I read The Fountainhead, I got the overwhelming impression that Howard Roark was just a characterization of Frank Lloyd Wright (in regards to aesthetics). Wright's (and more correctly, his mentor, Sullivan's) cardinal law was "form follows function" and this theme is clearly evident throughout The Fountainhead.

[NineInfinity]

When I read The Fountainhead, I got the overwhelming impression that Howard Roark was just a characterization of Frank Lloyd Wright (in regards to aesthetics). Wright's (and more correctly, his mentor, Sullivan's) cardinal law was "form follows function" and this theme is clearly evident throughout The Fountainhead.

I got that impression as well. I know Ayn consulted a lot with Frank Lloyd Wright before writing the book so it makes sense she would at least appreciate his aesthetics. I do not know why the film The Fountainhead seems to think that Roark is Le Corbusier. What I also appreciate from Rand is that she describes the buildings as being well-received by the users, something almost non-existent in the way most value buildings. Publications like Architectural Record take a couple pretty exterior photographs and write a piece citing how wonderful the architect's intent is without ever talking to people to see if the building actually does what it's supposed to.

One other issue I was trying to contemplate was the two basic approaches to urban planning, rational and empirical. Rational is where the planner determines what he thinks the best solution for the community will be and how they can best live their lives. Empirical is the process wherein the designer asks the people living there what they want and attempts to design based on that. With the understanding that Objectivism is a very rational philosophy (in terms of judging how people ought to be instead of how they are) it seems like the empirical method would be better since in the case of urban planning the people are the end users and it's the designer's responsibility to accommodate their needs.

Here is the manifesto I wrote and board I created for the class illustrating my understanding of architecture ethics.

An Objective Approach to Ethics in Architecture

Architecture is a process through which humans shape the built environment to provide for their physical needs. Architecture exists not as a tangible product but as ideas created by a human mind expressed through abstractions. Therefore it also serves as a metaphysical representation of its creator’s values. In an ethical free-market society, architecture and all other professions exist based on a voluntary agreement by both parties for a service rendered by the architect for the client. Thus, architects require a code of ethics to determine which ideas are morally valid as well as how to maximize the benefit for the client and end users.

Since ethics is derived from man’s need to sustain his own life in a rational fashion, an architect should approach architecture as a rationally selfish endeavor. If an architect does not hold himself as the primary goal of his activity, he will forever be altruistically sacrificing himself to the whims and needs of others. An architect has clients in order to create works of architecture; he does not create works of architecture in order to have clients. He should expect to make a profit on a building, but he should not expect the profit to make the building for him.

The primary ethical duty of any architect as well as any other professional is first to uphold his own values through his work. By voluntarily agreeing to provide a service for a client, the architect assumes full responsibility for the values represented by that service. If an architect agrees to design a concentration camp, he is acknowledging the concept that a concentration camp should be designed and should be created in an effective way. Likewise, if an architect designs a school in a seismic zone or a series of condominiums in a hurricane zone without giving the buildings necessary protection for their environments, he is accepting the idea that buildings should be designed to maximize immediate profit rather than provide adequate protection of human life. If an architect accepts a commission for a government-funded public housing project, he is accepting the idea that the government can steal money from people at the point of a gun in order to serve the needy. It is therefore the architect’s ethical imperative to refuse to deal with looters of any form, just as an industrialist whose factory gets nationalized should burn it to the ground.

Because architecture is a voluntary exchange of a service for money by two parties, it is necessary for an architect to understand the ethics of economics in architecture. Money, one of the greatest symbols of morality and free exchange, should be taken as a result of a great design, not as a cause to be endeavored towards on its own. Often times architects choose to become intellectual prostitutes by sacrificing their design quality in order to meet a bottom line (or conversely, to maximize building costs and their own fees). A building which maximizes profit is not a moral creation in and of itself; it is only moral if it creates profit by being designed well. Economics should always be a consideration in the design in order to serve the need of the client to make money but it should never be the ultimate driving force in architectural design.

The issue for architects is then how to create a building that is designed to maximum functionality without sacrificing their own values. Regardless of the form of the relationship between the architect and the end user, it is imperative for the architect in order to design a building well. The degree of this understanding is directly connected to the architect’s ability to maximize functionality. Any attempts to impede this relationship should be dismissed by the architect.

Likewise, the aesthetics of the built environment should be derived from maximizing their functionality. Louis Sullivan’s famous credo “form follows function” is a representation of an ethical approach to building aesthetics. Through connotation and denotation, a building should be designed aesthetically to compliment the understanding of its users in order to maximize its potential. A building which derives a form or aesthetic quality arbitrarily is unable maximize its function because it competes against serving the needs of the users.

The moral obligation of an architect is to create original works which not only maximize their function, but also further their understanding about how to better the architecture. He should use his creative talent as a means to better human life by finding better methods of achieving his goals. Through this commitment to excellence and acknowledgment of responsibility an architect can create a truly ethical work of architecture.

In order to further the development of an ethical architecture profession, an architect must follow a clear, consistent standard. He should ensure that individual rights are protected and that he continuously upholds his values. He must hold these values above any whims of a culture, community or client. Any architect who allows these values to be compromised in any fashion by sacrificing himself to others destroys the foundations of an ethical system. When faced with a contradiction of values the architect must logically determine through reason which set of values are valid. If a community puts an arbitrary demand on a building, the architect must refuse them as well. If on the other hand, a client demands the architect intentionally create a bad design, it is the architect’s duty as a moral being to refuse. Only by following a set of guidelines not open to any subjective whims can an architect create a truly ethical masterpiece.