The past month or so has seen the publication of a series of startling, apocalyptic Op-Eds, causing quite a stir amongst architects and critics alike, and with President Obama's State of the Union address this evening, we feel compelled to take stock of the debate in our domain. In mid-December, The New York Times kicked off the debate with an opinion piece by critics Steven Bingler and Martin Pedersen, who told us 'How To Rebuild Architecture,' presenting the hyperbolic thesis that the industry is currently lying in ruins. According to them, our profession has ironically imploded in the face of our ballooning egos, and a longstanding inability to listen to those who must ultimately live with our designs: the humble public.
In a sharp-toothed retort, the renowned curator and critic Aaron Betsky laid siege to Bingler and Pedersen in Architect, the official magazine of the AIA. He inferred that their demands for greater collaboration with the public — and a more democratic design process — would result in architecture that is “a dull affirmation of what we have,” devoid of the experimentation and innovation that is crucial for progress… or, at least, Betsky’s personal definition of progress.
With the two opposing viewpoints clearly laid out before us, we can see that the solution surely lies somewhere between them. We must establish better ways to engage with the public, not only listening to them but also reassuring them that their input will not fall on deaf ears. Their pragmatic demands and conservative opinions may disappoint Betsky, but as any good architect knows, these constraints do not have to dilute the designer's ambition, or his or her sense of adventure. The marriage between an architect's trained eyes and his or her open ears should lead to a building that satisfies the critics and the public alike.
Despite their differences, Bingler, Pedersen and Betsky all appear to agree that the industry has lost its way. However, they are in stark disagreement as to where it all went wrong, and what should be done about it. The good news, though, is that the discussion is well and truly under way, – and with so many high profile figures weighing in, the debate has the potential — to borrow our own Marc Kushner's words — break out of the echo chamber of architectural discourse and make its way to the mainstream. I, for one, welcome this prospect.
The answer to the question we posed at the outset — about whether architecture is experiencing a crisis — might well be "YES." However, if questioning yourself and the state of your discipline amounts to a crisis, then it is an incredibly healthy one. Like any industry worth working in, ours is in a constant state of flux, and the questions posed by these critics have been asked since the industrial era began in the 1800s. The only difference now is that when someone has a strong opinion on the issue, he or she is empowered by online media to broadcast it to a much wider audience than was previously possible. This can be no bad thing, and the more voices that are added to the mix, the better.