It is my view that the success and value of any given piece of architecture is dictated not by its adoption of any particular style, form or materiality, but rather on how well it serves its end-users’ needs. I believe all architects to be equipped with a toolkit of creative, technical and problem-solving skills which are partially key to this, but it is only through engagement with end-users, listening to their needs, ideas and concerns that the architecture produced will be truly successful in this sense. Because of this, I am critical of top-down masterplanning which imposes the vision of a detached designer onto a place and its people, and instead take inspiration from bottom-up and collective projects developed collaboratively with and for the people.
I strongly hold the view that “all architecture is political” (fig.1), and believe that the first responsibility of an architect is to identify who is most in need and can most benefit from architectural intervention in society, and then to strive to find ways of providing this.
Fig.1 – ‘Architecture is always political’ propaganda poster, designed by Architect’s for Social Housing (ASH)
This was first used by ASH in protest against Richard Rogers’ practice being nominated for the 2015 Stirling Prize for Neo Bankside, turning his own words against him. The Neo Bankside project had argued successfully against any affordable housing being required, and the 217 homes had a market price ranging from £1.25 million to £19.75 million, whilst 345,000 Londoners were on a council waiting list for homes (see Appendix A for ASH’s 16 statements of protest against it).
Providing genuinely affordable housing for those in need is one such issue which is very important to me. As of December 2019, more than 1 in every 201 people in UK are homeless, whilst many more are housed but paying extortionate rents beyond their means without viable alternatives.
One clear way of addressing this is through social housing schemes. Unfortunately, councils are largely enabling gentrification rather than providing genuine social housing, evidenced by statistics such as only 5% of 45,000 residential properties completed in London in 2016 being for social rent.
Architects for Social Housing (ASH) has been a significant influence on my personal position that in spite of these adverse circumstances, architects can and should carry out direct action led by a focus on socialist sustainability. This view is that true sustainability can only be found as a balance between social, political, environmental and economical issues, rather than looking at environmental issues in isolation (fig.2).
Fig.2 – Opposed economies of architecture
This diagram is based on one presented by Geraldine Dening of ASH in a presentation given at Leeds School of Architecture on 4th March 2020. It demonstrates the different priorities organisations of sectors within a capitalist economy compared with a socialist economy. The socialist model is representative of the idea that all factors overlap and affect each other, and therefore a truly sustainable architecture project must address all of these, rather than simply focusing on environmental credentials at the expense of social and political issues.
In ASH’s work, this is embodied in an approach of refurbishment and adaptive reuse of existing space, rather than demolition and new-build, driven by engagement with current residents as the client rather than a developer. Environmentally, this reduces embodied energy and socially it keeps communities together whilst upgrading their environment (fig.3).
Fig.3 – Example of an ASH ‘Alternative to Demolition’ proposal, for West Kensington and Gibbs Green estates
This proposal shows how ASH operate to retain the existing housing stock thereby not breaking apart the community and not leading to residents being outpriced of a new-build estate. They have then proposed adding new flats on top of those existing as well as providing new communal facilities and improving existing ones. This increasing the social housing supply, of which London has a huge deficit.
Prior to studying my masters, I worked in conservation architecture, where I particularly enjoyed the problem-solving nature of adapting existing buildings, as well as the notion of preserving and then sensitively adding to the existing layers of architectural and social history present in an existing building. For me, ASH’s approach therefore brings together the architectural enjoyment that I take from these elements, with environmental responsibility, and for the clear goal of helping everyday people who can benefit from architectural intervention; a fusion of my most highly-prioritised architectural ideals.
Comments