WHO BELIEVES IN ARCHITECTURAL POLICIES?

(this is a post-scriptum to two EU-conferences on this topic this year, first in Helsinki, second in Hamburg)

Let me open with a polemical question: Do we need “Architectural policies” – or should we focus on other policies, which could have a more direct impact on the built environment than the art of building?

“Cities”, the urban scale has become the talk of the town. Analysts, strategists, bankers, business people, sociologists, ICT gurus, R&D thinkers, politicians, everyone loves to talk about the changing role of cites on the global scene, glocalization. Local politicians may not exactly know what it means – but as long as it seems to give them more clout, they’ll repeat that “cities are drivers of national and global economies”. Urban planners, often with a background in architecture, are dumbfounded. They don’t know how to interpret the changing urban paradigm, which now embraces also the metropolitan dimension, or regionalization that professor Jefferey M. Sellers talks about. This means two more policies to deal with: Urban policies and Metropolitan policies.

Let’s turn the question around for a moment: What do we want to gain with an architectural policy? Do architects feel misunderstood, not truly appreciated and sufficiently honor(ari)ed? In other words: are architectural policies supposed to strengthen the role of architects in society? Or is the goal to make our cities and communities more liveable?

If the aim is to ask governments to sign something like a trade union declaration of architects as a profession, I’d like to distance myself. Even professionally, this is not the age of guilds and clubs any more, but of roundtables and forums, where the most diverse points of view should converge. One of professor Julian Wékel’s conclusions is that “planners in today’s radical changes have to rethink urban planning, have to rethink the city, and have to rethink society”. He notes that this is “a task not to be solved only by planners, but by of all us”.

If the intention is, however, to find new answers to old and new questions of urbanization and metropolitanization, such as upgrading urban structures, housing for all, mobile work, services to the aged, mobility, energy consumption, public space, urban agriculture, you name it, I’m all for it. This brings me back to my original question: Are we convinced that architectural policies – and not something else – will do the trick? Let me list some of the policies that I’ve in mind.

Transparency. Unfortunately, real estate development and construction are infamous for corruption all over the world. Any policies and the best of intentions won’t make construction any more sustainable, if corruption cuts long processes short. Action against corruption could be the most efficient architectural policy, not only in developing countries and countries in transition, but also in our so-called ‘transparent’ welfare states? The basic problem with corruption is, of course, not that someone earns big money without really having earned it, but that jointly agreed goals get blurred, and technical, social, contextual and functional priorities are pushed aside.

Energy policies. Worldwide 30-40% of all energy is used in buildings and construction. Almost all of this energy is consumed during the operational phase of buildings (heating, cooling, lighting, appliances). We know that the savings potential is huge and that saving energy saves money, human health and the climate. Another 20% are poured into mobility and logistics.

Increasing the proportion of renewable energy sources in energy production is the third pillar of sustainable energy consumption – after savings and increasing efficiency. Given the present construction boom in many parts of the world, low-energy construction should be the rule, not the exception! It does not need rocket science but mainly basic technology, which is already available. How can public policies and architects promote sustainable energy use in the built environment?

Privatization policies. Andres Kurg paints a lively picture of two opposite housing ideals in post-Soviet Estonia. The more recent Aaviku area consists of colourful detached single family suburban dwellings for predominantly better-off Estonian residents, whereas the area of Lasnamäe with grim 1970s pre-fabricated multi-storey apartment buildings is inhabited by mostly Russians. Kurg highlights, not the architecture as such, but the way how neo-liberal economy has transformed the socialist city. In Lasnamäe, privatization has become visible in particular in the courtyards which are fragmented into portions, making the coordinated use of public space almost impossible. In Aaviku, this boxing-in is taken for granted from the beginning.

Anything and everything in our daily environment is being privatized: water, energy, public transport, schools, childcare, care for the elderly, the whole “public sphere”. Privatization, sometimes the mere outsourcing, of basic public services means that decision-making is moved to closed chambers, also decisions concerning architecture.

Real estate policies. Whereas Kurg looks at the change of politics from close-up, Valentina Croci has followed the same phenomenon from a distance, analyzing how the redefinition of the European Union, the joining of ten countries in May 2004 not only changed ‘Old’ into ‘New’ Europe, but put unpredictable, non-linear cultural processes into motion. “As the economic and political balance of the enlarged European Union is being redrawn, the identities of the newly joined countries are in flux”, she writes. Real estate policies and political attitudes to historic preservation of the cultural heritage will determine the future of cities in the former ‘Eastern’ Europe within a few quickly passing years. How much of the built environment that was saved by poverty will be erased by newly acquired economic wealth?

.

Public procurement policies. Public sector purchasing amounts to about 15% of the GDP of OECD countries. If wisely used, it can be a powerful strategic tool to support innovation, decent work and fair trade, and to save energy and other resources. As an example, one of the goals of the Sustainable Procurement Action Plan in the United Kingdom is a sustainably built and managed central government estate that minimises carbon emissions, waste and water consumption and increases energy efficiency.

Organizing open architectural competitions in order to find the best architect and best solution is a well-know form of public procurement. Not only can the use of different kinds of competitions be mainstreamed, but the award criteria have to be updated continuously. Energy has to be everywhere.

As a conclusion, I’m afraid that architectural policies won’t do the trick alone. The point of view of the built environment as the context of human life – not of architecture – has to be omnipresent in all policies. In order for this to happen, architects will have to step into politics and push for other policies, as well.