Architecture for the people

I got an opportunity to be a part of Citymakers 2024, an annual event hosted by Allies and Morrison to discuss the role of transport in shaping sustainable development and creating meaningful communities.

The discussion was chaired by Paul Eaton from Allies and Morrison and the panel consisted of some big names; Naama Blonder (Co-Founder, Smart Density), Eleanor Fawcett (Head of Design, Old Oak and Park Royal Development Corporation), Emma Cariaga (Joint Head, Canada Water and Head of Residential, British Land), Robert Evans (Chief Executive, Wellcome Genome Campus and Non-Executive Director, Quod), Jules Pipe CBE (Deputy Mayor, Greater London Authority) and Philipp Rode (Executive Director, London School of Economics School of Policy). An open, well put together event from which I learnt a lot on transport and other related schemes in London and Toronto. It’s a question asked by a member of the audience to the panel that got me thinking and prompted me to write this.

The panel discussed several topics for over an hour, ranging from transport networks in both Toronto and London to new and upcoming transport hubs and plans for development. One of the topics was about the transformation of streets, about pedestrianization and going traffic-free. I had just seen Mayor Sadiq Khan and his offices’ new renders of the proposed Oxford Street development. The audience member said that when she asks her mum of her memories in London, she speaks about driving her Mini and going shopping in Kensington. The question revolved around what these changes meant for the city's identity, for those who have such memories and how do we balance preserving those experiences with the need for greener, more friendly spaces.

This question reminded me of questions asked by the floor to the panel at the Sustainability in Architecture discussion at Pitzhanger. I was perhaps the only architecture student in the audience, a majority of whom were local residents of Ealing Broadway.

The venue Pitzhanger Manor & Gallery has a free entry scheme for local residents (residents of the London Borough of Ealing), which encourages the locals to go and visit and take part in activities. A great initiative and a remarkable step for ticketed venues to subsidize to encourage local participation and this was probably what brought them to this event, a part of Pitzhanger late events on Thursdays. FCB Studios had just finished a presentation on their project Eden Earthworks, a reimagination and recreation of Dundee Gasworks. and Arup of a project of a slightly smaller scale, but having to do with sustainability and a similar brownfield site regeneration. One of the local residents, sat in the audience asks as question on such projects coming to Ealing, and why they see nothing ambitious as these or exciting there. This was followed by several questions on development in Ealing, completion dates for their projects and if such projects are viable, and if they could see similar projects in Ealing.

Now, I am not going to answer either of those questions, and there is no straightforward simple answers to them. I’m not taking any sides, and as architects, we’re not here to take sides. Behind both questions though there is a larger, more universal concern on the role of architecture and who is it all really for.

Who are we designing for?

Are we creating environments that serve the public good, or are we contributing to the growing trend of exclusivity in architecture?

Alastair Parvin, Strategic Designer at Architecture 00 and CEO of Open Systems Lab, says in his talk titled ‘Architecture for the people by the people’, everything we call architecture today, is actually designing for the 1% of the world’s population. He goes on to say that when architecture did the most to transform society is when 1% would build on behalf of the 99%, for various reasons. Take a walk to the Barbican, walk between the concrete blocks, the gardens, and over the elevated walkways. You will be fascinated. Despite its polarizing reviews, it is a bold example of how design once dared to dream for the many, not the few. Barbican was an attempt to reshape post-war London, and was created for the everyday people— the 99%. We transformed societies most when we built for the 99%, as Parvin lists, philanthropy in the 19th century, communism in the 20th century, post-war social housing and so on.

Today however, it’s almost as though we’ve taken a sharp turn away from this. This shift towards architectural exclusivity also coincides with the rise of “iconic” buildings. Sophie Lovell writes for the Untapped Journal, on 21st century “iconic” buildings, “Iconic buildings are by nature stand-alone, fabricated narratives of success. They tend to disrupt, rather than integrate into, the urban environment, bring little or no social value to the communities around them, and are often shoddy public spaces, too. Worse, in their role as showstoppers, each screaming “I won!” louder than the rest, “iconic” buildings are physically and stylistically dead ends, incapable of adaptation or evolution.” In this pursuit to be a spectacle, projects don’t want to stand out for serving the public good or for the change they make, they just seem to want to stand out.

This phenomenon reflects a broader issue within design: the growing focus on producing objects of desire rather than addressing systemic needs. Just as other industries deliver consumer products, architecture risks just delivering buildings. Yet, as Lovell points out, within the same economic forces driving this “arms race of the spectacular,” there’s immense potential for a more relational kind of architecture. An architecture that enriches the environments in which people live, prioritizing social value over capital and collaboration over competition.

There is a collective responsibility we share over the earth and we can no longer design cities or spaces in isolation, catering to a specific moment in time or a limited group of people. In a book that I read recently, ‘Operating Manual for Spaceship Earth’, author R. Buckminister Fuller writes, “We are not going to be able to operate our spaceship earth successfully nor for much longer unless we see it as a whole spaceship and our fate as common. It has to be everybody or nobody.” This idea of shared fate, of collective responsibility should be with us, whether we’re designing a transport hub or pedestrianized streetscapes, we are most definitely designing for a world that faces enormous challenges, from climate change to urban inequality, and the solutions we offer must address these realities for everyone.

It is in this context that ambitious projects like those brought up in discussions about Ealing Broadway—must be viewed. When local residents ask why they’re not seeing the same kind of large-scale, transformative developments in their own neighborhoods, the subtext is clear: they want change, they want to be part of something bigger, and they want architecture that responds to their needs. Yet, as architects, we must balance the ambitious with the practical, and the visionary with the local. Our solutions should never be imposed but should emerge from genuine engagement with the communities they aim to serve.

The answer must always be the people.

Whether we are reimagining Oxford Street or bringing ambitious regeneration projects to Ealing, we are not here to just build. We are here to solve problems, create conditions and bring about change. In doing so, we are not designing for the 1%, but for the 99%. It is easy to be seduced by the idea of flashy, trendy and iconic, but true architectural success lies in its ability to serve, uplift, and improve the lives of the many. Architecture, at its best, transforms not just the skyline, but society itself.