The Ethical Architect: The Dilemma of Contemporary Practice

265 Pages·2001·4.26 MB·English

by  Tom Spector

THE ETHICAL ARCHITECT
the dilemma of contemporary practice
Tom Spector
THE ETHICAL ARCHITECT

THE ETHICAL ARCHITECT
the dilemma of contemporary practice
tom spector
PRINCETON ARCHITECTURAL PRESS
NEW YORK
For Susan and for Hugh and with the deepest gratitude
to Sam and Virginia Spector
published by
Princeton Architectural Press
37 East Seventh Street
New York, New York 10003
For a free catalog of books, call 1.800.722.6657.
Visit our web site at www.papress.com.
©2001 Princeton Architectural Press
All rights reserved
Printed and bound in the United States
04 03 02 01 5 4 3 2 1 First edition
No part of this book my be used or reproduced in any
manner without written permission from the publisher,
except in the context of reviews. Every reasonable attempt
has been made to identify owners of copyright. Errors or
omissions will be corrected in subsequent editions.
Project editing: Clare Jacobson
Text editing: Nancy Eklund Later
Design: David Konopka
Special thanks to:
Nettie Aljian, Ann Alter, Amanda Atkins, Jan Cigliano,
Jane Garvie, Mark Lamster, Anne Nitschke, Lottchen
Shivers, Jennifer Thompson, and Deb Wood of Princeton
Architectural Press —Kevin C. Lippert, publisher
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Spector, Tom, 1957-
The ethical architect : the dilemma of contemporary
practice / Tom Spector.
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 1-56898-284-4 (hardcover : alk. paper)—
ISBN 1-56898-285-2 (paperback : alk. paper)
1. Architects—Professional ethics. 2. Architecture—
Moral and ethical aspects. I. Title.
NA1995 .S68 2001
174'.972--dc21
2001002302
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
VIII
PRACTICE 1
THEORY 33
UTILITAS 63
VENUSTAS 89
FIRMITAS 127
CONTEXT 157
STYLE 185
EPILOGUE 203
NOTES 210
BIBLIOGRAPHY 232
INDEX 244
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This book owes much to the generous access and support given
me by the faculty in the Department of Philosophy at the
University of California, Berkeley. In particular, chapter one
derived much of its impetus from the guidance(and forbearance)
of Samuel Scheffler and chapter six benefited similarly from that
of Richard Wollheim. Much to my good fortune, Bernard
Williams, whose father was an architect, agreed to be on my dis-
sertation committee. The work on that project formed the basis
of this book. Professor Williams was especially helpful in guiding
me through some of the roughest spots of chapter four. Many
thanks are also due for the support and perseverance of the
members of my committee from the College of Architecture at
Berkeley: W. Mike Martin, Jean-Pierre Protzen, and my chair-
man, Stephen Tobriner. In particular, Professor Protzen’s com-
ments on chapter three helped correct the worst of its omissions
and chapter five would not have been possible without Professor
Tobriner’s depth on the subject of seismic design. Furthermore,
it was a suggestion of Professor Tobriner’s that led to the overall
organization of this inquiry around the Vitruvian values of utili-
VI
tas, firmitas, and venustas. The participation of the Structural
Engineers’ Association of Northern California and the comments
and perspectives contributed by Bret Lizundia, Charles Bloszies,
and Nick Forell were crucial for the development of chapter 5.
THEETHICALARCHITECT
Finally, I would like to thank Clare Jacobson and Nancy Eklund
Later at the Princeton Architectural Press for their commitment
to this project during the past year. The book was enhanced
immeasurably by their careful editing and enthusiastic guidance.
VII
THEETHICALARCHITECT
INTRODUCTION Architecture’s moral mission reached the nadir of its decline in
the 1970s, after the critiques of modernism formulated by
Jane Jacobs and Robert Venturi unleashed a thoroughgoing
repudiation of the movement’s moral pretensions. The
revolutionary ideal of solving societal problems through design
that was so vehemently proclaimed by modernism’s proponents
in the heroic age of the 1930s was exposed as hollow, and the
architecture profession fell into a state of ethical disarray. In
1979, when the mandatory code of ethics of the American
Institute of Architects (AIA) was withdrawn under threat of
anti-trust action by the Justice Department, the profession
seemed little more than a self-serving business venture.
Architecture’s failure to address the real problems faced by
users of the built environment, as perceived from within and
without, left its core design values in shambles.
By 1987, the AIAhad managed to craft a new code of ethics
that more closely resembled a statement of values than a
monopolistic restraint of trade, but the postmodern critique of
modern architecture’s shortcomings had further eroded
VIII
consensus on architecture’s central design values. Other critics
joined the fray: social scientists questioned the legitimacy of
professional morality; feminists and minorities articulated
architecture’s many unspoken coercions; disability-rights
activists successfully portrayed the existing conditions of the
built environment as an evil to be legislated against. Given
such demoralizing circumstances, the esoteric doctrine of
deconstruction easily gained a toehold, with its denial of any
connection at all between design and moral value. Rather than
quell architects’ sense of moral unease, however, this
development only served to fracture still further the idea that
architectural design could coalesce around a core mission or
statement of purpose.
Architects live and work today in a functioning but
weakened profession that lacks a dominant design ethic. Views
regarding the desirability of this development within the
field span the gamut, from “good riddance to unwanted
baggage” to a nostalgic desire to recapture the sense of purpose
and idealism with which the masters of modernism and their
champions swept the world off its feet. An opportunity to
examine unquestioned assumptions regarding the morality of
professional practice and the value of design has emerged.
The past can be mined both for its good ideas and for its bad
IX
examples, and a future of possible convergence upon a durable,
substantial, and robust design ethic can be imagined.
A conversation about the content of a design ethic
reflective of architecture’s core values has persisted. For the