The aim of the project “Dear architects… — Ethics in Architecture” is not to reduce the architecture ethics to the level of supply–consumer relations, but to raise a discussion about the possibilities of architecture practice – what is its power (to shape the environment) and who has power over it. How are architects thinking when working on controversial projects? How do they make choices of their clients or projects? What is their manoeuvring space, responsibility and respect towards other stakeholders in the projects?
Should architecture and urbanism be visionary, attempting to set tendencies and overcome negative phenomena in society? In modernist times, architects, urban planners and other experts involved in urban planning shared the belief that their mission and responsibility is to strive for a better place to live. After the failure of a modernist project, not many architects or planners would acknowledge that role, the postmodern architecture has accepted the political economy of late capitalism and has waived any relation to social problems. Architecture has become increasingly socially and politically blind – a profession that should challenge the status quo has become a loyal accomplice of the economic system, understanding land and real estate as a commodity (more or less) suitable for financial profit. The majority of architects perceive the current “marriage” of architecture practice with a globalised, neoliberal economy as inevitable or even desirable. They accept even the most cynical and corrupted projects and apparently do not care that with their skills they provide a beautiful face to the often ugly reality of capitalist urban development. In practice, almost no one engages with problems characteristic of neoliberal urbanism (increasing social and spatial inequality, practices of control and exclusion, etc.).
To what extent is architecture an image of the time/society and to what extent should it seek a more socially responsible approach? Can architecture be good or bad (by nature)? Or are there just good or bad clients? Is an architecture for a bad client a bad architecture? Would architecture be different if it was for a good client? Can (good) architecture have a positive impact on its users? If so, does it justify architects to work for bad clients? If one sets ethical principles for his practice (for example, to deny chauvinist, racist or discriminating architecture, exploitative project proposals, suburbanising single-family homes or speculation ventures, etc.), should (s)he be considered better architect (better fulfilling the mission of architecture) or just a more ethical architect? What position should architects take towards “unethical” projects? Should they yield them “unethical” (worse?) architects? Which action is defensible?
Architecture as a political act. Elements of architecture carry ideas, agendas. The way the environment is shaped always brings with it a political dimension. Architects have to decide constantly. The design process is not only a binary relation between an architect and a client (whoever it is), everything is part of a complex network of connections and interactions (not only anthropogenic), in a contest. Way out from the current situation (racism, inequality, concentration of power, etc.) is neither collaboration nor withdrawal, but disruption (from within). Every position is important because it occupies space in the public space (discourse), standing in opposition to conformist voices. Architecture practice as a political act, not activism.
Ethical issues related to social and political aspects of architecture are discussed in eight video interviews between urban researchers and authors of projects which represent certain consequences connected with their implementation – the public space as a control instrument, gentrification and commodification, privatisation and commercialisation, depoliticisation and managerialism, touristification or projects in non-democratic regimes. The chosen projects and discussants are:
Quadrio (2014), Prague • Jakub Cigler • Petr Gibas
Náplavka (2018), Prague • Petr Janda • Barbora Bírová
reSITE (since 2012) & Manifesto Market (2018, arch. Nikola Karabcová, Lucie Červená, Elvira Islas), Prague • Martin Barry • Michaela Pixová
Dolní Břežany (since 2002) • Anna Šlapetová • Robert Osman
SC Pilsen Plaza (2007, arch. Viktória Jakubčíková), Pilsen • Jaroslav Dokoupil • Petr Matoušek
Ester (2017), Jerusalem • Martin Rajniš • Jan Motal
Eugen Horváth Park (2015), Brno • Zdeněk Sendler • Kateřina Sidiropulu Janků
Sky Walk (2015, arch. Zdeněk Fránek), Dolní Morava • Richard Novák • Stanislav Biler
___
curator: Karolína Plášková
consulting experts: Jan Kristek, Tomáš Hlaváček
camera: Tomáš Hlaváček, Vít Trunec
video editing: Tomáš Hlaváček
exhibition and graphic design: David Helešic, Karolína Plášková
translation: Ondřej Kvapil, Karolína Plášková
subtitles: Tereza Kvapilová, Karolína Plášková
production cooperation: Gabriel Kurtis
The project “Dear architects… — Ethics in Architecture” is financially supported by the Ministry of Culture of the Czech Republic, the State Fund of Culture of the Czech Republic and the Statutory City of Brno.