Amanda Levete says: β€œWhat we need is something like an architectural Supreme Court, made up of architects and advisers whose pre-eminence is undisputed, that passes binding judgment” (22 January, page 22)

I fully understand the attraction to the profession of this cosy, ΓΌber-authoritarian fantasy. I think there are two big barriers to public trust:

  • The memory of the post-war β€œrationalist” period, when architects were given a brief to build a new Britain, and decided that drowning our cities in dreary, inhuman, anonymous concrete was a frightfully avant-garde and daring idea, and anyone who objected obviously an ignorant peasant or reactionary.
  • The continuing tendency of Big Name Architects to prostitute their clever tongues in the service of the greediest of developers, again smearing anyone who objects as an ignorant peasant or reactionary.

Cabe is an architectural talk shop where various bubble-brained clever-clogs get together for an inward looking brag-fest over red wine and canapΓ©s.

It’s all very nice for these types to meet up, but our urban environments need guidance from people interested in the living experience and quality of life and environment experienced by the urban dwellers. Because inhabitants are not ants that populate out-of-context architectonic forms and attention-seeking uni-scaled concepts, who should keep quiet and let architects pursue their self-absorbed ideas.

Rather than harking back to the β€œmodernist” glory days of the thirties with their Hitler/Stalin fantasies about architects’ power to dictate the environment for the masses, today’s Cabe dwellers should shake off their primitive instincts and align with the vibrancy and human-centredness of a healthy urban life.

Pat Ford, via www.building.co.uk

Topics