Ian Ritchie on Patrik Schumacher, 2016

The legitimation of systemic economic uncertainty and precarity of housing under the umbrella of ‘entrepreneurism’ and consumption, privatisation and deregulation, undermines the sense of communal responsibility for the wellbeing of others. Let us be in no doubt; this puts democratic values and social protection at great risk. We need only use our eyes and pay attention to recent events. It will promote the growth of the precariat and foment social unrest, which will affect everyone.

‘Insecure people make angry people, and angry people are volatile, prone to support a politics of hatred and bitterness,’ writes Guy Standing in The Precariat: The New Dangerous Class.

Schumacher has been consistent in his criticism of what he sees as the architectural profession’s unnecessary focus on social housing

Schumacher’s protest that he was simply being provocative and trying to stir debate is disingenuous and should not be allowed to serve as a free pass to say anything and then negate any ill intent. It is also puerile, though timely, when Oxford Dictionaries makes ‘post-truth’ the word of the year. The use of boundary testing to see what one can get away with is something we’ve seen rather too much of lately, and a large part of Western society seems to have landed itself in a post-truth maelstrom.

What Schumacher said was unambiguous. For a long time he has been consistent in his criticism of what he sees as the architectural profession’s unnecessary focus on social housing. In this speech he went so far as to state that there is no increase in homelessness; the contrary evidence is that it has increased in London by more than 10 per cent per annum since 2010. How much more objectionable could one be in the context of praising wealthy owners of second homes in London who give ‘key parties – these are amazing multiplying events’ which make our speaker ‘very happy’?

In his subsequent apology it is interesting to note that he appears not to apologise for what he said, but that it caused his friends and colleagues embarrassment. His regret is not for saying that some Londoners are more entitled to live in the centre of the city than others, but for the ugly image he has now acquired. He won’t touch again upon the topics he discoursed about with such conviction not because some of the demands he made then are offensive, but because the topics are ‘too sensitive’ to discuss and he puts the onus on others for not having understood what he was trying to say. If, in spite of what he said, he dreams of a caring inclusive society – although how that squares with the content of his speech is hard to understand – he needs to learn how to express himself more clearly.

Architectural dreams are never neutral. To the degree that they have an impact in organising a future for others, they always have a political and moral dimension. We have to decide what kind of future we are helping to create; one in which the great majority of the population have the opportunities necessary to lead satisfying lives, or one in which a tiny minority of wealthy individuals use the rest of the world as a playground.

In an age in which the level of worldwide income disparity has begun to alarm even policymakers at the highest level, any architect who acts as an apologist for a culture of commodified self-interest and Darwinian survival-of the-fittest ethic that disconnects urban planning from public values, the common good and democracy itself, needs to be reminded by the rest of the profession that expression of his personal views needs to be tempered also by their impact on the architectural profession as a whole. Alienating the very people on whom we all depend and must build relationships with – the clients, the public, the local and statutory authorities, whose funding and permission is needed in order to make any potential architectural project a reality – in the search for personal publicity and self-advertisement is not intelligent.

Architects are often placed between the world of creativity and the world of capital and they must mediate, not necessarily choose a side. What we need most from our profession is an intelligent approach to planning and design for our shared future world, and one that promotes a better environment and society for everyone. A wealthy country which is unable or unwilling to house all its people, educate its youth and care for its elderly and sick is a country which is failing – it is uncivilised in the most basic sense of the word. Responsible people in our profession should work with politicians to change this state of affairs.

(c) Ian Ritchie 2016