In school, architects train to be altruistic and to use design for humanistic goals. However, when one steps into the industry, the architect may face something against their humanitarian ambitions and take up a project that may contradict their beliefs. Architects lose intellectual freedom to financial considerations, and lose design integrity to regulatory agency; the modern architect has lost consistency. There is a contradiction between academia and practice that many are not willing to acknowledge. On one hand, we are taught to be selfless designers to create better for posterity and on the other, as participating actors in capitalism, we are sometimes faced with the ethical challenge of appeasing our clients while compromising the health and well-being of the larger community. This vast discord creates an identity crisis for architects and we are still asking our readers, therefore we reoccurring this contradiction from textbook. The reactions are mixed, from question regulatory answers to more fluid and almost poetic ones.
“This is not a question of ‘yes or no’ but a mediation of ‘should or should not’ for the architect. There is no right or wrong compromise. The condition of the project should be identified as a ‘societal need’ rather than a ‘want from a private interest’.”
We must acknowledge that environmental imbalance and ecological loss will be the biggest concern that cannot be reversible. But if the development is necessary and proven to be feasibly accomplished, then the scope of work should be for the project to be well-appointed by surrounding the development’s area the client or developer is obliged to rejuvenate the surrounding area of the proposed development, which makes the project holistically considered.
— Gary Yeow
“… the question is putting the cart before the horse. We as Architects are compelled by what we can or cannot do arising from the regulatory constraints of the local authorities. The question is – are our local authorities guided in the right direction? Can we as practising architects and planners be called upon to assist and have a say in these important decisions? Can the format of our local town planning and land-use zoning be more transparent and open to debate?”
— Anonymous
“A feasibility study must be conducted followed by an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and a Social Impact Assessment (SIA) study. Even if the EIA is approved, we will need to come up with an Environmental Management Plan (EMP) to mitigate the potential impact on the environment and to ensure environmental sustainability.”
— Tung Boon Kwan
“Putting time and cost aside, is the developer ready and willing to embrace the complexity? Will such an effort receive continuous support from the developer? Will the authorities be open to incentivise the developer or contractor for such an endeavour? Assuming an EIA will be carried out, how much of it will truly inform the architecture design? Will the design [merely] fulfil a checklist or [will it be] outcome-based?”
— Wilson Kwan
“Being an architect means you do harm, yet how much harm is acceptable?” – Canadian Centre for Architecture’s research residency on ‘How to do no harm’ by Professor of Environmental Design Charlotte Malterre-Barthes – something I read that is heavily imprinted on my mind.
Improper planning of the built environment has brought many man-made disasters. Malaysia has recently experienced the Klang flood in 2022, and the Batang Kali landslide in 2021. What is yet to unfold are the outcomes of the planned Keda’s rare earth mining project, the Penang South Reclamation project, and many more. These and many other projects will bring about many negative impacts on the natural environment, social welfare and the well-being of the immediate community.
It may seem like there is nothing architects can do when we are placed in a situation like this while being aware of the impending environmental catastrophe. One should only accept the offer, with the objective of convincing the developers not to do so, and also, expecting failure.
As naïve as it may sound, it is worth a try.While writing this may sound, it is worth a try. While this may sound with minimal experience at hand, it is evident that architects play many roles than just a designer. In this case, the Architect is the mediator, mediating the best outcome between the environment and the project development.
The question is, how much harm is acceptable? By the profession’s nature, architects are consultants, architects are to advise. More often architects do not have a stand in making the absolute decision, nor are we the policy-makers, yet we do what we know best, to be the invisible force – to advise, consult and persuade.
Consultant: nouna person who provides expert advice professionally.
In my opinion, at the very least one should better inform the client or developers with the impact; ecologically, the forecast of follow brought by developments; on top of that, social sensitive sites on environmental, strategic research on the feasibility and relevancy of development, deemed suitable or otherwise, to the people (in this case, the consumers), and the people residing surrounding the said location.
Although the above effort may seem like we are just simply throwing a stone into the sea, yet with that, it is enough to ripple through the community. It is enough to raise collective awareness to bring a momentous positive impact ultimately.
So, how much harm is acceptable?”
— neux
