Architect or Civic Crusader: Which One’s a Façade

It all started as a matrix, a complex realm where an architect assumed the role of

understanding and manipulating the human psyche. Neo might have broken free from the

simulation, but is the general public really safe from the false conception of inclusivity or

alienation created by an architect’s need to leave behind a glorified legacy?

In this web of defective perceptions, the architect is both puppet and puppeteer, attached to

forces that are out of their control. The constant need to dazzle and outshine in this field, to

leave an unforgettable mark, often combats the original purpose of their design—to create

spaces that will resonate with the lives they will nurture and hold. However, the interesting thing is, this wish to impress and be glorified is not born from vanity alone. We, the architects, work within a system that is controlled by the rich and the privileged, where the creativity of a designer is put on the backburner and their freedom to artistry is throttled by budgets, time restrictions and the whims and needs of the elite. What might appear to you as calculated influence, can in many cases be the aftermath of twists and turns curated by high expectations and tons of restrictions. The architect’s true role—creating spaces that foster connection and inclusivity—becomes a balancing act, a struggle against forces that hardly ever keep the needs of everyone else's above theirs.

And yet, these constraints can't stop an architect from being persistent. They find their way

through a warren where their paragons clash with compromises, and every blueprint carries

the weight of sacrifice. What the world often sees as cockiness is, in reality, the architect’s

mechanism to safeguard a vision and persevere under crumbling pressure. Every curve,

every edge, every spillover area crafted is not merely a display but an endeavour to carve

out something meaningful, something that speaks to shared humanity.

In truth, the architect plays many roles in society, primarily as both the creator and the

mediator. They stand caught between the desires of those who are funding their dreams and

those who will turn those dreams into reality by existing, living, working and gathering in the

spaces that they will create. Born to fabricate, forced to don many masks, architects aim to

fulfil the desires of those in power and to also contribute towards their unspoken duty to

society. They hold a certain amount of power and are aware of it. They have the ability to

uplift or segregate, to inspire or silence the public by the spaces they construct. When

permitted, architects strive to go above and beyond just mere aesthetics to create something

that belongs to everyone.

So perhaps, the architect's role in society, although appearing to be of a manipulator born by

the hands of the rich, isn't really that but of someone who struggles to create a sense of

resilience. Resilience to leave behind a space that speaks for itself and welcomes people not

just to see but to feel and to belong.

But is this act of resilience only sufficient for how an architect is viewed by the society or for

the community of this craft as well? Our knight in shining armour enters the battlefield armed

with a T-scale and blurry vision only to realise that there is not an inch of scope for him to

catch a win. The layered responsibility that led him to this vast ground now seems too heavy

on the shoulders, giving him another reason for a crooked back. With his skill, he battles

psychology, economy, sociology, art and engineering. He fights until all he's left with is a downfall in character. He becomes the antagonist who blindly chases nothing but the sense

of accomplishment that being known will bring to him. Just when he thinks he has reached

the edge of the world, the acclaim seems fleeting and the purpose that once burned bright

now feels dimmed. But beyond all that, beneath the exhaustion and the dark circles, a new

A sense of hope is discovered.

I hope that in some way, architecture is both the art and science of empathy. A craft that

covers and captures the spirit of those it serves. Morally speaking, the true scope of an

architect's craft expands into realms beyond comprehension; they mould the unseen forces

of behaviour, memory and understanding within each corner. Every building is, at its core, a

physical representation of human ideologies and experiences.

“A great building must begin with the unmeasurable, must go through measurable means

when it is being designed, and in the end must be unmeasurable.”

It's easy to think that the essence of architecture has been assembled here just by stringing

some pretty words together but really, isn't the moral compass of architecture often

misaligned with fame and prestige? The ultimate factors that make our antagonists as

villainous as they seem?

In reality, it would be much more gratifying if the inhabitants of an architect's design believed

that architecture is not just within the purview of aesthetic grandeur but also about

sustainable design, economics impact and community building.

Does all of this imply that our protagonist turned antagonist is actually fighting a losing war?

That there is, in reality, no hope for him to have a stable future in architecture and the only

one to blame for this degradation is the consumer of his craft?

To contradict myself, the architect is not just a casualty in this war but also a contributor to it.

His need to leave a permanent mark on the skyline drives him to unusual extents where the

The pulse of the people doesn't matter. He gains a reputation that precedes him and begins to

look down his nose- or his ivory tower- on others. The only way left to restore architecture’s

potentially failed scope is if our to be messiah is willing to shed the longing of personal glory,

to become a guardian of a legacy built not on prominence but on a deeply rooted sense of

purpose. This way architecture might just reclaim its lost essence. Once again will he

become the architect who's not a lone creator but someone who can craft structures that

prioritise resilience over recognition.

Now that we've established that architecture has become synonymous with empathy and

responsibility, we can say that society will be able to view it as a critical service that improves

collective wellbeing. However this still doesn't resolve the issue that lies beneath all this

food for thought: how do we solve this issue of building a public image as respectful as a

doctor or a good lawyer?

Views concerning the profession and the professional differ from each other by a very thin

line, a line that architects teeter on when they have to make a choice between creative

freedom and obligations to the design's consumer.

To choose or not to choose is the great question. In this instance, the architect needs to turn to kaleidoscopic exercises that will help him restore his societal image. This approach could include a model of transparency that should be applied by architects to create real relationships with communities in order to convince them that their creations are built on similar values and visions. This engagement is implemented through focused discussions, and launch activities where the general public is not only heard but also given the choice to choose elements or purposes of the spaces that they will interact with.

The profession needs visionary thinkers who will uphold the best interest of communities

rather than personal glorification and practise the kind of selflessness that doctors do when it

comes to their patients. This will change the course of architecture to something that is

aligned to humanity and not a symbol of self-aggrandisement.

In addition, architects do have the exceptional ability to narrate and therefore, to explain their

craft as well as to unveil the hidden purposes of this field. They can consequently present

the new stories that portray the desired transformations within society to foster a closer

emotional link between their designs and the mass. This kind of creative storytelling, if taken

to a digital platform, can continue to allow the architects to prove their responsibility while

embracing the alliance component shared by their work.

Alternatively, professional bodies and regulating agencies should be encouraging and

rewarding architects who embrace the right and appropriate standards of architectural

practice as well as community contribution. For the profession to change its approach from a

glamorous look on how it can be viewed as prestigious, the establishment of awards must be

used to honour achievements, efficiency, effectiveness, and social purpose that come with

the projects.

Building a public image as respectable as doctors and lawyers requires a shift in perception

and practice. It demands one to go beyond the concept of just designing spaces in order to

get their dignity back as the real protagonist. When they do, they can recreate themselves as

architects in the modern society where the public and clients no longer see them as elite

designers sitting up in their ivory towers but as professionals charged with the responsibility

of holding the welfare and security of the citizens’ built environment.

As the stage lights dim once again, I declare our architect stripped of his ego, free of thorns

embedded by the elite and armed with a new purpose, making him a true protagonist. He

rides merrily into the sunset, packed with humanity not prestige that transforms architecture

into a craft of the people, for the people and by the people. A profession once bound by

fane, now stands as a beacon of integrity.

Written by, Kashvi Goel