Sustainability and Privilege

A Critique of Social Design Practice

Gabriel Arboleda

• Publisher: University of Virginia Press
• Year: 2022
• ISBN:
  9780813948003
• Topic: Architecture
• Subtopic: Urban Planning & Landscaping

Social design—the practice of designing for poverty relief—is one of the most popular fields in contemporary architecture. Its advocates, focusing on the architect's creativity and good intentions, are overwhelmingly laudatory, while its detractors, concerned with the experience of its beneficiaries, have dismissed it as an expression of cultural imperialism. Placed midway between innocuous celebration and radical critique, Sustainability and Privilege highlights the lessons that can be learned from social design's current limitations and proposes a feasible way to improve this practice.

In this broad-ranging account, enlivened by fieldwork and case studies, Gabriel Arboleda contends that social design's invocation of sustainability often serves to marginalize and displace vulnerable populations through projects that involve experimentation of faulty alternative technologies, or that result in so-called green gentrification, or that impose untoward economic and other burdens. Arboleda is fiercely critical of the way social design has been carried out in impoverished regions of the world, most notably in Africa and Latin America. In addressing the challenges posed by issues of privilege in social design's use of sustainability, the book proposes a new interdisciplinary approach called ethnoarchitecture, arguing for a simpler, open-ended, and stakeholder-driven process that eliminates the casual imposition of the architect's ideas on vulnerable populations, foregrounding the people's voices, experience, and input in social design practice.

Chapter 1

Social Design, Sustainability, and Imperialism

Sustainability in Social Design

Social design’s central goal is social improvement, and this practice generally envisions that goal as one of sustained improvement. Thus, the notion of sustainability is fundamental to social design, to such an extent that social design and sustainable design are in fact closely connected fields. This connection is evident in a host of books devoted to the topic of social design published since the mid-2000s (e.g., Kennedy 2004; Feireiss and Feireiss 2008; Feireiss, Feireiss, and Sloterdijk 2009; Fuad-Luke 2009; Aquilino 2011; AFH 2012a; Lepik 2013; Meinhold 2013; Charlesworth and Ahmed 2015; Krückeberg, Putz, and Willemeit 2016; Lucente and Trasi 2019). Indeed, the connection made in the literature between social design and sustainable design is so direct that some authors have described social design as being a form of sustainable design (see Bergdoll 2015), while conversely, others have described sustainable design as a form of social design (see Falkeis and Feireiss 2015).

Such a direct connection has existed since the early days of social design. This is evident from the work of three of the main figures in the history of this practice: Hassan Fathy, Victor Papanek, and Samuel Mockbee. Fathy, who carried out the bulk of his work between the 1930s and the 1980s, was the designer of New Gourna in Egypt (fig. 3). This pioneering social design project remains the most classical example of social design practice. Papanek, who carried out his work between the 1950s and the 1990s, was arguably social design’s first theorist, as he authored a series of influential books that offered an early roadmap for what the practice of social design should strive for. Mockbee, who was active between the 1970s and the 1990s, was the foundational figure of the current social design movement through his Rural Studio, the most celebrated service learning program in US architectural education.

Throughout his New Gourna project and his career in general, Fathy was highly interested in the climate and overall energy performance, as well as the economic and structural feasibility of the mud-based structures traditionally used by the Egyptian rural poor, structures that provided the model for his designs. Indeed, Fathy’s approach has been described as “solar building for the poor” (Behling and Behling 1996). Papanek’s last book, illustratively named The Green Imperative (1995), outlined the argument for embracing sustainability in social design practice. In this book, Papanek argued that the dismal environmental condition of the planet is real and present, and that global poverty is a direct consequence of those environmental issues (10–11). Arguing that conventional design practice is part of the problem, Papanek called for designers to radically change their practices, adopting what he called an ethical design perspective that would embrace ecological and social responsibility. He concluded: “Sustainability can be helped or hindered by design” (235). Mockbee described sustainable architecture as “a combination of values: aesthetic, environmental, social, political, and moral” (Mockbee in Fox 2000, 208). Following that premise, his Rural Studio projects used materials such as hay bales and rammed earth, as well as reused elements such as car tires and windows. This was, in Mockbee’s view, a way to extend the benefits of sustainability to communities in poverty.

Fig. 3. The mosque at New Gourna, Hassan Fathy’s pioneering social design project. (Photograph by Marc Ryckaert, Creative Commons)

Besides these three pioneers of the practice, sustainability remains a central concern in social design today. Indeed, it is so central that the vast majority of the world’s most influential social design organizations either explicitly or implicitly declare sustainability as being their goal or the means towards that goal. This has been the case since the late 1990s, when Architecture for Humanity, the organization that made social design mainstream, was established. Architecture for Humanity was founded by Cameron Sinclair and Kate Stohr, and at the time of its closure it was headquartered in San Francisco, California. In addition to establishing the organization, Sinclair and Stohr also published Design Like You Give a Damn (AFH 2006, 2012a). This is a two-book series promoting Architecture for Humanity’s activities and is one of the most influential pieces in social design literature to date. Sustainability was so important for Architecture for Humanity’s activities that the notion was not only often invoked in these two books, but was actually part of the organization’s own mission: “Building a more sustainable future using the power of design” (2013a, 3). It was also part of its vision, which was to “plan, design, and build beautiful, sustainable spaces” (10), as well as one of its goals: “To build communities based on sustainable prosperity” (Sinclair 2007).

Sustainability is also explicitly stated as the goal and/or the means toward the goal by the world’s most prominent social design practitioners and organizations today, in the so‑called First World and the Third World alike. I will study examples of the centrality of sustainability for the latter in the next chapter. As for the former, one example is Article 25, an organization based in the United Kingdom and self-described as the world’s largest architectural nonprofit: “We design, manage and deliver sustainable building solutions in areas affected by disaster, poverty and need” (Article 25 n.d.a). A second example is Orkidstudio, another prominent social design organization established in the United Kingdom and later relocated to Kenya: “Our aim is to explore the potential of architecture as a tool for relieving poverty, transforming lives, and promoting sustainable urban and social development” (Orkidstudio n.d.a). A third example is Architecture Sans Frontières (ASF), a global network of social design nonprofits with a presence across six continents: “[ASF members] cooperate for fair and sustainable development initiatives in active collaboration with disadvantaged people or communities” (ASF 2017b).

What Does “Sustainability” Mean for Social Design?

Considering both past and present social design practitioners and organizations, the degree to which sustainability is essential to social design is evident. However, what does the notion of sustainability exactly mean for social design? The answer is clear from the mission, methods, goals, and other position statements from the organizations cited above, as well as other leading social design practices, both international and local. The international practices are based in the United States and Europe and carry out their work mostly in the Third World. They include those mentioned in the previous section, and others such as Architectes de l’Urgence, MASS Design Group, and TYIN Tegnestue. As for the local practices, some of the most prominent are either based in or have originated in the Third World itself, carrying out most of their work in that region. They include Al Borde Architects (Ecuador), Kunlé Adeyemi’s NLÉ Works (Nigeria), Alfredo Brillembourg and Hubert Klumpner’s Urban-Think Tank (Venezuela), Alejandro Echeverri (Colombia), and Giancarlo Mazzanti (Colombia). In the next chapter, I will be discussing these local practices’ understanding of sustainability in the context of a few illustrative projects. Below I will focus on the international practices.

First and foremost, it is worth looking at the meaning of sustainability for social design through the lens of Architecture for Humanity, whose pioneering approach to social design was so highly influential that its echoes still reverberate in the work of many organizations large and small. Architecture for Humanity explained its understanding of the notion in the following terms:

For us sustainability is about more than building green. We think about how a building will affect the environment, how it will improve the lives and livelihoods of its occupants, and its impact on future generations, including its vulnerability to disaster. (AFH 2014a)

In other words, Architecture for Humanity focused not only on the environmental impact of a given building but also on how that building would bring social improvement both in the present and in the future. This is similar to how Article 25 understands sustainability as a long-term concept: “Sustainable building and projects are vital, in every sense: working for the long term” (Article 25 n.d.b). Victoria Harris, a cofounder of this organization, explains the significance of this principle with respect to emergency reconstruction, arguing that many humanitarian organizations define their focus too narrowly as emergency work, and consequently “they have no truck with the long-term, complex matter of building sustainable, resilient systems” (Harris 2011, 16). Instead, she argues, Article 25 aims to go beyond the emergency focus on “plastic sheets and lean-to structures—temporary fixes” (16). Rather, the organization considers that the first phase of an emergency must be part of a long-term recovery process: “Disaster relief and long-term development must be inextricably linked, and development opportunities assessed and insisted upon in every aspect of the reconstruction process” (17).

Orkidstudio expands this understanding of sustainability by focusing on the use of local human and material resources:

Our approach is founded on a celebration of local people and resources. We select local materials and source from nearby suppliers, supporting the economies around our sites and promoting sustainable and responsible procurement. (Orkidstudio n.d.b)

Orkidstudio also emphasizes its view of sustainability in economic terms, particularly with respect to growth and self-sufficiency:

Alongside our buildings, we are engaged in a diverse range of small and medium sized enterprises, working with individuals and communities to develop sustained resources and enter new markets. We create scalable models to enable self-sufficient access to key infrastructure and shelter. (2015)

Expanding the notion of sustainability further, Architecture Sans Frontières understands it as going beyond resource efficiency to consider also local needs and traditions:

ASF-International members promote an architecture that is environmentally sustainable and respects local needs and traditions, using low-impact materials, appropriate technologies, and renewable sources of energy to create more resilient cities and places. (ASF 2017a)

With regard to other global leading organizations, it is worth looking at what sustainability means for Architectes de l’Urgence. This is a French emergency reconstruction organization with a membership of over 1,600 architects and other professionals, conducting reconstruction programs in thirty-three countries (FAU n.d.). In the view of Patrick Coulombel, one of the founders of the organization, and in agreement with Victoria Harris, sustainability should be an essential component of emergency reconstruction, in the sense of making sure that emergency solutions proposed by designers will last over time and will be friendly to the natural environment (Coulombel 2011; see also 2019). Architectes de l’Urgence also states on its website that it is “always involved in a real logic of sustainable development and risk mitigation,” since its programs aim to be not only “adapted to the technical and architectural context but also the social, environmental, and cultural [contexts]” (FAU n.d.).

Another illustrative conception of sustainability in social design is that of the MASS1 Design Group, currently the highest-profile US social design organization. In describing its method of work, MASS asks: “Are our projects sustainable?” The answer is:

Our projects go beyond a checklist of metrics. . . . Working with locally sourced materials and labor when possible, we assess the entire supply chain for environmental impact, and assure that the majority of capital invested in construction flows to the community we are serving. (MASS n.d.)

Thus, according to this statement, MASS’s projects are sustainable because of their use of local resources, the buildings’ reduced environmental impact, and their positive economic impact. Also, in a series of toolkits and reports providing examples of successful architectural and urban design interventions, MASS emphasizes instilling a sense of ownership among project beneficiaries to ensure they will take charge of the sustained maintenance of the project, and with that, to ensure not only that the project lasts over time, but also that its operational cost is reduced (see MASS 2017a, 2017b).

Finally, it is worth looking at what sustainability means for TYIN Tegnestue, a Norwegian firm that started as a social design practice and remains one of the most highly awarded practices in this field. These awards have been conferred to TYIN for a number of projects built in Southeast Asia, projects that are among the most iconic in the field of social design (fig. 4; see also fig. 1). Explaining one of these projects, TYIN makes clear its view of sustainability as simplicity, durability, and adaptability—the three notions coming together in order to ensure the sustained usability of the project, even when needs change:

The main construction’s simplicity, repetitive logic and durability enables the local inhabitants to make adaptations that fit with their changing needs without endangering the projects structural strength or the general usability of the playground. This way the project runs in parallel with the ever changing surroundings and fits with the idea that the project could be part of a larger call for a more sustainable development in the Klong Toey area. (TYIN n.d.a)

Fig. 4. TYIN’s Cassia Coop Training Centre in Sungai Penuh, Indonesia. (Photograph by Pasi Aalto, PasiAalto.com)

In its description of another project, TYIN extends its understanding of sustainability to resource efficiency: “Important principles like bracing, material economisation and moisture prevention, may possibly lead to a more sustainable building tradition for the Karen people in the future” (TYIN n.d.b).

Sustainability

The organizations mentioned above are widely acknowledged as the leaders in the social design field. As such, they have ultimately modeled by their example the social design agenda. Their vision, approaches, objectives, and consequently their view of sustainability have been followed by a myriad of smaller social design initiatives, becoming paradigmatic for this discipline. For example, in chapter 3 I will study the work of a group of very respected but lower-profile designers from Ecuador. As will be evident, their idea of sustainability is very similar to that of these high-profile organizations, which attests to a broad understanding of sustainability in social design practice as a whole.

What is this broad understanding of sustainability? What do all those diverse definitions of sustainability ultimately mean? The definitions share a few common themes, as well as some specific themes in the case of practitioners that connect sustainability to their particular area of interest. Both commonalities and specificities constitute the predominant meaning of sustainability in social design. Characteristics of sustainability in this field are then first and foremost the idea of social improvement as the general goal, with a focus on localism. That is, designers strive to make sure that their projects cater to local needs, using local labor so that income from construction expenses goes to local builders and thus supporting the local economy. There is also emphasis on the notion that involving local beneficiaries in the process of construction, as well as building with local materials, significantly reduces construction costs. Additionally, the economic impact of the project goes beyond delivering a building project, involving other initiatives that stimulate the capacity of beneficiaries to engage in business, thus keeping a general eye on self-sufficiency. Consequently, economic resources are a great focus in social design’s overall understanding of sustainability.

Another focus is the idea of culture, as in traditional culture. This is something to which social designers usually assign great importance. Along with the interest in traditional culture goes the concern for the natural surroundings. Social designers mind the environmental impact of their buildings, making sure that the materials they use are locally sourced, have a low environmental footprint, and are appropriately and efficiently used. Social designers also consider renewability, both in terms of materials and the energy sources of their buildings. Thus, there exists a strong consideration of resource efficiency, which is partly motivated by the interest in protecting the natural environment.

One important goal of resource efficiency is to consider the project’s impact in the long term. Social designers aim for their buildings to be durable. One of the ways to ensure this is that, during the process of work, designers endeavor to instill in beneficiaries a sense of ownership of the donated building, so they feel compelled to perform maintenance, which brings the extra economic benefit of lowering the buildings’ operational costs. Another strategy for the long term is to design structures that are intentionally simple, or lend themselves to easy adaptions with which the structure might remain useful, even when the beneficiaries’ needs change. This is the culmination of social design’s general idea of sustainability—the future. There is a great emphasis in social design on the idea that buildings should serve both present and future needs; that the project should be carried out in a way that makes it a resilient project; one that lasts, is maintained, and is adaptable, thus remaining useful over time.

This is social design’s broad concept of sustainability. Social design sees sustainability as the combination of two general categories: on the one hand, resources, understood both as economic resources and resource efficiency in the construction, and on the other the emphasis on the long term, the future. Thus, by and large, social design’s notion of sustainability relates to implementing a number of efficiency measures in order to ensure that there are resources available (including economic resources) in order to satisfy present needs and ensure that those resources will still be available in the future.

Such an emphasis on resources and the future means that the predominant understanding of sustainability in social design actually mirrors the classical definition of sustainability given in the Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development, a United Nations report also known as the Brundtland Report (WCED 1987).2 The Brundtland Report’s definition of sustainability is “meet[ing] the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (43). This is the best-known and by far the most predominant and influential definition of sustainability.

It is then critical to study the Brundtland Report’s notion of sustainability because this report in the end has provided the template for sustainability practice that social design at large follows. What does the wide adoption of the Brundtland Report’s notion of su...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Contents
• Acknowledgments
• Introduction: Social Design
• 1. Social Design, Sustainability, and Imperialism
• 2. Is Localism the Solution?: On Local Social Designers
• 3. Localism: On Community Participation
• 4. The Challenge of Social Design
• Notes
• References
• Index