Article 25

Registered Charity Number: 1112621
London,

Do Architects Help?

Date Posted: 22 Jun 2012

Do we help is one of the fundamental question that all professionals working in or aspiring to work in international development must ask themselves. This seemingly simple question, however, belies another level of complexity which is contingent on the environment and framework in which you work.

For many in the built environment profession the answer to this question is both yes and no. There are examples of where built environment interventions have saved lives and transformed communities and others where their contribution has been poorly executed or deemed irrelevant.

There are many challenges that we need to take into account when answering this question. The first being that best practice in the international development industry has changed. David Sanderson, Director of CENDEP is clear that international development is serious business. Not only is it becoming more professionalised, but the approach has become bottom-up, not top-down; process not product; supporting not providing.

In addition to this, the events and issues that we are responding to have changed. Increased urban population has become a game changer, and according to Graham Saunders, Head of Shelter at IFRC, of the 400 disaster events that occur each year, the overwhelming majority are small-scale and hydrological in nature, not the major disaster that hit the headline, and these affect an increasing amount of people. It is not only response to natural disaster that we have to consider but also how to integrate mitigation and prevention into our interventions.

With these changes built environment professionals need to consider how they operate and how they can adapt to this changing context. They also need to consider how better to engage and effectively sell themselves to the international development community. According to Graham only two INGOs directly employ built environment professionals. 

If we turn to look at ourselves for the moment, it becomes evident that the term “built environment” is notoriously hard to define. Built environment and shelter are terms that have no easy translation in any of the main European languages and generally have no government ministry directly responsible for their delivery, unlike areas of intervention in international development such as health or education.

Another question we could ask ourselves is whether we have the opportunity to help. Often professionals are not able to spend more than one or two years working in the field before returning to the commercial sector for higher pay or job stability. How can we make development a viable and desired career choice for aspiring architects and engineers? Education could play a role. Camillo Boano, Lecturer at the Development Planning Unit at UCL believes that if people aren’t changing then the world around them will not change. Flexibility and engagement with different disciplines is required to gain a greater understanding of the world. Engaging with both professionals and students would also ensure that we avoid the outcome of sending unqualified people to work in areas where they have vital impact. John Norton, co-Founder of the Development Workshop points out that just because you are working with the poor does not mean they deserve anything less than excellent – a lesson for our own politicians and professionals.

Another challenge in the international development sector is the inherent tension between the donor community and international development interventions in the built environment. There is a perception that engaging a professional from this sector is an unnecessary expense but arguable with the expansion of social engaged work important in order to provide something with which the community is involved. The very nature of our work is slow and long-term whereas donors need accountability and results within their 2-3 year funding timescales. Accountability and showing results is important, but there is also an opportunity here for architects and associations like the RIBA to lobby for change and awareness amongst the donor and INGO community.

As with all international development professionals, we also need to beware imposing our own world view and considerations of rational decision making in order to gain a greater understanding of the communities with which we work. Camillo argues that people live in vulnerable sites not because they are ignorant of the danger but because they have made an assessment of the risk against the advantages of being close to livelihood generating opportunities. In addition, as the skills base becomes increasingly globalised, where possible engaging local architects to lead on work is best practice approach. However, as John Norton has experienced local architects are often times trying to escape the slum or village that constitutes the field in international development work.

The changing influences and actors impacting international development require us to examine our role and responsibility on a global scale and adapt our approach. We should not be afraid of the product we are providing but be aware that the process of providing is as important and can be a vital vehicle for building capacity in the community we intend to help.  Moving forward in order to have the opportunity to help, we have a duty to communicate what we do, where we can do it, and how we can support communities and the industry to achieve better outcomes.

Article 25 hosted a panel debate chaired by Jack Pringle PPRIBA featuring David Sanderson, Graham Saunders, Camillo Boano, John Norton and Tom Gunner from UKspace at the RIBA on Tuesday 19th June 2012.

- Jessica Toale is Article 25′s Head of Education and Communications