Design Diplomacy: Architecture's

Relationship with Public Policy

September 30, 2000 by Richard Swett, FAIA

By expanding design from its aesthetic sense to incorporate people, society and quality of
life issues, we shift the paradigm of architecture from the design of buildings to influencing
the design process for solving problems in society.

Upon my arrival in Denmark as the U.S. Ambassador two years ago, I quickly came to
appreciate the Danish ideal evident in this countrys long-standing mix of good architecture,
design and public policy. For nearly a decade prior to my posting here I have sought to build
a bridge between architecture and public policy in the United States. My first impression of
Denmark made me believe that I had finally come to a country where the bridge was already
standing.

As only the thirteenth architect to serve in the United States Congress and the only one of the
twentieth century, I came to Denmark believing that the influence of design on public policy
had been cultivated through the successful engagement of architects in the public arena. I
quickly inquired about the long list of architects serving as elected public officials and was
surprised to find that the profession is just as reticent about running for public office here as it
is in the United States. However, here there is much more influence exerted by the profession
through other means. Relationships between government officials and designers are more
prevalent. The profession has, in the past, taken specific stands on social policy that have
influenced legislative policy makers. Still, little is known about the relationship between
design and public policy.

The interplay of public policy and architecture needs to be examined in order to gain a
better understanding of the dynamics of a successful society. The inherent connection
between design and public policy is rarely discussed, if at all.

I have been very privileged to wear many hats during my career as an architect and
public servant. My architectural training has served me well throughout my working life. In
private practice, it has enhanced and informed my abilities to provide constructive service to
my clients and constituents, beginning with non-governmental organizations and citizens
groups. The practice of architecture continues to enhance and inform my career, where I have
served the public as Congressman from New Hampshire and now as I serve my nation as
Ambassador to Denmark. As a matter of fact, architecture played a role in my public service
career right from the start. My first congressional campaign slogan was, Every House needs
a good architect.

Throughout, I have witnessed and participated in the maze of complex systems, governmental
regulations, professional disciplines, special interest groups, grass-roots community
organizations and big businesses, all seeking to impact our built environment. I have found
that there are few people well equipped to sort through the cacophony of competitive interests
in a constructive way that ultimately achieves harmony. By virtue of our training, skills and
perspective, architects should play that role, but, sadly, we rarely do.

From this morass of conflict, architects are expected to create sound structures of lasting
value; works of art, if you will. These forms we create are more than art, however. They must
function as protective machines providing order and place while they elevate the human
condition, both spiritually and literally. And, as you all know, this is easier, much easier, said
than done. But that IS what we architects are committed to do-it is the central mission of our
profession.

Daunting as this architectural mission is, the truth is that in todays world it is no longer
enough. We must be prepared to do more. Because of our singular focus on aesthetic design
without regard to social design, because we have turned our noses up at the more mundane
or administrative aspects of our profession, and because we have narrowed our leadership
responsibilities to avoid liability rather than expand them to gain influence, we have seen our
roles as leading visionaries in society follow a diminishing path. It is time to change our
perspective.

The title of this article, Design Diplomacy: Public Policy and the Practice of
Architecture, may have intrigued and even confused many of you.But let me explain
what I mean by Design Diplomacy. By expanding design from its limited aesthetic sense
and broadening it to incorporate people, society and quality of life issues, we shift the
traditional paradigm of architecture from the design of buildings to influencing the design
process for solving problems in society (or public policy formation). The creative process of
architects is a constructive, inclusive processtherefore more diplomatic than the aggressive
and adversarial methods of engagement in politics. Hence, Design Diplomacy: Public Policy
and the Practice of Architecture. Architects are essential contributors, even the actual
shapers, of the environment in which we live. Yet they have always seemed to be supporting
actors at best or bit players at worst, in the various dramas unfolding on societys main stage.
It is time to take a fresh look at our profession and the role it plays in todays world. So it
seems logical to start off with a new definition and an outline of a few key topics and terms:

1. The Global Village & Globalization

2. The New Economy
3. Knowledge Management & High Technology
4. Management of the Environment & Energy Resources
5. Accountability and Responsibility to the Local Community
6. LEADERSHIP

Perhaps not all of these topics seem, at first blush, to interface with the world of architecture
and design, but they most certainly should.

The Global Village and its recently coined noun, Globalization, has become a common
catch phrase. But it fails to capture an inevitable but very unpredictable development of our
global community: the creation of community infrastructure. Examples can be found all
around us. Witness the resund Bridge in Copenhagen. The engineering feat of a sixteen-
mile span of suspension bridge and tunnel is changing much more than the cultural and
commercial lives in this city and Malm across the sound in Sweden. This is the final piece
of the transportation network that connects all of Europe. Now it is possible to truck goods
and raw materials across all of Europe, all the way to the remotest parts of Northern and
Eastern Europe and the vast terrain of the former Soviet Union. This bridge physically links
the developed world with remote societies largely detached from the technology and
prosperity we so often take for granted.

This brings me to the New Economy. What does this sound-bite mean, especially for
architects? As old paradigms are shifting, being redefined or being demolished altogether,
how do we as a profession adapt? How do we remain in command of our established role
while modern society is morphing around us? The traditional chain of command, where
information is passed down in smaller and smaller increments, has been turned on its head.
Now huge amounts of data are collected and transferred to the small group of decision-
makers at the top. Already now, and more so in the near future, vast numbers of individuals
will have access to information on choices in life no longer limited by their immediate,
physical surroundings. These are opportunities created by this new surge of information.
They will no longer have to travel in order to work, to shop or to educate themselves. We will
have more and more of the planets economies vesting greater and greater resources into the
development and expansion of global intellectual property. Where does the architect figure in
this?

One example I can give where architects have already begun to play a role in helping to
create the New Economy is the United States Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of
1992. Originally known as the Highway Bill, architects fought hard to expand the
requirements of this legislation to do more than provide highway engineering and
construction. Issues of sustainability and the creation of livable communities through social
design were addressed. Architects and planners were made a part of the process so that best
use scenarios would be examined prior to the creation of a new highway. Interconnections
between transportation systems, or intermodal points enhanced the use of rail, air and sea
transportation networks in conjunction with the highways-not separate from them.

Let me quote a passage from Understanding Media: The Extensions of Mankind published
nearly 40 years ago by Marshall McLuhan:

To reward and to make celebrities of artists can...be a way of ignoring their prophetic work,
and preventing its timely use for survival. The artist is any man in any field, scientific or
humanistic, who grasps the implications of his actions and of the new knowledge in his own
time. He is the man of integral awareness. The artist can correct the sense ratios before the
blow of new technology has numbed conscious procedures. He can correct them before
numbness and subliminal groping and reaction sets in. If this is true, how is it possible to
present the matter to those who are in the position to do something about it?

Good Question! Obviously, before an answer can be formulated, the architectural

profession must first take stock. The issue of knowledge management is broad and critical.
How do we manage our knowledge? How do we employ high technology? How do we apply
this ever-increasing body of knowledge to the task at hand? How do we communicate
amongst ourselves? How do we communicate to the public at large, beyond the physical
reality of the buildings we construct? How can we match our skills and demonstrate our value
to society as effectively as those youngsters, the I.T. whiz-kids, who are now the highest paid
professionals (many of whom are leaving our profession), cutting across all levels of socio-
economic and cultural barriers?
Perhaps the answer lies in our accountability and responsibility to our communities. Not
just to the international community of architects, but to those in our home communities. This
is an area unconsidered and under-valued by our profession. But of course, we are not alone
in this. We stand to learn a great deal from our colleagues in public service on this account.

The profession of Politics has a negative reputation in the publics mind thanks to the
glaring mistakes of some of its high-flyers. And so too does architecture when it becomes
party to grave political misconceptions. To drop some infamous examples I offer Albert
Speers Berlin or Brasilia, the utopian capital gone monumentally wrong. These are the
worst-case scenarios realized out of grandiose political schemes met with equal fervor by
like-minded architects.

Examples of integrated artistic, social and environmental harmony created by architects

who have served both their calling and the needs of society are harder to recall. They are
not glamorous like the skyscrapers of corporate power nor are they the permanent reminders
of empire building like the Roman Coliseum or the Great Wall of China. Pierre lEnfants
well-designed new capital of the United States, Washington, D.C. survives as an evolving
example of a good base for comprehensive city planning. Even Strget (or The Walking
Street) of Copenhagen or the urban garden of Tivoli can be considered successfully harmonic
examples.

But what we can see here in Denmark are design ideals played out on broader and
better, more integrated levels that transcend the traditional top-down approach. In
the design of managed communities for senior citizens, in the day-care centers for Danish
children, in the sensitively-restored period architecture and in the planned post-war suburban
communities integrated into the rolling hills of the Danish landscape, Denmark provides a
stellar example of a truly integrated and societal approach to architecture and public policy.
Danish architects are as famous for their buildings of international acclaim as they are for
their dining room chairs and their desk lamps. No design task is too small or inconsequential.
All aspects of the design of a civilized lifes accouterments, from the shelter we need to the
implements for feeding ourselves, are treated with the same high standards of design integrity
and respect.

The awareness of architectures role in managing our precious natural resources and
the responsibility to design the built environment with efficient energy use and
conservation in mind are now universal. But making it a social, political and economic
priority has led to a world-class role for the Danish industrial and architectural design
community. The architects of the world should take note.

This holistic approach forms the bedrock of a subtle, sustained leadership. It means
taking many, many things into consideration. It involves combining the complex relationships
architects must achieve to create their work while constructing purposeful physical structures
with an inherent use of our environment.

We are in an increasingly interdependent world in which not only commerce, but also
professions and national interests overlap more and more. Despite occasional adversarial
conflict in the arenas of trade, politics and special interest groups, it is interesting to note that
architects remain one of the few academic professions still held in high regard by the public.
Yet, the profession is losing market share. I would even go so far as to say it is losing touch
with the environment, in which we not only live, but also are so integral in creating and
managing.

This interplay between the practice of architecture and public policy is at the crux of
these questions. Architects have not adequately participated in the public policy debate in a
way that I wholeheartedly believe would be so beneficial to our profession and to the public
at large.

By our very nature, architects are constructive, cooperative and creative problem
solvers and as such, have splendid leadership qualities to offer. Likewise, public policy
can only evolve and mature if architects better use their integrated creative skills to have a
greater say in local, national and even international governmental affairs. I am not criticizing
or downplaying the accomplishments of the profession in the public arena. Nor do I wish to
diminish the very important role of design in our profession. I only suggest that architecture
is made up of much more than just the aesthetics of design, and that we must consider a
broader set of issues and set new objectives for participation in public life. Five years ago
Herbert Muschamp wrote for The New York Times, a Fleeting Homage to an Architect Who
only Dreams:

The realization of an architectural design isnt purely a technical matter. It also has a cultural
dimension....Im thinking, for example, of an artist like Christo, who regards the process of
realizing as an essential part of his art. When Christo wraps up a monument, like the Berlin
Reichstag building, the projects meaning is partly drawn from the involvement of public
officials and private citizens in its creation. Architects draw on that level of meaning as a
matter of a course. It is not only the public use of buildings that makes architecture a social
art, it is also the architects engagement with clients, communities, contractors and others
whose participation is required to alter the material world. If architects can fully gratify their
creativity on paper, they are squandering the opportunity they have to activate the creativity
of others.

We could only benefit by the effort of participation in public life and through it the activation
of the creativity of the public.

Thomas Jefferson, an architect of great skill and sensitivity and an unparalleled

politician, played a pivotal role in designing the blueprint of the American democratic
system. In doing so, he effectively realized the confluence of the arts, democratic politics and
morality. In a letter to James Madison written in 1785, he wrote,

I am enthusiastic on the subject of the arts. But it is an enthusiasm of which I am not

ashamed, as its object is to improve the taste of my countrymen, to increase their reputation,
to reconcile them to the rest of the world, and to procure them praise.

There are great opportunities, as so nobly expressed by Jefferson, for our profession to
seize. How many architects hold senior government positions charged with Housing and
Urban Affairs, Culture, Transportation and Environmental Management? How many
architects are politically active and practically involved in their local and national
governments?

Buildings have been designed and built, but beyond that, what is the legacy of
leadership that architects have left for societies? Will gated communities cut off from their
neighbors be the future? Will glass and marble towers be gracefully integrated into their
surroundings or alienate themselves from the very blocks on which they are located? The fact
is too many architects are seriously marginalized, and I would go so far as to say,
intentionally isolated, from the political process that determines the zoning, funding and the
complex social and legal regulations that control the building of our shared environment. This
subject needs to be confronted, debated and discussed in detail.

Yet, we need to do more. Well-known Austrian architect Hans Hollein, when recently asked,
Do you ever wish you had been only a fine artist? responded,

I would have a much more comfortable life just sitting in a studio in the country. But I
wanted to be involved in building in the city; I wanted to contribute to daily life with all its
idiosyncrasies and difficulties.

During the recent conference, we concluded by assisting in the design of a blueprint that will
frame the future influence of our profession beyond the limitations of bricks and mortar. Such
a plan suggests that our fellow architects take up leadership roles in order to balance the
tectonic, economic and political aspects of city/state planning more consciously.

Thomas Jefferson also wrote in 1785:

I am proud to be an architect and dont propose we go out and tear down any buildings. I do
propose, however, we tear down some of the myths and misperceptions that architects have
about public policy and vice versa.

And that, my colleagues, is what we are here to do. Together, we can build a better future.
Lets start now.

Comments

majid 1 year ago

this is a new perspective to public policy. I'm doing a research on the relation of
design and nation branding.There are many similar thoughts in this article with what
I'm doing about the social commitment of designers and the potential contribution of
design thinking and problem solving methods in strategic policy making. design has
proven its ability to involve strategic configuration of an organization in business
context, and it is the time to play the same role in diplomacy. but this potential ability
needs first to be recognized by designers themselves, then by governors.
best wishes for you and other designers in this new challenging realm.

Leonida D. Santos 12 months ago

This was published 15 years ago, but the thoughts are so relevant at present. This is a
good motivation for architects to play a greater role in our society and nation building;
and not purely subservient to materialism and building monuments for others.