0 CommentsM.E. Design Magazine interviews Cameron Sinclair, the executive director of Architecture for Humanity - a tiny, but influential, non-profit organisation dreamt up eight years ago in a New York studio apartment...
They have mocked the architectural mainstream for its obsession with office towers and extravagant museums while ignoring the plight of people left homeless by natural disaster or war. Sinclair's alternative is summed up in a feisty mantra, "Design Like You Give a Damn". The point is "fewer champagne parties" for international celebrity architects and more attention to "the basics of life: water, education, decent shelter" for people without.
You studied architecture at the Bartlett School in London, then worked with Gensler, one of the largest design firms in the world. You were involved in the sort of projects that every young architect aspires to design, like the award winning School of the International Centre of Photography in Manhattan… And then you left to found Architecture for Humanity. What happened?
I was always involved in social issues, even before my time in College. I was not really affected by good architecture – I was more interested in bad architecture, maybe because I was brought up in a rough neighbourhood in London. I would walk in one direction, surrounded by crime-ridden concrete towers and then, in the other direction, find myself in an idyllic village, like atmosphere.
Good buildings better the environment and improve quality of life. Bad buildings don’t. So, by the time I went to architecture school, I was taken aback when I realised that I was being taught about how to become the next Frank Gehry, a star architect. It was all about image, form and aesthetic, not at all about the social issues that I wanted to address. I dropped out of school and moved to New York.
Why New York? Actually why the United States as the base for AFH?
Well, I had a green card and I wanted to take advantage of that. But, more importantly, I could never have started Architecture for Humanity anywhere else. For all its misgivings, the United States is still the place where anybody can make anything happen; it’s still the land of opportunity in some weird sort of way. Had I stayed in England, it would have taken me 10 years to get anywhere, whereas in America, I said I wanted to set up this organisation. Nobody rejected the idea, indeed, everybody seemed to support it.
You were involved in the disaster recovery team for Lehmann Brothers after the terrorist attacks in 2001 destroyed their offices in the World Trade Centre; was that the closest you got to hands on involvement?
I started Architecture for Humanity in 1999, working as an architect during the day and doing humanitarian work at night. The positive response soon turned it into a full time commitment…
You frown when you are referred to as ‘The Bob Geldof of Architecture’; Fortune magazine nominated you one of the Aspen Seven, making you one of the most influential people causing change for the benefit of life on our planet; you have sensitised the general public and you have a growing audience; you have worked out an excellent relationship with the media.
I find the comparison to Geldof to be insulting. This is not a charitable effort, a kind of rich kid playground. The problem that we have in the field I am working in is that we face a kind of victimisation of the ‘clients’ we work with. The press wants a soft approach, more ‘do good’ stories rather than to pursue a search for real, long-term, design solutions.
In most of the projects we work on, we’re not only dealing with design, we deal with serious financial constraints, the workability factor or the availability of materials. This is no traditional architecture project; we often have no budget to work with. We have to be resourceful. The international media sometimes covers our work in a way that tries to balance the bad news in the press with some form of good news about our good intentions.
There needs to be a serious shift in addressing these social issues. Our role is not simply to show how design can make a real difference to people’s lives, but also to explain what architecture really is.
You refer to a seismic shift in attitudes…
Yes, among young architects but also among much older ones. Our research shows that this is particularly so for the 25 to 35 age group, but it also shows that there is a strong movement among the over 55s, a generation of architects that has come back, that tells us, I’ve got experience and maybe I can help you.
Only last week, world climate experts have issued their bleakest forecasts yet on the effects of climate change, predicting that it will inflict damage on every continent but hit the world’s poor disproportionately hard.
I think I can speak on behalf of young architects, and our response to all these reports is, well, we’re kind of sick of it. Tell us what we don’t know. I think we don’t need more reports or programmes telling us what will go wrong. What we do need are people to show us what we can do right. And I think this generation of designers is bringing about change.
The general level of frustration, that there is no solution, has certainly caused a lot of young designers to decide to join organisations like ours.
In the US we are now collaborating closely with the schools of architecture and give advice to change the course curriculum, so as to infuse discussion on social issues, because this is where young architects can be exposed to these ideals. We’ve been very successful with this programme.
How political is your work?
The role of an architect is political. The architect is often an intermediary between decision takers, administrators and, for example, the agencies that have all the money, while the community, which has the capacity to respond efficiently, has no financing. We hope to demonstrate to other similar organisations that the way we work, that is closely with the community, is the most economically resourceful method. We deal with human rights issues and this is often very difficult, in Sri Lanka, in Sudan, in Zimbabwe.
What about funding?
AFH doesn’t have any so-called high-level funding; the type that gets collected after some major disaster. Most of our funding – as much as 90% of it, comes directly from private individuals. We soon realised that you could spend literally months with many hours trying to negotiate getting part of that funding. People there get paid salaries, from the same funds, and this is not very cost effective. Because our money comes from a large number of people, and often quickly through the internet, we could respond very quickly, rather than wait for months for a grant to be processed and then suffer some change of government and you soon see that funding being taken away from you.
This year’s World Architecture Day will have the theme, Transmitting Zero Emission Architecture. The International Union of Architects [UIA] is one of your favourite organisations…
A lot of these design associations are limited by their history. They’re a bit like an oil tanker, it takes a long time to get them to move or change direction. Smaller organisations like ours, like Architecture Sans Frontieres, we can move very fast and occasionally we can push that same oil tanker. A lot of young organisations use the internet and exploit communications to work very rapidly. We were on the ground in the tsunami zone within two days of the disaster, making real projects. We could not have done that if we were the UIA.
Your key words, those of AFH, are Innovation, Sustainability, Collaboration.
Yes. What I’ve found is that, working closely with a local community, you need to establish an economic form of sustainability. When something is beautiful, people take care of it. When designers begin to think, well, these people are poor…we end up with third rate deign for essentially third class citizens. We give a lot of attention to appropriate communities with something beautiful.
If there is a strong sense of ownership of that structure then that community will keep it and maintain it. There is a pleasure in doing things which do not cost much money. Architecture and design can be beautiful for those who can afford it, but when you can do it for those who cannot afford it, and then you are talking to the rest of the population.
Your book – Design Like You Give A Damn; Architectural Responses to Humanitarian Crises – was published last year and has been a huge success. One of the reviews I read said that you are mapping a new path for architects, turning them from Master builders to Sociological warriors...
This is already happening, it just needs more exposure. We have had great response to this book – the third edition is sold out. Our publishers are freaking out. When they came to us for this book, they wanted us to write about AFH. We tried to explain that we were not the only ones out there, trying to put design in its rightful place. There are lots of people doing great projects, you just don’t hear about them. So we changed our contract and did a case study of 80 of the best projects around. But when we started working we ended up having to choose from 250 incredible projects. The publishers themselves asked how come people don’t know about this.
Your next project is…
I’m really excited about the health care project we’re doing in Africa – building mobile HIV/AIDS clinics in underserved regions; we’re beginning to realise a number of the clinics.
We’re launching a prize in architecture… For me it's incredible that a global company like AMD is putting up a quarter of a million dollars for a prize in architecture. It takes off in the summer and will consist of a competition for the design of a technology centre. We’re figuring out the exact clients at the moment and the criteria.
Unlike most competitions, this one will get built because we have made sure that there is the money for it. AMD are committed to this. Not only does this signal a change in corporate involvement in architecture, but also in the way that competitions are done.
