by Mark Seibold AIA
Young Architects Committee

Summary: A little more than a year ago, I accepted a position as the city planner in Choctaw, Okla., and have had the opportunity to step back from traditional practice and observe the relationship between the practice of architecture and the world at large. My daily activities of a city planner are a lively mix of politics, engineering, law, and architecture, but the real education has come from observing:

1. How standards to regulate development are adopted
2. Standards’ effect on the way we balance two ideals: providing for our clients’ needs and protecting the public good.

As a profession, we are charged to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the public, but who decides how we draw the line between promoting our clients’ interests and protecting the public good? This is not a compromise where we sacrifice the former for the latter, but a position in which we have the opportunity to enhance both the building and its context by effectively leading our communities to more thoughtful design. Municipal development standards were originally written to protect the public from hazardous uses. Many of the regulations no longer apply or have never been revised to reflect the changing ideals of the community. The inherent complexity in zoning ordinance language and the way in which it is adopted are daunting when we first approach the effort, but this is the genesis of architecture in every community.

Who decides how we draw the line between promoting our clients’ interests and protecting the public good?

While in daily practice, I made decisions based on municipal codes and ordinances. These regulations had an effect on the final product, and they were implemented without questioning the basis on which the code decisions were made. Site entrances were at a particular place, signage was of a certain height, and parking was to be a specific size and shape—all elements of design we take for granted. Most architects consider the arrangement of these elements in the landscape as the essential practice of “design.”

A way for architects to get involved
These ordinances are not set in stone, though. We need more architects involved in the revision of the ordinances that dictate how our communities are designed. More should be done to change the outdated regulations that prevent us from designing the types of buildings, and ultimately communities, we need and want. We need ordinances that balance the rights of individuals with protection of the public good in the broader sense—not only hazardous uses but also access to public transportation, not just consistent zoning but energy- and resource-efficient design.

I believe that single
building worship in the practice of architecture
has gone too far

I believe that single building worship in the practice of architecture has gone too far. A single building may be extraordinary, but when that product is reproduced across the country without regard for site or context, it creates a place where no one is proud of the outcome, and no one single person other than the architect is directly responsible. This redundancy is further amplified by the explosion of prototypical chain store designs that look the same on any street in America. This practice, a result of loosely written municipal regulations, denies us of the potential for meaningful regionalism. Unless we work together with our neighbors to adapt design to the community, we have lost the quality of place.

Broadening of context needed
All is not lost, however. Architects understand the value of a well designed environment more than any other profession. What is needed is not a new skill set but a broadening of the context in which our skills are applied. We as architects must organize locally to fuse disparate ideas about our level of engagement with the built environment and translate these ideas and values into ordinances that enhance both buildings and their context.

What would it take for us
to develop a dialogue with our clients about the effect an individual action will
have on the whole of the community?

Architects have not only the skill set but also the influence necessary to thoughtfully connect a building and its context. What would it take for us to develop a dialogue with our clients about the effect an individual action will have on the whole of the community? About the implications municipal ordinances have on the building in question? We operate under the illusion that the singular act of creating is in direct opposition to design by consensus, but we are responsible for defining our own scope of services. If we have the ability to do both—and do both well—what is stopping us?

There is not enough dialogue among architects about what good design represents; in the same way, there is not enough dialogue between architects and the public. The architect will remain a consultant to the design process unless we are consistently engaged in the development of the municipal regulations that affect our work. The greater value in this instance is not to play by the rules, but to change the rules to more accurately reflect the needs, desires, and values of our clients and our communities.