Building design is incredibly complex and multi-layered. Cities and clients need so many different things. In the context of a housing crisis, the choice often gets framed as either social housing or cultural buildings, either basic provision or emotional experience. There’s even been a long-running argument about why we build ‘special’ buildings at all. Some people say we should spend that money on hospital beds instead.

But it’s never simply a choice between one thing or another. For me, the whole point is that we have to be able to hold both ideas at once. Of course we need good-quality housing that’s dry, warm and long-lasting. But we also need that same housing to create a good environment – not only for those who live inside it, but also for the people who live next to it, who pass by it, who grow up in its shadow.

A healthy society needs both functional infrastructure and places that nurture our spirit. We need buildings that meet basic needs, and we need them to support the emotional and cultural life of the people they serve. Especially now, in an age of artificial intelligence, when we’re asking ourselves what truly differentiates humans from the digital realm, it’s clear that we are, above all, cultural beings. We need our environment to nurture our humanity as well as our survival.

"The ‘efficiency-only’ mindset is a seductive story – and we’ve tried to defend ourselves by saying we’re being honest, clean and minimal. But it’s produced some terrible environments and deep inequalities."

So we can’t afford this conversation to be reduced to a cynical either/or. Focusing on one side while ignoring the other leads to the dirty secret of our industry: demolition. Because there’s so little emotional or cultural value in many buildings, they’re simply knocked down and replaced, again and again and again.

From an environmental perspective, the impact of that cycle – build, demolish, build, demolish – is enormous. It’s far worse than most people realise. Some estimates suggest the carbon impact is several times greater than that of the entire aviation industry, yet it’s rarely discussed in public. And because the public doesn’t see it, our industry just carries on.

We cannot keep building apartment blocks that last only 28 years (the average lifespan in South Korea) or 40 years (the UK average) and then disappear. That’s outrageous. We should be designing housing that can be adapted, modified, extended – not thrown away because nobody cares about it. The ‘efficiency-only’ mindset is a seductive story – and we’ve tried to defend ourselves by saying we’re being honest, clean and minimal.

But it’s produced some terrible environments and deep inequalities.

"...we cannot allow ordinary communities to be starved of the basic humanity that should be present in the buildings and streets that surround them."

Right now, it’s often only the wealthiest who live in places that support public health – environments that aren’t depressing, that don’t slowly grind you down. And yet we cannot allow ordinary communities to be starved of the basic humanity that should be present in the buildings and streets that surround them.

So my answer is: we absolutely need both. Structural solutions and emotional experience are not in competition. If we care about people’s lives, they’re inseparable.

(This post is part of an interview with YuMi Hyun of C3 magazine. You can find the whole discussion in edition 441.)

Image by Nick Harrison