Citizen Buildings

I have previously mentioned several times the concept of a background building. This is a concept that was first introduced to me in my architecture program at Andrews University and is an idea that is crucial to understanding how a building should relate to the public realm. I thought it would be appropriate to explore the idea further as I believe it is fundamental to crafting great places and it explains the successes and failures that we see today.

The Background

The fundamental concept of background buildings is the idea that the majority of the structures that make up a place exist to fulfill a functional need and provide definition to the public realm. These buildings are usually private and they accommodate the regular functions of day to day life. The activities in these buildings aren’t particularly noble or remarkable - these are buildings for everyday life. These are “background buildings” as they form the background of our lives. In contrast to background buildings, a very small minority of our structures are deemed to have some cultural significance. These buildings, such as civic buildings, churches, memorials, and other prominent buildings, convey a sense of pride and importance and are therefore “foreground buildings”.

Most buildings should be background buildings. A select few should be foreground buildings. The responsibilities and characteristics of background and foreground buildings are quite different. Background buildings should fade to back while foreground buildings should be prominently featured. Background buildings should acknowledge context and try to enhance the fabric rather than draw attention to themselves. Foreground buildings should stand out to acknowledge the increased significance of their use. Background buildings should define the public realm (street or plaza edge) in a respectful and appropriate manner. Foreground buildings can take some liberties in how they interact with the public realm.

As I suggested in my previous post, Monument Valley, it is difficult for the architectural elite (or most architects for that matter) to grasp that their creation is part of a greater whole rather than a piece of unique art. Why is this difficult? I think there are many reasons. Ego is definitely involved. I think training is another reason. Very few architectural schools focus on making ordinary buildings great in a respectful and appropriate way. Another reason could be the way the concept is framed. Most people don’t want to see their hard work fade into the background although, in truth, their creating great background buildings is a noble endeavor that takes a lot of skill. I think the concept is sound - we just need to find a better way to express it. To that end, I propose we apply the notion of citizenship to buildings.

Citizen Buildings

We must think of the urban fabric as a unified whole - like a tapestry of individual threads. While there are varying degrees of consistency within the individual threads of beautiful tapestries, there has to be something that ties it together. Every thread plays a role to enhance the overall effect and most threads play a rather modest role.

This is very much like civilization itself. We all have roles to play in society. Most of us have relatively modest roles but we all do our best to leave a positive mark on the world. It is no dishonor to be described as an honest and decent citizen.

This is the role most buildings play in our lives. The functions accommodated by most buildings are the relatively modest activities of daily life. Just like a human society, an urban environment is made up of mostly citizens with a few prominent leaders.

Yet it seems like few architects are willing to let their buildings play the citizen role. When everyone is yelling “look at me” all you get is a cacophony of chaos. When buildings do this you get a disjointed and unpleasant public realm that fails to create a vibrant and active community. However, when we think about the urban fabric as a unified whole, individual buildings take on a different meaning - a different purpose. Rather than being objects in space, buildings become objects creating Place. The focus is not on being unique and different but on fulfilling the citizen role of contributing to the greater good.

This is not to say that the quality of citizen buildings does not matter. Quite the contrary, the quality of the citizen buildings is extremely important in crafting the great human environments that we love and thrive in. However, the focus is not on the uniqueness and “high design” of building but on appropriate contextual response to the cultural, environmental, and social heritage of the place. This is very much about the quality of the details.

This is why cities such as Paris can be great even though their urban fabric is composed of a very narrow range of variation. In fact in the Haussmann era, the facades of regular buildings were very prescriptively designed. Rather than making the city monotonous, these quintessential Parisian buildings define the quality of the city. Paris succeeds in this, in part, because the citizen buildings are typically of such exceptional quality. However, when you think about it, most of the great cities of the world are made up of an urban fabric of compatible and similar citizen buildings.

From Background to Citizen

The concept of background buildings is so important in making great Places yet it is a relatively unknown concept. Unfortunately the terminology might seem off putting to newcomers to this idea. It takes great humility to craft a magnificent background building. It feels less deferential to make a great citizen building. For this reason and for the great subtle nuance in the analogy I believe that considering buildings as citizens makes a lot of sense.