ABSTRACT
To do that the first priority here is the definition of terms. One of the reasons for the surprise attending this combination of words lies in the definition of architecture itself.
The question, “What does architecture have to do with human rights?” is based on a relatively narrow defi nition of both architecture and human rights. The question implies that architecture is seen as a technical enterprise. Architects are hired by clients to marshal fi nancial and material resources around the requirements of the client’s particular needs for some kind of building. Part of that process involves dealing with laws and regulations governing land use (usually zoning bylaws) and buildings (building codes), the laws of gravity, and the nature of materials. These are all organized in a pleasing manner in keeping with the Vitruvian defi nition of architecture as “ fi rmitas, utilitas, venustas” – “fi rmness, commodity, and delight” (Vitruvius, a Roman architect at the time of Augustus, wrote the Ten Books of Architecture. “Firmness, Commodity, and Delight” (Book I, Ch. 3) were from Henry Wotton’s translation in his 1624 treatise, The Elements of Architecture . The Ten Books are available online at https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/ Roman/Texts/Vitruvius/1 ∗ .html). Architecture, then, is seen as a product exhibiting these features. There is nothing in any of these three qualities of architecture that suggests anything about human rights. The durability of a building is a function of the materials and how they are brought together – a technical issue. The utility of a building is a function of the requirements of the client and, most of the time, the users. This can be relegated to a physical issue about effi ciencies and ergonomics. Delight or beauty is a very subjective issue and related to the cultural context in which the building is built. The beauty of some buildings endures while that of others is, at best, fl eeting. The Portland Building by Michael Graves is an example. At the time of the award of the design commission in 1982, Graves was lauded for bringing postmodernism into
the mainstream of architecture. In October 2009, a mere twenty-seven years later, the building was featured in an article in Travel & Leisure as one of “The World’s Ugliest Buildings” ( https:// www.travelandleisure.com/articles/the-worlds-ugliest-buildings/1 ). None of these three qualities appear to have much to do with human rights.
