ARCHITECTURAL ETHICS

It is estimated that 90 percent of contemporary human existence takes place within built environments. It is also well known that the onset of illness and death is more rapid and often more prevalent as a result of inadequate shelter than of inadequate food supply. As economies shift to urban centers throughout the world with little or no civic infrastructure to receive their bulging populations, homelessness has become a global pandemic—and yet buildings alone are now considered responsible for at least 50 percent of all environmental waste. It is therefore surprising that a comprehensive ethical discourse, compared to other disciplines or professions, is relatively nonexistent within contemporary architectural, graphic, interior, industrial, landscape, urban, and regional design practices. This, according to scholars, was not always the case. In most premodern societies, and in many traditional or non-Western societies in the early twenty-first century, making and ethics were, and are, intertwined if not inseparable. Whenever eighteenth-century Enlightenment principles were uncritically adopted or imposed by force around the world, architects and designers—often in tandem with their clients and communities of users—rapidly abandoned their traditional discourse and practice of ethics, bowing to the demands of utilitarian market forces.

The Central Issues

The recovery of an architecture and design ethics within this postindustrial context begins with four key questions: What is (and is not) architecture and environmental design? Who is ethically responsible for the built environment? What are they ethically responsible for? And, how is ethics manifest through architecture and environmental design?

WHAT IS (AND IS NOT) ARCHITECTURE AND ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN? This question attempts to define the boundaries and scope of the terms within which an ethics can be discussed. The way in which these terms are defined, however, is an ethical task of the first order. Without clarity in language, slippages in moral reasoning follow. While some scholars believe the terminological division between built and natural environments is largely self-evident, upon closer examination the boundary becomes less clear. If the built environment includes all that is made by humans, what of those places or objects found by humans and inhabited or used in an unaltered state, such as a cave for dwelling or a stick for digging? Is the cave or stick no longer "natural" once a human perceives it as useful? Furthermore, what "natural" environment or object has not already been altered by pollution, acid rain, global warming, or, say, overharvesting in neighboring environments—all effects caused by humans—long before any human "discovers" it? Alternatively, many nonhuman sentient beings—from bacteria through to mammals—may be said to design and/or build their habitats with a care and complexity that often rivals human ability. Could these not be considered built environments? If one considers the effects of human-initiated training, husbandry, breeding, or genetic engineering to generate places or products more useful to humans, would these effects be considered "natural"? Conversely, if a human-built artifact is abandoned and thus deteriorates until it is entirely reinhabited, reshaped, and subsumed by flora and fauna, is this still considered a designed environment?

One response to such questions is to shift the focus from built products to human intentionality. The degree to which human interest and imagination has shaped a given place or thing over time is the degree to which it could be considered "designed." The inherent problem with this, however, is the equality with which imaginary works—from the very influential futuristic cities of "paper architects" to the use of architectural metaphor in poetic verse—may be considered an essential part of the human-built environment and thus answerable to an ethics. If one adds in the inevitable misunderstandings between languages and cultures in an ethical discourse that hopes to be anything but local, then careful attention to terminology must be an essential responsibility of all participants.

WHO IS ETHICALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT? It is estimated that more than 95 percent of the built environment is vernacular, that is, "not designed by professionals" but designed "by the people for the people." The shapes of these places and objects are determined as much by needs, available materials, and traditional building techniques as by regional or local production codes. Ethical responsibility may be considered shared among the owner who determines the need; the builders and craftspeople involved in the project; the communal representatives who determine site selection, safety considerations, zoning, water supply, and local material production; and the users of the building or object, for their involvement in future renovations and maintenance. In many traditional societies this responsibility extends to the ancestors, gods, or spirits who may be seen as the main inspiration for, producers of, or maintainers of the artifact, as long as the community performs the proper rituals. In some societies, responsibility may be laid upon the building or object itself for its good or bad actions. In these cases a tool, building, or city wall may be ritually fed or killed depending on its perceived benefit to the community.

In modern economies, where an architect or designer is involved in a project, this professional would often collaborate with or oversee an enormous diversity of professionals such as engineers, lawyers, design professionals, consultants, researchers, sociologists, archaeologists, technicians, contractors, realtors, manufacturers, restorers, and artists, as well as clients, user groups, neighbors, and/or political representatives. Designers themselves are typically answerable to their peers and society for obtaining their educational requirements and upholding ethical guidelines, technical codes, and bylaws. The problem with accepting, let alone determining, precise ethical responsibility for a particular decision is thus often complex. The matter is further complicated by an often nonexistent or faulty ethical education among most of the participants in a given project, the absence or ineffective presence of professional disciplinary bodies, and the enormous costs of initiating fair legal proceedings or protecting whistleblowers. As a result of this unique and extraordinarily complex network of relationships compared to most professions, ethical responsibility or blame in the design world is often more difficult to designate.

WHAT ARE THEY ETHICALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR? Designers, unlike scientists or technicians, are essentially midwives for a "total artifact" in search of its status—at its highest vocation—as a living being. As such, the designer is responsible for the same development a parent would most want for a child: a life of health, truth, beauty, and meaning. In terms of health, the designer seeks to ensure that the artifact poses no safety risks such as dangerous misuse, collapse, toxicity, or disorientation. It also needs to be secure from intentional criminal activity such as vandalism, theft of its contents, or easy transformation into a weapon. Typically it must perform the tasks it was designed for with relative efficiency, longevity, flexibility, and low maintenance. But in the wake of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the 1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development (along with Agenda 21, also from 1992), and the 2000 Earth Charter, professional design bodies have been asked to go well beyond this prescriptive minimum. As a result, the International Union of Architects and the American Institute of Architects now encourage all their members to observe "the rights and well being of the Earth and its peoples, the integrity and diversity of the cultural heritage, monuments and sites, and the biodiversity, integrity and sustainability of the global ecosystem" (World Congress, Principle 9). In practice this involves a holistic approach to the life of any conceived artifact in the ecosystem—from lowering energy use and toxic emissions to using reusable/recyclable materials. These declarations demand the integration of rigorous research science, citizen participation, and interdisciplinary cooperation into the building process, with legislative and legal protection accompanying these efforts. They also state that women, youth, indigenous peoples, and other voiceless groups must be heard and addressed throughout the entire planning and implementation process.

Although health aspects are desirable, many designers claim that their primary drive is to make a beautiful object. Here the use of narrative or poetic reference to history aims to create emotional resonance among the artifact, its context, and human experience. For many of these designers and the communities for which they design, to create a kitsch object or ugly city is a profound breach of ethical practice. In a similar way, quite a few designers see their creations as vehicles for communicating if not bringing about the context for an experience of truth. Here the idea of health at the expense of meaning, the idea of safety or security at the expense of liberty or free expression, or the idea of biodiversity at the expense of fostering traditional craft techniques is critically addressed. As such, the artifact demonstrates its vocation as a rational being seeking understanding, balance, equality, and logical harmony. Within the upper echelons of the design world, it is often on this basis that architectural or design critics evaluate certain works as primarily ethical or unethical. Finally, some objects or sites have a uniquely spiritual, mystical, or imaginative characteristic that the architect or designer seeks to respect if not prioritize over other considerations. In this case the architect becomes less a fabricator or technician than someone in relationship with a special object or site to whom the object or site reveals its living self and true spirit. Ethical interventions, therefore, must be consonant with the needs and character of the spirit, god, or mystical religious tradition present in that place.

These are but some of the possible ethical priorities with which designers approach their commissions. As these priorities come into conflict, so begins the need for ethical discernment.

HOW IS ETHICS MANIFEST THROUGH ARCHITECTURE AND ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN? There are many ways to understand architectural ethics and how it should be brought about. Within this diverse space, philosophers have identified three of the most common approaches operating in post-Enlightenment societies and influencing their built environments: (1) outcome ethics (otherwise known as consequentialism or utilitarianism), (2) principle ethics (otherwise known as deontology or Kantianism), and (3) character ethics (otherwise known as virtue ethics or Aristolelianism).

Outcome ethics aims to create a state of affairs utilizing any actions necessary to bring about maximum happiness, or the "good." Outcome-directed designers may focus their efforts entirely on bringing about the "good" product by the most efficient means necessary: The best modern tools for research, development, implementation, and maintenance of a product are employed to engineer the longest lasting ease, comfort, and social health. The belief here is that general happiness in society, or the "good," is proportional to the abundance of "good" products circulating in that society. This approach is clearly the most dominant within market-driven economies of the early twenty-first century.

Indeed, one cannot ignore the plethora of excellent tools, appliances, buildings, cities, and ecosystems that have truly made the world an easier if not happier place in which to live. Criticism of this approach, however, is twofold. First, because the means is subordinated to the end, an enormous amount of damage to the environment and/or human rights might be perpetrated in order to bring about the "good" product. Second, despite using the best research methods or real-world modeling available at the outset of a project, the guarantee of producing a lasting good, or any good at all, through this particular product always remains a conjecture.

A principle ethics approach to design focuses less on the "good" product, and more on "right" actions. The process must have logical, rational consistency with universal moral precepts or imperatives, unswayed by inordinate desires or "false promises" of happy outcomes. Principle-based designers are conspicuous for their production and upholding of the laws, codes, and guidelines within which architects and designers have traditionally operated. Their hope is that by training the will to follow reason based on moral duty, a calm, rational civility will then pervade society, regardless of its products, because acting right itself is the ultimate good. Criticism of this approach centers on its tendency toward rigidity in the face of changing ethical situations, as well as a devaluing of human experience, memories, and imagination.

Finally, character ethics steps outside the means/ends debate to focus on developing the best habits or character for the architect or designer. Proponents of this approach hope that through a humanities-based education with history and the arts at its core, designers will be better able to respond with compassion, virtue, and reason to the often unprecedented moral dilemmas the future world will surely present. Detractors question what would compel a designer who follows character ethics to consider the real facts of an ethical dilemma, rational operating procedures to solve it, or solutions to bring about the good if their analysis is primarily historical/poetic, their solutions experimental/creative, and their outcomes primarily evaluated on the presence of beauty or deep interpersonal harmony.

As with the need for clear terminology, determining responsibility, and clarifying design priorities, so is it critical that an ethical methodology is carefully negotiated among all involved in a conflict of values.

The Relation and Impact of Science and Technology on Ethics in the Built Environment

Because architecture and design have both technological and poetic components, any development in science or technology could become a physical element or methodology adopted by a built or fabricated work, as well as a potential subject about which the work might "speak." Thus, no ethical issue arising within science and technology can be completely outside the making and discourse of architecture and environmental design. For instance, a skyscraper adopting the braided form of a DNA molecule as it reaches the sky might be seen to take an outcome ethics stance on the wonderful benefits of genetic science. An urban garden in the adjoining lot designed using principle ethics, meanwhile, might be filled only with non–genetically modified plants. Advances in computing, engineering, environmental, and material research along with the ethical issues they raise concerning security, health, safety, and just distribution of resources would be likely to have an obvious and immediate impact on the physical shape, use, and placement in society of newly designed goods. Of course this does not mean that pure sciences could not have a similar impact on design; such an impact would depend on the ethical dimensions of a problem that are given new shape by a finding in one of its fields.

A holistic critique raised by many post-Enlightenment philosophers, including Friedrich Nietzsche (1844–1900), Edmund Husserl (1859–1938), Martin Heidegger (1889–1976), Michel Foucault (1926–1984), and Jacques Derrida (b. 1930), is the alienation or "loss of meaning" in society brought about by each new technology introduced into the built environment. According to this argument, modern technology and science begin with a daringly original transformation: the reduction of the mysterious complexity of the given world to distinct quantifiables, categories, or simple binary digits. Human community and activity are likewise reduced by technology to distinct quantifiable tasks and ever-smaller specializations. Once reduced, these units can be traded, discarded, calculated, or multiplied with ever-greater speed, acceleration, and automation. The degree to which this self-generation mimics natural growth is the degree to which an uncritical enthusiasm for its technology is assured. Once the domain of the ancient magician, technology self-generates its own awe, propaganda, and docile adherents awaiting the promise of a better and better world. Whereas humans were once communally and ecologically integrated, modern technology demands isolated consumers, globalized uniformity, communication as monologue, and being without death. Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of unchecked technology is its inherent irreversibility; once the automobile, the nuclear bomb, clear-cut forestry, or human cloning become possible, they then become necessary.

Technology, according to these thinkers, is the primary cause of the dominant characteristics of the modern city: ugliness, alienation, toxicity, danger, waste, and constant expansion. While in the current geopolitical environment, this harmful growth is unlikely to stop anytime soon, warnings based on the results of research science of an imminent worldwide ecological crisis through ozone depletion and global climate change are beginning to be heard. As well, a number of contemporary academics and policymakers are advocating a less polarized position. They contend that technology, although inherently unsafe, dehumanizing, and accelerating, is still controllable and able to be harmonized with the biosphere through the promotion of slower, appropriate, or "medium" technologies (the latter in contrast to high technologies), as well as lifestyle change, political action, poverty eradication, demilitarization, and worldwide consensus on tough global policies representing a diversity of voices.

History of Ethics in the Built Environment

Myth and origin cycles, guidelines, or commentaries on what constitutes right action concerning building, boundary determination, and ritual object or place making can be found throughout the earliest known examples of writing in almost every culture. According to archaeologists, writing developed independently in Egypt, Mesopotamia, and Harappa between 3500 and 3100 b.c.e. But the human ancestor Homo erectus had campsites, fire, and tools, conducted burials, and began erecting megaliths and dolmens (a type of monument) as early as 3,000,000 b.c.e.; the earliest known shelters date from 2,000,000 b.c.e.; and the first cities came into existence around 7500 b.c.e. in the Indus Valley (present-day Pakistan). While the configuration, orientation, material selection, and care or destruction of early objects, buildings, and settlements might in themselves communicate proper ethical action to its community, only in the relatively late appearance of writing can one find specific ethical statements relating to building, orientation, calendars, ritual, and myth that could be used to guide appropriate procedures of making in harmony with that of the gods. For instance, a Sumerian inscription from Lagash, circa 2500 b.c.e., lists the actions of a corrupt ruler, Urlumma, that should not be imitated because he "drained the boundary canal of Ningirsu, the boundary canal of Nina; those steles he threw into the fire, he broke [them] in pieces; he destroyed the sanctuaries, the dwellings of the gods, the protecting shrines, the buildings that had been made. He was as puffed up as the mountains" (Barton 1929, p. 63) The Egyptian Proverbs of Ptahhotep of circa 2400 b.c.e. suggest the best mind-set for establishing a dwelling: "When a man has established his just equilibrium and walks in this path, there where he makes his dwelling, there is no room for bad humor" (Horne 1917, p. 62). And the Indian Rig Veda of circa 1500 b.c.e. records how making and orientation itself must be attributed, and thus be in alignment with the goddess Aditi because "The earth was born from her who crouched with legs spread, and from the earth the quarters of the sky were born" (10.72.3-4).

Eventually entire texts emerged whose subject matter was building practice alone—none of which, until the nineteenth century c.e., separated ethics or poetics from making and technique. The Indian Manasara of circa 800 c.e., for instance, integrates ritual activity at every step of its guidelines for building in order to ensure the most auspicious blessings upon the construction. Not only are lotus, water lily, and corn offerings essential for constructing foundations, so must the architect be bathed, clothed, and purified in order to perform the rituals and meditate on the creator-god such that the building will stay strong. Deviation from these prescriptions constitutes the most serious ethical breach (Manasara 1994, 109–129). In the classical West, De architectura (translated as The Ten Books on Architecture), written by Vitruvius circa 25 b.c.e., details how architectural making seeks to preserve the traditional symbolic order handed down through the Greeks in order to set the conditions for virtuous, civic, and ethical behavior of inhabitants and visitors (Vitruvius 1999). Much the same can be said for the writings of Abbot Suger (1081–1151), Guillaume Durandus (c. 1230–1296), Leon Battista Alberti (1404–1472), Giacomo da Vignola (1507–1573), and Andrea Palladio (1508–1580)—all of whom, in their given context, sought to preserve the civic, religious, and ethical order of the dominant classes they served through architectural making (Suger 1979, Durandus 1843, Alberti 1988, and Palladio 1997).

There is, however, an equally long and eloquent tradition of anti-architectural writing in which the techniques and products of craftsmen are said to deeply offend the gods, disgrace the ancestors, and corrupt the people. This, for instance, is one of the most important themes from the Hebrew Bible through to the Christian New Testament. In Genesis, Cain, the city builder, slays out of jealousy his brother Abel, the wandering pastoralist, because God told Cain he prefers the nomadic life over a settled existence for his chosen people (Gen. 4:1–16). Moses was prohibited by god the use of tools in building altar stones because instrumental manipulation of holy objects profanes them (Ex. 20:25). According to the prophet Isaiah, even though cities were constructed out of human goodwill, all are cursed by God. The city is the agent of war, financial greed, sexual abandon, idols, and injustice, where humans become merchandise. Once built, Isaiah says, they can never be reformed but can only self-destruct, Like Sodom, Gomorrah, Nineveh, and Jericho, as well as Jerusalem and its temple mount (Is. 13:19, 22:1–4, 66:1). Isaiah's call for a return to desert simplicity that would permit an undistracted contemplation on the mysteries if not the architecture of heaven, is cited by Saint Stephen before his death in the New Testament's Acts of the Apostles (7:44–50), and was carried out by tens of thousands of Christian desert monks and wilderness hermits from Egypt to Italy since the second century c.e. In this tradition, one of the most notable critiques of dominant building and craft practices comes from the thirteenth-century poet, saint, and builder Francis of Assisi. In the rules he wrote for his order and in his final testaments, Francis insists that his followers refuse the ownership, size, and expense of the neighboring cathedrals and more powerful monasteries, preferring that they live instead "as pilgrims and strangers" renovating small, abandoned, and dilapidated churches and dwelling in mud and stick huts surrounded by walls made of hedges (Francis 1999, p. 126).

Architectural writings produced by the dominant world powers after this time eventually reduced and eliminated ethical precepts or discourse in favor of describing practical techniques to bring about the most efficient, cost-effective, and comfortable cities. Claude Perrault (1613–1688) was one of the first to promote architecture as a vehicle for the principles of modern science, declaring that "man has no proportion or relation with the heavenly bodies" (1692–96: Vol. 4, pp. 46–59), thus severing the traditional natural and religious orders from architectural making. By the late eighteenth century, architecture students at the École Polytechique studied Gaspard Monge's (1746–1818) Géométrie descriptive (1795; Descriptive geometry), which applied to the totality of human action a synthetic system of mathematics, measurement, and geometry, stripped of all previous symbolic content. One of the most influential nineteenth-century textbooks on architecture, the Précis des Leçons d'Architecture (1819; Précis of the lectures on architecture), was composed by Monge's follower, Jean-Nicolas-Louis Durand (1760–1834). Durand's philosophical foundation was triumphantly materialistic. Humans, he declared, exist for two reasons only: to increase their well-being and to avert pain. Such a harsh positivist viewpoint accrued wide acceptance. The only sustained critique of this reduction of architecture to engineering came from Charles-François Viel (1745–1819). Reminding his readers that the two foundational principles of architecture, according to the ancients, were proportion and eurythmy (or "rhythmic pattern"), Viel strove to bring nature, human experience, and the traditional symbolic order back into harmony with making. To Viel, applied geometry masquerading as architecture without care for character, beauty, or metaphysics was harmful and decadent if not evil.

Viel's critique, the first of its kind in architecture, did little to stem the tide of new civic works such as bridges, railway stations, factories, and city plans that were now problems best resolved by engineers. Ornament, once the existential infrastructure of making, was now reduced to mere decoration (Viel 1812, pp. 51–52). As a result, an ethical debate raged in Germany and England concerning which "style" would be most appropriate to decorate certain building types. The point quickly became moot once twentieth-century modernists such as Walter Gropius (1883–1969), Ludwig Mies van der Rohe (1886–1969), and the early Le Corbusier (1887–1965) entirely abandoned ornament for the power, height, and awe available through the bold "expression" of modern materiality: iron, steel, glass, and ferroconcrete. This ideology, now intricately tied to corporate-driven market economies, continued to dominate architecture and design throughout the world into the early twenty-first century.

Following in the footsteps of other professional fields, architecture and design are beginning to develop their own "ethical culture" appropriate to their unique problems and challenges. Only now are the champions of environmental sustainability in the construction and manufacturing sectors beginning to see the deeper implications necessary to have it take hold: slower, reusable, "medium" technologies; community-based participation; global–local integration; historical/poetic awareness; and the fostering of a diverse, intergenerational culture of care. Many of these same conclusions have already been reached by social and environmental scientists who were among the first to critique, along with Werner Heisenberg (1901–1976) and Thomas S. Kuhn (1922–1996), their own historical roots and research agendas. Scientists and designers each have a lot to gain from widening their present specializations, exchanging research independent of corporate sponsorship or private gain, and coming to the table as global citizens with the responsibility to speak for the voiceless: the dead, the yet to be born, the poor, the marginalized, and nature itself.

GREGORY CAICCO

SEE ALSO Building Codes;Building Destruction and Collapse;Design Ethics;Engineering Design Ethics;Engineering Ethics.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Alberti, Leon Battista. (1988 [1450]). On the Art of Building in Ten Books, trans. Joseph Rykwert, Neil Leach, and Robert Tavernor. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Barton, George A. (1929). "Inscription of Entemena #7." In his The Royal Inscriptions of Sumer and Akkad. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Casey, Edward S. (1997). The Fate of Place: A Philosophical History. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.

Durand, Jean-Nicolas-Louis. (1809). Précis des leçons d'architecture données à l'École polytechnique. 2 vols. Paris: Author.

Durandus, Gulielmus. (1973 [1843]). "Rationale Divinorum Officiorum." In The Symbolism of Churches and Church Ornaments, trans. John Mason Neale and Benjamin Webb. Leeds, UK: T.W. Green. Original work published c. 1286.

Fox, Warwick, ed. (2000). Ethics and the Built Environment. London: Routledge.

Francis of Assisi, Saint. (1999). "A Rule for the Hermitages, the earlier Rule, the Later Rule and Testament." In Francis of Assisi: Early Documents, vol. 1, The Saint, ed. Regis J. Armstrong, J. A. Wayne Hellmann, and William J. Short. Hyde Park, NY: New City Press.

Glowacka, Dorota, and Stephen Boos, eds. (2002). Between Ethics and Aesthetics: Crossing the Boundaries. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Harries, Karsten. (1997). The Ethical Function of Architecture. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Horne, Charles F., trans. (1917). The Sacred Books and Early Literature of the East, Vol. II.: Egypt. New York: Parke, Austin, and Lipscomb.

Manasara. (1994). Architecture of Manasara, Translated from Original Sanskrit, trans. Prasanna Kumar Acharya. Manasara Series, Vol. 4. New Delhi: Low Price Publications. Original work published c. 800 c.e.

McDonough, William, and Michael Braungart. (2002). Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the Way We Make Things. New York: North Point Press.

Monge, Gaspard. (1811–1812). Géométrie Descriptive. Paris: J. Klostermann fils.

Palladio, Andrea. (1997 [1570]). The Four Books on Architecture, trans. Robert Tavernor and Richard Schofield. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Pelletier, Louise, and Alberto Pérez-Gómez, eds. (1994). Architecture, Ethics, and Technology. Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press.

Perrault, Claude (1964 [1693]). Parallèle des anciens et des modernes en ce qui regarde les arts et les science. Munich: Eidos.

Rig Veda. (1981). In The Rig Veda: An Anthology, trans. Wendy Doniger O'Flaherty. London: Penguin Books. Original work first appeared c. 1750–900 b.c.e.

Suger, Abbot of Saint Denis. (1979 [1144–1148]). "On What Was Done under His Administration." In Abbot Suger on the AbbeyChurchofSt-DenisandItsArtTreasures, ed. and trans. Erwin Panofsky. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

University of Pennsylvania, Graduate School of Fine Arts Staff, eds. (1990). "Architecture and Ethics." Via no. 10 (special issue).

Viel de Saint-Marx, Charles-François. (1812). Principes De L'ordonnance Et De La Construction Des Bâtiments. 4 Vols. Paris: Author.

Vitruvius Pollio. (1999 [c. 25 b.c.e.]). "De Architectura." In The Ten Books on Architecture, trans. Ingrid D. Rowland; commentary and illustrations by Thomas Noble Howe. New York: Cambridge University Press.

World Congress of the International Union of Architects and the American Institute of Architects. (1993). Declaration of Interdependence for a Sustainable Future. Paris: International Union of Architects; Chicago: American Institute of Architects.