Editorial January 2010

Among Swiss architects, it is a common belief that our profession is not politically active- or even interested in political debates -and will not endanger its practice by unveiling political opinions -nor taking parts in political movements or getting involved in controversies.

Our colleagues also seem to believe that this ‘detestable’ weak and wimpy feature of architects, planners and co. does not only apply to Switzerland but is a worldwide plague. However, a recent good example proves different as Jean Nouvel, involved in the consultation on the Grand Paris with 9 other teams, slammed the door to the 35 billions euro project. Quite a political statement indeed. Concerned with the disregard of quality and social issues, he along with other specialists (urban designers, sociologists, etc…) opposed the project and published articles on daily basis in national newspapers.
France has a long and deep-rooted tradition of disputing, protesting and doing this aloud, and this attitude includes some of its architects.

Now, on the other hand, Switzerland is famous for its low profile political line.
A quiet populace, fundamentally conservative and liberal, believes and takes pride in its direct democracy; mostly votes what the Congress Counsel tell them to, what is reasonable for the country well-being. Very seldom mass demonstrations hit the streets to complain or claim something .

Accordingly, our architect colleagues are well fitting into that consensual and politically inert environment. Every now and then, some bored colleague willing to get some visibility writes an article about single-family houses in the NZZ. Then another ETH professor publishes an article on density that are –really- extracts of his new book. And there is of course good ol` SIA brown-nosing discussions with entrance fees. Frankly, the same people talking to the same audience about the very same things won’t do anymore.
If truth be told, there is nothing worse than a milieu, a scene that looks at itself with satisfaction.
All of this was still ok, right?

But something happened. The unfortunate results of the minaret-ban election exposed two significant facts about architecture in the country: First, the ban brought up an unabashedly xenophobic culture resistant to change. “Swiss Contextualism,” as it is known to architects and urbanists, seeks solutions that augment the built environment with minimal disruption, in essence, “fitting in” with an existing landscape. This ideology, promoting continuity with history, has protected Switzerland from the “slash-and-burn” tactics to global urbanism in the twentieth century. But it has essentially kept the country in a petrified stasis, a form of protective urbanism. This isolated, homogenous culture of building leaves little room for real dialogue. Swiss architects believe their own architecture to be the best, a bit like the western world believes its values to be the best for humankind.

Second, the minaret ban demonstrated the great value that the Swiss put on architecture: the minaret, as a construction primarily of communicative purpose, represented a threat to Swiss uniformity and sovereignty. The whole of the general population, not only those directly engaged in construction, is deeply interested in what gets built (or does not get built) around them. In a country where an unusual emphasis is placed on the power of the built environment, architecture has an especially important responsibility as arbiter for culture.

ARCHITECT’S RESPONSABILITIES BEGIN WITH THEIR SILENCE AND THEIR DISENGAGEMENT.

Because architects are responsible for the form of the city;
Because it is also up to us to organize social relationships;
Because architects are capable of constructive, creative dialogue;
We would like to start by offering the opportunity to architects to save the honor of their country, of their profession and of themselves by calling for an open competition for a mosque in Zurich.

If you are aware that there is a urgency to react
If you believe that discussion and political involvement lacks in the profession
If you think that architecture can be trans-bordered and should open up towards other disciplines and other countries
If you hope that together we could achieve some change
Architects, urbanists, engineers, economists, geographers, landscape designers, sociologists, intellectuals…
JOIN FAS!