43) Poor friendly.

We rarely collect data on problems with social gradients measuring architecture and then see it in relation to the measurement of inequality. Within our societies we are looking at relative income or social position, social status—where we are in relation to each other and the size of the gaps between us. The trend is to focus on how much richer the top 20 percent are than the bottom 20 percent in each country. The average well-being of our cities may depend no longer on income, but on where we live. Poverty is not only about low incomes, but also about buildings that compound and reproduce poverty.

Place matters. And I mean that physically. There is an intuition that the more unequal architecture between the two groups may exacerbate all kind of social problems. General social dysfunction related to architecture does not just involve one or two things going wrong. Architecture affects most aspects of our lives: whether girls are safe, whether bullying occurs in schools, whether people eat lunch and dinner together, etc.

The proximity of housing to basics amenities—such as education, transportation, employment—are not only measurable, but also predictable according to the sector of the city in which we live. We speak about the toxic effect of bad housing when its design, construction, and location is dreadful, unfriendly, and alienating. But how does the experience of poverty differ when living in beautiful neighborhoods? Well-meaning but misguided ideas, popularized by mainstream thinking, suggest that pulling out of poverty is only possible when the poor are incentivized to pull themselves out of their uncomfortable zones. Hence, keeping the zone as uncomfortable as possible is seen as an incentive for improvement.

What a flawed strategy!

So, consider this an invitation to rethink this flawed strategy: a house can boost our self-esteem. We have written piles of books and columns and given lectures deploring the wealth gap that is leaving more and more people entrenched at the bottom end of the income scale. How can architecture widen the differences or compress them? Let’s grasp this opportunity and look at the stories of real people. 

There is a psychological effect of inequality, which produces feelings of superiority and inferiority, of being valued or devalued, respected or disrespected.

An undignified place, rather than a beautiful place, contributes strongly to these social evaluative judgments that in turn lead to insecurity, stress, and low self-esteem. Conventional thinking focuses on money, commodities, and economic growth. Architecture can contribute to a new paradigm for development centered on human well-being.

What is it about inequality that bothers us so much; the fact some people live within 400 square meters and some within 28 square meters? Or the fact that not everyone has the same shot at wealth? It is not just poverty or income that affects inequality, it is the house we live in and the pride we take in it; the school we attend and the joy we experience there; and the park where we play and the beauty we enjoy there. All these spaces encourage our involvement in community life. Marginalized communities are full of smart, talented people, hustling and working and innovating, just like our most revered and rewarded private, wealthy clients.