7) Architecture is bigger than architects.

Cities are a permanent force for change; the idea that we can fix a problem and then walk away is the exact opposite of what we need to be thinking. Instead, architects are involved in an interactive creative act that is fluid, that’s going to continue to be in motion, and one with which humans are going to continue to interact. The designers of today’s world must ask themselves: will future generations want to live in the cities and in the buildings we’re leaving to them?

As we shape the global development agenda and frame our thinking at this historical juncture, we must reflect on the architecture produced up to this point, and be mindful of our thoughts, actions, and motivations moving forward. Instead of “I’m here to help,” we might try: “I’m here to work with you, to leverage both of our skill sets.”

As architects, we now have to rethink the oppressive notion that the global community “needs our help” and that we are uniquely qualified and able to contribute. Most innovation isn’t driven by a few isolated visionaries; rather, it is driven by millions of people empowered to imagine and implement new ways to live, and to adapt and improve existing ones. It’s a great example of how architecture, as living things do, evolves and adapts to its surroundings and the social circumstances.

From a mathematical point of view, cities are the physical manifestation of interaction between masses of individuals, and the subsequent clustering and groupings that result. Architecture frames both our interaction with the planet as well as our interactions with each other. In order for neighborhoods to be safe and lively, they depend on people who are able and willing to invest time, energy, and creativity toward improving and enlivening local conditions. They also depend on extended social networks: If neighborhoods are to be safe and supportive environments for children and other dependents, neighbors need to know and watch out for each other and feel a basic responsibility for their environment. Social cohesion and mutual understanding are the basis of good neighborhoods. So the architecture challenge will be to effect a monumental transformation. If we manage it in a negligent or a shortsighted way, we will create waste, pollution, congestion, destruction of land, and inequality. What about if architecture is used to strengthen social resources and human capital, rather than just to build physical structures? This would indeed constitute a profound architectural change.

A city is primarily all of us together. A successful city will accommodate people who are constantly adjusting to changes and difficulties by adapting the existing architecture to their future. Building often effects lives in a very real way; it can rip families apart, foul rivers and pollute the air; it can intensify the calamitous effects of climate change, imperil the planet, and exacerbate inequality. As a collective act, architecture is inseparable from society and from the Earth.

The architecture of the future will be about ideas and more and more about people’s decision-making and power. It will be less a space of representation and much more a space of interaction. There is a growing understanding—especially by architects and progressive urban planners—that it is not enough for architecture to concern itself only with short-term profits, because natural disasters, social unrest, or economic disparity can damage long-term prosperity.

The architects that understand this challenge and take action will be a step ahead. Architecture, not architects, is potentially positioned to lead the way in limiting inequality.

Today, the competitive advantages of cities that attract the best and brightest minds from around the world include increases in freedom, diversity, tolerance, culture, and dynamism. Still, many current urban redevelopment schemes fail to address the needs and priorities of the urban poor, and end up impoverishing and marginalizing these communities instead.