Architects have always claimed they can shape individual social groups positively with their buildings, or even lead the way into a better social future by designing the ideal cities. However, specific evidence that they live up to this claim is never usually provided because there are too many factors with an influence on social processes that do not fall within the remit of architecture. The opposite argument on the other hand – that architecture can actually be a trigger for negative social developments – seems much easier to prove. For instance large housing estates are frequently made responsible for the development of criminality and isolation, although it is generally political decisions rather than architectural ones that lead to these undesirable developments.

So what social responsibility should be attributed to architecture? In this day and age the industrialised countries are asking more and more questions about the ethical responsibility of their consumption. For instance they question the production conditions of their food (“what fish / what meat are we still allowed to eat?”), but also increasingly the origin and manufacture of clothing.[ii] The thing is, people are becoming more acutely aware that the prosperity and growth of the developed countries are based on an inequality in the living conditions of the people who manufacture these products. In the context of an ever-closer global networking, the question of architecture’s social responsibility is something that has become a matter of public discussion – for example in view of the exploitation of immigrant workers in the construction of football stadia in Qatar.