Today the relationship to what is being built is between the architect and the client rather than the people who will live in or use the building. Particularly in government projects designed through private partnerships concerned more about profits than the end user.

So many of our social ills are exacerbated around bad architecture and planning. New housing, like jobs of any description, are held up as worthy civic achievements no mater how badly they are built, nor badly they are paid, respectively. Architecture is a social subject and should not be left completely to the fancy of the professional.

“With the vast amounts of tax payers money spent by the authorities on public works, how then are the public expected to asses such public building projects in terms of their usefulness to the community. Architecture and design are treated as vocational subjects. Why are design and architecture not treated as social subjects early on at school? In a multi materialistic society the assessment of design quality in building and when purchasing goods, would be of economic and practical use to most people, after all people are born in buildings, and spend most of their life in them…
People send their kids and parents attend dance class, drama class, and art classes. Less than 1 per cent of these children will take up dancing acting or art as a full time career yet classes are crowded because they are enjoyed…
For while most of us do not take up professional dancing, or indeed professional architecture, we all do spend most of our lives in buildings. Therefore the closer the education topic is to the reality of the situation the more relevant the lesson. Why do we not teach architecture to children?” Victor Papanek