ABSTRACT

The San Francisco Federal Building, designed by Morphosis (with SmithGroup Architects) and completed in 2007, likely heralds a new age in public buildings in the United States at a time when the concept of “public building” needs a reboot (Figure 3.1). The result of a “unique combination of avant-garde formal autonomy and political engagement” (Lavin 2007, 106) whose appearance was largely justified by sustainability objectives, it exemplifies an approach that stands to help the architecture profession overcome its relegation to the status of “weak service provider,” in educator Sylvia Lavin’s dismissive turn-of-phrase in a critique of the building (Lavin 2007, 106). Many in the field of architecture are pinning their hopes on sustainability to provide both a formal agenda and a strong moral mission for contemporary architecture, but this is unlikely to be a complete solution because sustainability is better thought of as a means than as an end in itself. After all, there is no logical conflict between a building’s being both perfectly dreadful and sustainable. Its sustainability credentials certainly have not insulated the Federal Building from controversy over its imposing yet mute appearance on Mission Street. The liabilities of the approach to form making illustrated by the Federal Building suggests that for the profession to overcome its relative powerlessness in the construction economy, a more inclusive public good served by architects engaging in their core activities of designing buildings and spaces for human use is worth exploring. But what is the content of the public good? How is it achieved?