The “Good Metal Building” study was made possible with a grant from the Metal Building Manufacturers’ Association.
DESIGN PRECEDENT AND PROJECT IMAGE GALLERY
Click on Image to View Slide Show
Client: Metal Building Manufacturer’s Association
Design Credit: Robert Fakelmann, AIA
Drawing and 3D Modeling Credit: Robert Fakelmann, AIA
THE PROSPECT OF A “GOOD” METAL BUILDING: AN ETHICAL ARGUMENT
The architect’s ethical responsibility to the art of architecture should not ignore any building type or system—it demands that, in all cases, the architect make a “good” building. What constitutes “good” however, is often contingent upon the culture or community in which a building is produced. “Good” architecture nevertheless, reflects the positive motives, affirmative values, and customary virtues that govern the building practices of individuals and communities. However, while anyone may gauge the ethical posture of such practice, no person is more uniquely trained to offer such consideration than the architect; and if this is the case, then no individual, by virtue of his/her distinctive knowledge and skill, is in a better social position to make a “good” building—that is the architect’s ethical responsibility.
Rigid-frame metal buildings will exist independently of whether architects accept or reject them. The economic and practical characteristics that ensure their inevitable popularity in today’s building market does not often guarantee that architects will affirm their value, or even seriously question the motives for which they are built. This being the case, an entire class of buildings is escaping the serious attention and criticism that architects ostensibly reserve for higher forms of architecture. Nevertheless, if it is understood that an architect’s ethical responsibility should not ignore any building type or system, then the demand to make a “good” building must also include the design and production of metal buildings. Given the architect is uniquely trained and in a distinctive social position to do so, making a “good” metal building is also the architect’s ethical responsibility.
The architect’s ethical responsibility towards the critique, evaluation, and design of pre-engineered rigid-frame metal buildings must neither condemn nor acclaim their popularity, but rather accept that, because metal buildings are an inevitable product of our market economy, they deserve the attention and serious criticism often reserved for higher forms of architecture. The architect’s distinctive knowledge and unique social position carry ethical responsibilities that extend to and include the design and production of metal buildings. By accepting these structures into the cultural community of buildings, the architect fulfills a moral obligation to the art of architecture—for the “good” of posterity, for the “good” of the landscape, and most appreciably, for the prospect of a “good” of metal building.
Return To Workingdesign Home Page