An architect who once led a preservation program
received a commission for a large site that included a few historic buildings.
Rather than incorporate or work around them, he wanted the maximum freedom for
his design and called for their demolition, using his knowledge of
architectural history to argue that they had no significance. The community, as
well as his preservation colleagues objected, but he prevailed and the
buildings came down.
Opportunity has a largely
positive meaning in capitalistic countries. We associate it with freedom and individual
initiative, with having or making a chance to profit from our efforts. In that
sense, opportunity becomes both a political idea – America as the “land of
opportunity” – and a personal aspiration of taking an opportunity when it comes
our way. A somewhat more sinister meaning, however, attaches to the related
word opportunism. We often think of an opportunist as someone who takes
opportunity too far, who pursues it past the point of reason and does so
heedless of the negative impact it might have on others. We like opportunity,
but not opportunists.
That distinction has partly
to do with intentions. When we seize an opportunity, we typically respond in an
open way to the chance before us. Opportunism, in contrast, has a somewhat more
malevolent cast, in which people take advantage of others or seek advantage for
themselves in the process of seizing an opportunity. But we cannot judge
opportunism simply on intentions alone; context and consequences also factor
into what we value. We might applaud an opportunist who looks for a chance to
overthrow a tyrant, to help a person in need, or to right a wrong. Taking
advantage of someone evil or seeking an advantage on behalf of an underdog
exemplify the good side of opportunism.
It seems hard to make that
case, however, in the situation described here. This architect not only had an
opportunity – a major commission on a large site – but he also became an
opportunist when he used his knowledge of architectural history to argue
against the preservation of historic buildings. That the community or his
colleagues objected to his actions seemed not to deter him, as he sought to
maximize the potential of what he had and to give himself the maximum freedom
to do what he wanted, without any encumbrances. Opportunists tend to see that
they have the right to pursue opportunities regardless of their effect on others.
What they rarely see is the
effect this has on how others perceive them. The architect in this case may have
felt justified in arguing against saving the historic buildings on his sizable
site, but what he gained in terms of greater design freedom, he lost in terms
of his own reputation as an advocate for preservation and even more
importantly, as someone his community and colleagues can trust. Once
opportunists become branded in the minds of others as people who will do or say
anything to get their way, they can never retrieve their former standing, since
every act of sincerity will come tainted with the suspicion that they actually
lack sincerity and will say whatever seems to their advantage at the moment. Far
better, when architects confront situations like this, to work with the
community and colleagues who have protested, engaging them in a discussion of
alternatives, and assessing with them the pros and cons of each. That still may
not have led to the saving these old buildings, but it will do something just
as important: saving the architect’s hard-fought reputation.
No comments:
Post a Comment