The responsibility of architecture in the public realm

In Rotterdam, I took a boat tour of the port to get a better sense of the city’s primary economic driver. Being on a boat in the harbor offered new perspectives on the recent development in the Kop Van Zuid area, emphasizing the prevalence of “buildings as objects” in this city. The buildings are scaleless as seen from the water, and stand on the bank as impressive vertical protrusions. From the pedestrian perspective, being up close to several of the buildings raised the question of whether they could encourage positive public interactions at the street level while simultaneously appearing as scaleless “objects” when viewed from a distance. The experience of the buildings in this area lacked a human scale of engagement. This was an enormous missed opportunity: the architecture could have easily enhanced the boardwalk by incorporating multi-functional spaces that either visually or physically connected pedestrians with the interior life of the buildings. Despite the private and often singular program housed within, do these buildings have a responsibility to benefit the public at large?

Every city I visited raised this question for me:

As architects in urban environments, do we always have a responsibility to consider and provide for a good interface between our buildings and the public?

Or are there some buildings that, due to program or location, are absolved of this requirement? Considering the vast numbers of people moving into city centers across the globe and the fact that we cannot predict what the function or context of our buildings will be in 20 years, I believe we do have a responsibility to make a positive impact on the public experience of our urban buildings.