In Conversation with Nyasha Harper-Michon
Nyasha Harper-Michon is a purpose-driven ‘Archtivist’ — architect and activist — dedicated to fostering inclusive, just, and regenerative cities. She coined the term ‘Archtivist’ for architecture and built environment professionals and enthusiasts driving economic, environmental, and social reform to foster positive societal and sectoral changes. Recognized as a LinkedIn Top Voice Green, she creates content, advises, teaches, and serves on the WomenMakeTheCity board. With experience as an architect and strategic and business developer in international design studios, including UNStudio, Nyasha is a sought-after speaker on inclusion and sustainability within the built environment, notably delivering a keynote at the World Congress of Architects UIA Copenhagen 2023.
Hi Nyasha and welcome to our “In Conversation with” series. You are engaged in “archtivism”, could you tell us a bit more about this. How does architecture and urban planning when done from an archtivist perspective differs from traditional ways of doing architecture and urban planning?
I coined the term archtivism — the delightful blend of architecture and activism — because I felt there was much to be done in terms of positive impact in the fragmented field of architecture and city-making. City-making, imagining, designing and using the spaces in our cities involves various actors beyond architects or urban planners. Archtivism aims to unite us all together in one movement addressing diverse issues from various perspectives, rather than working separately within professional silos. Architects worldwide hold a protected title requiring us to have passed specific tests and obtained certain degrees to legally practice the profession and use the title of architect. One thing I’m very adamant about is that although architecture may be a protected title, archtivist is yours to claim. It doesn’t end with architects or built environment professionals. It extends to any and everyone interested in co-creating and (re)designing the city.
Building on philosopher and sociologist Henri Lefebvre’s idea that we all have the right to the city. I believe we should claim this right and seize the opportunity to co-create the type of city we all can thrive. That can mean through the built environment profession — designing, funding, writing policy for, or developing regenerative, resilient, and inclusive communities and cities. As non-professionals, we can start by sharing and amplifying our embodied lived experiences in the built environment, by attending our local city planning meetings, joining citizen advocacy groups, taking part in the bettering of our neighbourhoods, or protesting our right to the city. In contrast to the protected profession of architecture, archtivism has fewer barriers.
There is no one way to be an archtivist. No one way to be citizen city-makers co-designing places and spaces where we can all live, work, play and be ourselves.
Your advocacy seems to resonate with current ideas for care-informed spatial planning and for planning for more inclusive, diverse and caring cities. Do you relate to that debate, and if so, how do you in your own work practice bringing up an Ethics of Care approach?
The discussions around caring cities definitely resonate with me. I agree with the critique of the conventional notions of cities as centers driven solely by consumption, economic productivity and growth. I am also intrigued by the implications of these tendencies on various infrastructures, societal structures , and within the built environment. The relationship between the caring economy and its implications for the built environment is very much related to Archtivism.
One of the things that I point out a lot in my work, is the idea of the Reference Man. He is the archetype used to design just about everything, including our built environment. Think Le Corbusier’s Modulor Man or da Vinci’s Vitruvian Man and how we are taught in the architecture world that designing for this guy means designing for all, when in reality it couldn’t be farther from the truth. Hyperfocusing on the Reference Man who is this 1,80m tall heterosexual able-bodied cis-gender upper-middle-class white man completely disregards women, children, older people, people of colour, LGBTQ+ people, neurodiverse people, people with disabilities, and even most men. Just about anyone who does not fit into this so-called “ideal” is left out. It’s safe to say that that is more or less all of us. There is nothing neutral or standard about Reference Man, he’s rather a very specific profile touted as being the neutral norm.
Building our cities to serve this very specific profile or person affects everything in the world around us. Streets are built to support the Reference Man lifestyle, including his work hours, and daily commutes by car to and from his important 9-to-5 schedule. This has led to our cities being built around cars and I do not need to tell you that this model is far from inclusive or healthy.
The incredible work done on creating liveable “Shared streets” or on “the 15-minute city” speaks to the many benefits of designing for other users as well, those who have been less central e.g. children, teens, mothers, elderly, or for those doing care work. Success stories and initiatives around the world, from Paris to Bogotá, demonstrate that adopting healthier and more inclusive approaches to urban thinking and planning benefits the economy in the long run.
The influence of designing for Reference Man is also evident not only in our streetscapes, but also in the realm of public transport. Despite studies identifying differences in how caregivers and many women utilize public transport compared to non-caregivers and many men, our systems predominantly cater to Reference Man’s work hours and rush periods. Gender disaggregated statistics show that female travellers tend to use public transport at different times than men. Our travelling patterns are often characterized by trip-chaining — the practice of combining multiple stops or activities into one trip, often involving several destinations or tasks along a route. We might take the kids to the dentist, then drop them off at school, head to work, and later pick up groceries. This represents a distinct transportation need rooted in caregiving, which hasn’t necessarily been incorporated into our current mobility systems. This disparity is evident in what we term the ‘pink tax’ in public transport.
For instance, in the example of how women or carers make multiple stops throughout their journeys, it often results in longer trips and the need to pay multiple fares instead of one. And there’s a myriad of other ways that public transport hasn’t traditionally catered to carers. In essence, it’s clear why this idea of designing for Reference Man can have significant implications for all of us. Dismantling this idea of a standardized user that architects and planners typically cater to is one of the first steps to creating more inclusive and thriving cities and communities.
What do you think are some of the key challenges for a more inclusive, participatory approach to designing sustainable cities?
A key challenge is the industry’s fragmented nature. Many actors are involved in creating our cities, from architects, engineers, real state developers, and investors, to the users, the community, and citizen advocacy groups. Unfortunately, we tend to work in silos. This is a big issue. With oftentimes conflicting interests, it can be hard to find common ground or a common language everyone can understand. Even within the professionals, this is a hurdle that needs overcoming. There’s a lot of work being done in terms of effective project management to streamline how to better work together and come up with common goals despite our different professional fields.
Beyond the professionals in the field, there is an even larger language barrier between design, planning, and construction professionals and the community they are serving. For example, your average person cannot ‘read’ or understand technical urban or architectural plans and drawings. But there are tools and creative ways to bridge that. I’ve seen some great tools using Artificial Intelligence to bridge that gap between architects and the community. They cater to those who are not trained to design. People in the community may have great ideas but more often than not they do not know how to turn them into something tangible or a design for a project as architects are trained to do. It’s great to see that AI is helping to get people to participate in designing their environment in a way that speaks to them. Leveraging technology is a great opportunity to create more transparent and accessible processes that not only include more stakeholders in the city-making process but also empower them to take part in it actively.
Can you talk more about the opportunities you see for planners to step up on the idea of more caring cities?
A key opportunity lies in building on the breadth of work that’s being done in the realm of environmental sustainability. I am an avid believer that we need to focus on both environmental and social sustainability in tandem. We cannot regard them as two separate things. They are very much intertwined. Great leaps have been made across the globe in terms of green buildings, green city planning, and urban GHG emission reduction. Many initiatives focus on measurable targets that are regarded as being more tangible. In today’s society, generally speaking, anything that can be quantified, monitored and optimized has more credibility. Energy efficiency, carbon emissions, and trees planted are examples of the types of hard data we consider to be most important. There is thus an excellent opportunity to couple social initiatives and policies with existing environmental framework. The idea is to capitalize on the momentum that’s already happening around environmental sustainability and weave in social targets and initiatives .
When green city building and planning initiatives focus solely on environmental gains, we can unfortunately end up with neighbourhoods that are lined with trees, adorned with ample green space, and that are much more nature-inclusive in terms of the buildings, and the public spaces offered but not necessarily socially inclusive. While these are positive things, if we don’t look at the social consequences of this, we can inadvertently drive green gentrification. These green areas in the city, tend to increase property and housing prices, pushing out vulnerable and low-income communities who were originally residing there.
Healthy urban spaces cannot be reserved solely for the wealthy who can afford such ‘luxury’. Implementing mixed-income housing as well as affordable housing quotas, right to return or community land trusts are some ways to ensure that new green infrastructure will benefit all members of the community, regardless of their socioeconomic status. In addition, we also need to include the community in the design process thinking about how and who will maintain and care for green spaces, and how this can be done in a way that inclusively involves the community. Well-thought-out green projects can make the community feel a sense of ownership towards their neighbourhood green spaces, helping to build community and support care. Essentially, we need to create both nature-inclusive and socially inclusive spaces and places, meaning healthy cities that benefit flora and fauna while fostering thriving, equitable communities.
If you want to read more about Nyasha Harper-Michon’s work, you can visit her website where you can find resources and further materials. You can also learn more about Archtivism and her critique of the idea of Reference Man through this video. Stay updated by following her on LinkedIn or Instagram . You can also get in touch with Nyasha by filling in the form on this link.
