sarah m. whiting + architecture’s present and future

Portrait of Sarah M. Whiting by Martien Mulder.

Sarah Whiting has been Dean and Josep Lluís Sert Professor of Architecture at the Harvard University Graduate School of Design since 2019. She is also a design principal and co-founder of WW Architecture, based in Cambridge. Whiting's research and writing is broadly interdisciplinary; she is particularly interested in modern and contemporary architecture's imbricated relationship with politics, economics, and society, and how the built environment shapes the nature of public life. 

LUCIJA ŠUTEJ: Architecture and urban design have long worked with and developed under the influence of technology, economy, politics, and societal changes. You started your career as a writer and editor for various publications such as Assemblage, ANY (Architecture New York), Log, and others. Here, I wanted to stop at the role architectural criticism played for you in looking at these relationships and how they have influenced your practice—specifically via the WW Architecture, a studio that you established with your husband, Ron Witte. How do you see and navigate your research in architectural theory within your practice? 

SARAH M. WHITING: It actually works in the opposite direction; I'd say that it's the practice that influences the writing more directly, and for both of us. Initially, I was headed toward a career in writing, but two mentors steered me toward architectural practice. Peter Eisenman encouraged me to pursue an architecture degree, while my husband and partner, Ron Witte, ensures that I maintain a consistent involvement in practice. Though I devote less time to practice because of my role at the Harvard Graduate School of Design, maintaining ties to practice helps to prevent oversimplifications that can arise from not knowing about how architecture gets realized. It's all too easy for people to say: “The city should be x, or buildings should do this." Or “We should not succumb to capitalism…" When you manage an office and navigate the realities of construction, materials, and costs, however, you develop a deeper appreciation for the discipline's challenges.

And for me, it is exciting to see how writing affects our practice. Ron and I are boring as a couple (laugh) - all we do is work and talk about work—we often talk about how architectural practice and architectural thinking could be better. We discuss potential improvements and challenges, such as finding architectural patrons or exploring material and building reuse. Often, these practical discussions inspire my writing topics rather than the reverse. Ron will often say: “Well, why don't you write about it, if you are so interested in it?" (laugh). Ron also writes —and his writing provokes my writing and our combined architectural thinking. 

Albanian National Historical Museum, Tirana, Albania. Courtesy WW Architecture.

LŠ: Your theoretical work has emphasized and debated numerous urban issues with a special focus being the importance of public spaces within the urban fabric. Could you share how your approach to urban design has evolved over the years? 

SMW: First, there's a question of how we even define public space today. In addition to public squares, parks, and sidewalks, I consider shared spaces within buildings—hallways, lobbies, stairways—all to be public areas. As cities grow denser and more diverse, these shared spaces become ever more crucial as the sites for interactions among people of different backgrounds. The idea of a “public space" has evolved from obvious urban elements, like European plazas, to vital components of civic and social well-being, including bus stations, subways, and sidewalks. I am increasingly intrigued by the spaces that bridge private dwellings and shared urban areas.

Taichung Airport City, Taichung City, Taiwan. Images courtesy of WW Architecture.

LŠ: And what do you see as the most pressing challenges facing our cities today? 

SMW: I think there are two challenges that are intertwined: the first is the ever-increasing commercialization/ monetization/privatization of our public lives, which means that it's harder and harder to define the urban area as being a public or civic site. The second is what I mentioned earlier—the greater and greater densification of our cities (which is a good thing, when one considers climate change) of a greater and greater varying population (again, a good thing in that our cities are becoming ever more heterogeneous). The challenge that comes from these two tendencies is how do people with varying backgrounds, traditions, and ways of living mix when they come together in large cities. In my opinion, that's the most exciting question on the table today, but it is a question that requires patience and generosity with its design answers.

Oujda Stadium, Oujda, Morocco. Images courtesy of WW Architecture.

LŠ: Cities have always been shaped by technological advancements, but today we witness the rise of data-driven infrastructures and a wide range of smart city initiatives. In your opinion, how can we balance technological innovation with the social and cultural needs of diverse urban populations? What strategies and approaches should we adopt to make sure that tech integration supports human connections?

SMW: Actually, in the new year I'll be giving a lecture that touches on this topic so it's top of mind. I think that another way that practice influences my writing is that I feel obliged to offer ways forward and not just to analyze and point to what is wrong. Practice is inherently projective, a term I like to use, and I think writing should be as well. 

The issue of technology's impact on our public lives is a complicated one. Several writers have addressed social media's tendency to create echo chambers or bubbles of similar individuals. Personally, I like engaging people I see on the street but oftentimes when you try to have even the most mundane exchange on the street, you realize others cannot even hear you because they are listening to something loud on their earbuds. 

The late Lauren Berlant's research into micro-social actions—like conversations in supermarket lines—offers interesting perspectives on how we might scale up our community engagement. Highly local engagement fascinates me but my main interest is in trying to scale it up. Oftentimes in practice, we focus on the neighborhood scale as an organism that is the appropriate size for scaling trust among people, and among the public, however, I've noticed that neighborhoods are most often utterly homogeneous. If you are in Brooklyn you see certain jackets or boots on the streets; L.A. you see different attire. Cities typically offer more diversity on a larger scale and the question is—how do you engage with strangers in a larger environment? Well, I haven't figured it out but I see that the challenge is partly this issue of technology.

Numerous writers examine these dynamics. For instance, Chantal Mouffe looks at agonism, emphasizing that advancing ideas—projecting new possibilities—often involves embracing tension, which I think is absolutely correct. I recently received a copy of Jürgen Habermas' updated edition of The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere—originally published in 1961—which apparently addresses new technologies. I haven't started it yet, but I am curious about his perspective.

I believe in the power of conversation, especially as a tool of advancing knowledge, which is why I enjoy the interview format. Habermas's characterization of the public sphere from his 1961 volume resonates with me, even though he is often rightly criticized for being overly normative. Then there's Michael Sandel, who also discusses our public and social realms. But sometimes I worry that thinkers like Habermas, Sandel, and Jodi Dean tend to describe our current conditions and lament their shortcomings without offering a way forward. That is why I appreciate figures like Nancy Fraser, Lauren Berlant, Wendy Brown, and Bonnie Honig, who all suggest more hopeful possibilities.

In architecture, there has been a marked decline in critical writing by architects. Someone like Rem Koolhaas still stands out, engaging with social issues through both writing and design. His library projects, particularly in Qatar, reimagine public engagement through architecture. OMA's various library designs over the years demonstrate evolving approaches to technology, public space, and knowledge sharing. I am still grappling with all of these questions, particularly around scale.

LŠ: I would like to see even more sketches and drawings in addition to writing. 

SMW: Yes, the evolution of architectural practice is fascinating. Your comment about sketches and drawings reminds me of landscape architect Laurie Olin's recent lecture at the GSD. At 86, he gave a compelling presentation about his lifelong connection to drawing and reading, beginning at age six. His sketches are remarkable, and I hope students appreciated his perspective.

LŠ: Currently there is a big laser focus on the benefits of technology on urban planning. However, there are also challenges such as increased surveillance and we are creating this relationship of being over-dependent on technology and data. What is your opinion - can we ensure that urban spaces really stay human-centered? How can we protect privacy while integrating new tech—is there a straightforward recipe?

SMW: That is a good question and I wish I could say that the way forward is clearly straightforward but I don't think it is, alas. I am very reluctant about the overemphasis on data and the idea that one can obtain objective information that can direct everything. I am always very suspicious of where data comes from and how data is used. At the same time, I am fascinated by how the New York Times has been visualizing data, making it more accessible to the broader public. Data can help elucidate issues, but I don't think data gives us solutions. In terms of technology and public spaces, that is a very real challenge. One that will just get worse given the politics around the globe right now. 

While I personally am not very adept with technology, I am curious about how people deploy it to certain ends. I don't view AI as just another tool. Programs like Revit and BIM can limit creativity by offering predetermined options, yet they also enable smaller firms like ours to compete with industry giants. We have gone up against ginormous firms like Foster + Partners, and these tools help level the playing field (well, a bit). So, there are clear pros and cons, and I think AI will bring similar trade-offs. Personally, I have not yet invested much time in AI, but I see it as another tool that offices and schools will incorporate. That said, AI in public spaces raises serious concerns about surveillance and there is bound to be a backlash against how much of our personal information is used, especially considering the lack of regulation around social media. I believe stronger regulations will become necessary, but the goal should be less surveillance—not more. Whether that balance is achievable, I am unsure. Perhaps I am being too naive in thinking it can.

LŠ: Speaking of public spaces, arts, and cultural initiatives are often key to urban regeneration. What do you think makes these efforts successful in revitalizing cities, and how can they truly benefit local communities? 

SMW: Current efforts often promote very local arts, though this often leads to gentrification. Artists typically occupy less expensive areas due to space requirements, inadvertently catalyzing urban transformation. Consider Chelsea in New York, where a former meatpacking district transformed into an arts neighborhood. These cultural spaces attract people but also generate high-end capital. Maintaining some “messiness" during urban regeneration requires committed city administration and careful consideration of funding and maintenance.

LŠ: Can you think of specific examples where arts-led regeneration hasn't achieved these goals, and why? 

SMW: Hudson Yards in New York was a huge missed opportunity to offer a new urban vision. 

LŠ: What are some of the most effective ways for artists to work with architects and urban planners to collaborate on regeneration projects? Which projects have led to particularly impactful results?

SMW: Architects and urban planners should work more closely together. Planners understand policy, while architects grasp design, but they often lack a common language.  I am a firm believer in having long dinners to enable conversation, and I think that is still a very smart way to bring different people together and foster collaborations.While artists and architects frequently work together, their impact is limited without effective engagement with government officials.

LŠ: We have all been reading about new city projects championing sustainability, and modular adaptability like The Line in Saudi Arabia, Telosa in the U.S., or BiodiverCity in Malaysia. Called as futuristic, they are definitely redefining how we think and even approach urban design. 

How do you see these kinds of developments; and in some cases still ideas influencing the way we build future cities—in terms of balancing technological innovation with human-centered, adaptable, and ecologically responsible design? 

What principles and strategies from past architectural movements, like Ebenezer Howard's Garden City or the Metabolism movement do you think should inform and guide our approach to these new urban environments? 

SMW: I'm wary of cities that are created de novo. The best urban designs are frameworks designed for an evolving situation, not construction that happens all at once. Maybe that's an old-fashioned idea—a belief in the value of aging and evolution. If you've seen the film footage of the refurbished Notre Dame it's impressive but also quite plastic-looking because every surface looks the same—there's no distinction between the columns near the altar or those further away. I'm not saying that the columns need to differ, but typically in any Gothic cathedral, you'll see differences in the surfaces of even a single column—differences that come with age, dirt, light, etc. Cities that are built out of whole cloth, as they say, have the same problem. They tend to homogenize, like what I was talking about with neighborhoods tending to homogenize. 

As to their sustainability—I admire the desire to create an urban way of life that is more sustainable. It is tragic that a country like China urbanized so quickly over the turn of the 21st century but did not do so in a way that was more environmentally responsible. The growth of car ownership in China over the past three decades has been astronomical. What a wasted opportunity to develop in a way that would avoid all of that carbonization. So I admire attempts to offer new ways of living. But I am also wary of the research and success of these examples. I highly recommend Gökçe Günel's book Spaceship in the Desert, which focuses on Masdar and I look to her and others for their expertise on Neom and other examples. Gökçe is a super smart anthropologist who teaches at Rice; we need urban designers and architects now to take her warnings about these existing models to help us project better models forward.

Ringmasse, Houston, Texas. Courtesy WW Architecture.