RESUMO
Our world is shaped by a patchwork of perspectives, of stories told to construct or even recreate our realities. Practitioners engaging with the built environment have a responsibility to assist in the proper translation of these stories into something that physically enriches the user's sense of place. However, academia separates itself from the "real world" in order to teach theory, history, and so forth as purely as possible. Critics argue that this separation is problematic when preparing students for a practical field in which they will become heavily entrenched in this world from which they have been sheltered. In response, community-based design initiatives are forming that conjoin students, faculty, community members, and activists to address urgent needs in neighborhoods around the globe. While empowering the communities through the opportunity to change their own surroundings, the researchers benefit from a culturally significant palette with which to search for innovative ways to make the built environment truly relevant to positive transformation at the local level. Nonetheless, this pedagogical method is, in turn, criticized for blurring the line between education and activism. The purpose of this investigation is to evaluate both the intentions of such projects and the criticism of it through the analysis of a case study at the University of Texas: The Sustainable Design and Development Workshop (SDDW). Through this inquiry, the importance of community engagement to a student's professional development became clear. However, the experience also highlighted the university's inherent responsibility to the citizens with which it is engaging--which requires consideration of issues of funding, timing, accountability, and compromise that is vital to any such project's success. University-community partnerships provide young designers and their educators with important life skills that are not often emphasized within the realms of academia. But how can architects increase the number of people they serve? First they must reassess the service and benefits architecture provides. Defining those is necessary because the greater public-the 98% without access to architects-certainly does not understand what architects do, and it is the architect's task, not the public's, to present the reasons that design can help [1].
