"...as a consequence of the industrial revolution, history has shown that there is a shift of balance in construction aid away from state institutions and has landed establishment towards vastly expanding requirements of commerce and industry; architecture has transformed itself since the early nineteenth century, and it continues to be a subject of tension between its cultural responsibility and its commitment to commerce..."
This has caused many architects seeking to provide their services to wealthy clients. What happens to the poor? Are the architects lagging behind in corporate social responsibility? Why the reluctance?
Osbert De Costa
Architescts and social responsibilty
Osbert, Architects have had wealthy clients as patrons since time immemorial, because the wealthy allow architects to use permanent building materials such as stone, etc and therefore such buildings become long-standing adverts for the architect.
As a consequence of the Industrial Revolution, people who had no money and no land were able to make lots of money in manufacturing and so they then became the next type of wealthy client who liked to compete with the traditional "landed class" (people with large estates) for large houses.
During and after the Industrial Revolution quite a few manufacturers were aware of the need to look after the welfare and health of their workers (corporate social responsibility), but because most manufacturers had raised themselves from the working class by their own efforts, then they felt that everyone else should do the same.
The problem with taking the view that "everyone who is poor" deserves aid is a mistaken view because many of the poor are happy to take and take and take but not earn their aid.
Personally, I believe in the idea of micro-management (?) a policy where a small amount of "seed money" is loaned to a poor person to help them start a small business and repay the loan.