"... best interests of humanity at heart when designing any building,"

This seems to be a sentiment repeated over and over in your essay. And it is a good one.

There are many responses, mostly based in anecdotal evidence and conjecture, that are generally all correct with few being blatantly wrong.

One must really break down the last three hundred years or so into smaller sections to see how architecture has progressed over the years. The progression is wholly outside of architecture requiring a sufficient background in arts and humanities to really understand the issue.

The "interest of humanity" part is more or less a modernist fantasy.

Architecture, for most of its history, is profession that is generally employed by the elite-- specifically the landed variety whether it be secular or religious.

Sometime around the 1850s, society became fascinated by the idea that the progression of "society" is a burden to "humanity." Authors like Charles Dickens filled novels with the idea that industrialization and modernization was killing the spirit of humanity. His stories always almost feature a redemption-- that the damage could be easily repaired if a given individual simply reversed a few behaviors or learned to live with less.

The idea that the majority of people were suffering for the benefit of a minority became a theme in many theorists like Karl Marx and in revolutionaries like Giuseppe Mazzini.

When the modernists came to be, they associated not only the culture of but the aesthetics of the aristocracy and bourgeoisie to be symptoms of a malignant social organization.

The disconnect with modernism is that the technology and advances behind modernism fundamentally cause more problems and more hardship than the previous establishment does-- requiring substantial amounts of machine and factory-oriented processes. Conversely, machines and industrialized processes freed humanity from the near constant work required in traditional life and allowed the human body to produce thousands of times more output that would be physically capable.

In a sense, contemporary structures have not really subverted the underlying social issues for which traditional building was accused of creating.

And this ties into a bigger picture-- the wealthy of today still carry to some extent the burden of the 19th century that their actions and use of wealth must be more benevolent than malevolent. This is to absolve them of any guilt or wrongdoing as they can always point out that whatever they did or had commissioned is different from the ways in the past and some feature of the building actively helps less fortunate people around them.

But modernism [in architecture] has not really solved very many problems outside of art, literature and philosophy. Screens, mouse traps, caulk, synthetic foam and heat pumps have solved more problems in architecture than architecture itself has. It has probably created more problems.

People [who can afford architecture] today do not usually want to be associated with the monsters of past generations [who could afford architecture]. That's primarily the focus here... how do you act selfishly and unselfishly at the same time?

In some parts, they've replace custom handcrafted parts and pieces made by artisans (who were generously paid for the time) with factory-made, mass produced paneling that's made in Thailand and installed by day laborers. But it is okay, the paneling doesn't suggest cultural or aesthetic superiority!

It's the equivalent of putting a coffee filter on an automobile muffler. As soon as architects realize that architecture (unless instituted via massive urban plans and urban renewals) is a selfish self-absorbed art, it can move out.

Howard Roark lives!

But honestly, you'd be surprised how un-elite being an architect is.

I would argue that the profession/universities have already let too many people in. There would be zero employment problem in this field if half of us with Architecture degrees were "weeded" out long ago. Never been a fan of the PC quota system to load up an employment pool with "minorities." Let everyone compete on their skills and abilities. You want a disadvantaged minority to go into Architecture - offer him a scholarship.

The basic impetus, is seems, is to make money from designing buildings, no matter what lies you have to tell to sell yourself.

I won't lie to you, this as a for-profit business. You're still in college and think that you're going to save the world, but someone you'll understand. You will have a mortgage to pay and a family to raise, etc. You'll want to do good Architecture, but you'll also want to make your clients happy and get paid.

"I would argue that the profession/universities have already let too many people in. There would be zero employment problem in this field if half of us with Architecture degrees were "weeded" out long ago."

aquapura,
I generally agree with you, but I don't think it necessarily needs to be that way if you are looking at this as the cause of our unemployment problem.
I read last year that only 3 or 4% of all homes in America are actually designed by architects. We are so underutilized and I think good design is very under-valued. There is so much potential to grow.

We need to stop boxing ourselves in. We need to become the developers, the real estate agents. The construction managers. We are the only ones who dovetail with all these industries, so it only makes sense that we get back into the power seat. We need to stop boxing ourselves in and I think this post has some very valid issues.

Archaic philosophies and mysticism-driven processes certainly have their place in academia and play an important roll for forging creative thought, but we can't have that as the means to an end. Theres a reason that 96+ % of Americans don't think to get an architect to build their home, and to simply hide behind our shields of jargon and elitist attitudes of "you don't know better and you wouldn't understand good design anyway" is cowardly and does our profession no good.

A brilliant designer from Polshek Partnership once told me "people don't know what they want, they want what they see." I think this is so true in every aspect. Lets start showing them why they should hire an architects to design their homes and get back into the process of shaping our world.

Very excited to begin graduate school this fall

-ADM

Unicorn Slaughter,
You've very eloquently written the other half of my complaints.

"But modernism [in architecture] has not really solved very many problems outside of art, literature and philosophy. Screens, mouse traps, caulk, synthetic foam and heat pumps have solved more problems in architecture than architecture itself has. It has probably created more problems."

I am by no means in agreement with modernism. The reason I've been having trouble having fun with architecture is because of the mechanization modernism has imposed, and the near total amputation of all the artistic and craftsman impulses that formed the basis of the profession since ancient times. Being in Italy showed me what buildings with a spirit of craftsmanship really feel like. It doesn't matter if they're lacking in the "modern spatial design" department, they are still wonderful to live in. A good deal were only "designed" insofar as the masons putting them up initially planned where the walls would go to make them stand up. I've always been a bigger fan of "vernacular" buildings than anything modern, which is probably why no one at our school really likes my aesthetics and philosophies much.

My belief is that there is some middle ground where the architect can practice architecture with the same kind of "selfish" craft the artist or mason uses, but still follow the intent of "saving the world." Perhaps I'm naive and think that only because holding a paintbrush feels better than getting a cramp from my computer mouse.

svensven,
I still need to get around to reading that book. Maybe I'll have time after I graduate. And yes, being an architect in most circles is pretty un-elite...but even un-elite people can have elitist attitudes. Perhaps it's that most architectural personalities are alphas, both men and women. That personality type tends to drive me up the wall. Another reason I don't have many friends in the program. The alpha personality has a hard time carrying out the humanist client relations functions and ideals we're supposed to uphold, which is why most architecture students joke about architects hating their clients, and most professors have a hard time being good educators. "I'm right and you're wrong" is the standard mode of operation.

aquapura,
I agree entirely with you that unemployment is a problem, but that problem only applies to that percentage of students who actually try to become "architects." Most of my friends are not even going to try to "get in" the profession after graduation, because we've found other things we'd rather do with a design degree that seem a lot more fun. There's no reason people should be denied the education of their choice based on overpopulation in the workforce. With an architecture degree being applicable to so many other design related fields, denying people entry to architecture schools because a bunch of WASPs are worried about their job security isn't very morally sound.

I'm by no means suggesting using some kind of quota system to get more minorities into the field. All I'm pointing out is that no one seems to care about the fact that there's a profession that has so much to do with shaping the world that's so closed to anyone but middle-class whites. While that might very well just be "the way the world works," architects are smart enough to know they should be holding themselves to higher standards than submitting to the status quo.

I'm also not young and naive enough to not realize it's a for-profit business. The hard reality of that is sinking in across my class level, as most people are talking about "Plan B" with complete seriousness after they graduate. A good many of this generation of architects might never enter the field. Capitalism and art/architecture are a hard mix.

ADavin,
Couldn't agree with you more. Those of us looking at unemployment after graduation should start utilizing the creativity that our education supposedly endowed us with. There are plenty of opportunities out there. They're just not easy to develop. But who ever said architecture students were lazy and only interested in the easy way out? We live in adventurous times.

@unicorn slaughter: woa almost seduced by your piece.

so playing god a much larger urban scale is preferable to manipulating a specific parcel? Where do the horrors of mid-century planning fit into this nice rant? Because the freeway system *was* the tidiest way to isolate less desirable neighborhoods? because the company towns of the past never had malevolent intent in their design?

dunno, planning always seems to be the most heinous. Unlike an oogly house, that shit doesn't go away when you destroy it. Barring complete destruction, the infrastructural scaffold really determines future growth.

Not necessarily play god. But if you want to evoke the change card, outside of a few types of cultural institutions, a landmark or a hospital... buildings by themselves don't often "change lives dramatically."

Now, that's a slippery slope because the owner or occupant of the building can be changed by being in it or owning it-- however, that's a common facet of nearly all buildings.

I was referring more to using architecture within the context of mass urban renewals like Haussmann's renovation of Paris where architects, planners and engineers can work together to provide thorough structural changes to a cityscape.

Regardless of style or aesthetic appeal, aspects of architecture like setbacks, facade transparency and even mandating that floor heights must match adjacent buildings can have profound impacts on the quality of life. These are reasons why the PUD (planned urban development) is a successful planning approach because of the afforded ability to start on a clean slate with lower barriers to achieving desired goals.

The intentions of a single building maybe valid and may have some actual correlation or causation between the building and its effect on others... but nothing beats a comprehensive master plan.

architrains, you ask excellent questions. Questions I suppose, you discovered yourself through the experiences you have had; questions I suppose too, that your professors did not quite lead you to ask. For that alone, I think you have graduated with a fine M.Arch!

First of all, I do not think the ambition of elevating humanity through one's work is a misplaced mission from the Modern movement. Only architectural theorists think this is the case. Ask any of the more publicly oriented professionals and if you go far enough, that's where they stop (or start, depending on your vantage point).

Second, the selection process you have experienced may very well be a general, but however, not a complete depiction of architecture programs in this country; or it might just be your particular school. I don't know. That said, architecture schools are selective not only because there is a gatekeeping role (which schools today no longer perform very well...) for the profession, but it is also because of the larger number of applicants at every comparable levels today. If you check on your peers in the business school, or the law school, or the medical schools, you will find similar, if not greater selectivity. I cannot comment on the case of your girlfriend but as it is, this is the institutional pressures facing architecture programs today.

Third, I disagree with the opinion that more privileged individuals, by their distinctive social class, cannot, and therefore should not be involved with the helping and the elevating of the less privileged. Rather, it is precisely because there is such a prevailing social outlook--which you call 'hilarious'--that more efforts ought to be extended to bridge this widening gap. The onus is however on you, the privileged design student to reach out.

On this, I don't think it will be easy (as you probably have found out). There is simply very little social trust left, and along with solidarity, both are now replaced by suspicion and cynicism. My only recommendation is not to approach these stakeholders by flagging your own architectural good intentions or knowledge (or school...etc). Instead, try to search for a middle-person, a trusted advocate, to go between your efforts and their needs. These efforts often turn out to be mutually beneficial for all the three parties involved. And to the extent that you have tried, some social trust have been renewed.

Your query reflects the current crisis in architecture education. On one hand, there is widespread consensus that architectural theory had been esoteric, elitist and most of all, ironically an impediment to the future development of productive theory. On the other hand, architecture programs still stagnate in the studio-centered paradigm of producing graduates for the profession and existing capital for which however, they cannot absorb. The outcome of this education now almost borders on being irrelevant. Therefore, there is a gap now in architecture education for addressing many of the pressing questions you have posed.

@ msudon:

The horrors of mid-century planning (with the freeways and whatnot) all stem from North America's love (addiction?) to the car, obviously. But its important to point out that suburbs are directly PLANNED, as rediculous as it sounds (and I highly recommend reading Andres Duany's writings/lectures about this). I just finished year 2 undergrad in urban planning and in one of our studios this semester we actually learned about specific calculations with regards to how suburbs are actually laid out (plot size, road-frontage, utilities/infrastructure, etc.)

More news on the subject of my girlfriend and her learning disability getting her booted from architecture and nearly from interior design:

She had a meeting with the campus disabilities adviser and after a few questions was told she probably has a rare non-verbal spatial learning disability. So it's no wonder no one picked up on it until this late stage of her educational life.

The kicker is that her adviser asked her what her first major was. When she said "architecture" and made a lame excuse about none of the architecture professors picking up on her problem because of the number of people in the school, the adviser cut her off and said "plus they're all snobs, anyway."

Which for me, is the crux of the matter. The fact that a good many people hold us in contempt is nobody's fault but our own. The fact that this thread has gotten so off-topic in the meantime, arguing about the finer philosophical points of modernism, is one of the symptoms of why no one likes us. So is my friend's experience in his urban design studio this semester, with no place to begin knowing how to talk to less privileged people from the inner city, due to the elitist social training of our education. Our education does nothing to teach us to step outside ourselves every now and then, and does everything it can to completely internalize us. This is especially bad since the kind of personalities that architecture tends to attract aren't apt to be the introspective type. The one class in our school's curriculum that aims to teach us about interfacing with "normal society" is labeled "Architectural Programming" and is taught by whoever draws the short straw and is generally hated by all the students for being too "touchy feely" and not design-oriented.

This failure in our education is why architectural discourse only occurs between architects, and is unintelligible to the "commoners" for which architecture is intended. It's why architects love the power of a blank white wall that only architects can understand. We end up designing our buildings with other architects in mind, not human society in general. In this information age, full of growing possibilities for alternate methods of building, architecture as a viable profession is on borrowed time unless it faces its shortcomings in educating well-rounded learners, able to see and communicate with the world outside the studio.

I think you have two criticisms -

one is the general failure of many architecture profs in understanding how to teach certain kinds of students - especially those that struggle with or lack prior skills in some fundamental aspect of the curricula (communication skills, spatial skills, etc...). Since most of these people are not trained as teachers, they struggle with how to teach students who do not fit into a particular type - i.e. they aren't self-critical when a student isn't progressing or learning - and they of course won't notice when a student is exhibiting signs of a deeper problem.

IMO - this is more the fault of higher education in general than the personality profile of architecture profs.

The other is "the ivory tower" problem, and I think your concerns are legitimate.

Architrains-

You are on the doorstep of an important insight, a life-changing one.

Continue to ask yourself why vernacular European buildings and cities speak to you in ways that most modern buildings and cities don't.

School is about space, practice is about stuff. I didn't realize until too late that I don't really care about stuff.

Reality = equal parts space and stuff. :)

Nice Strawbeary! Well put.

I remember - back in my undergrad years when I was a graphic design student, my roomate at the time was a former architecture student at Cal Poly SLO. He was booted out out the architecture program because the dept. chairman said he lacked imagination - WTF. My roomie became an art history major. laked imagination?
years later, when I was a 3D Artist at a flight simulator company in Sunnyvale, One of my project leads( a computer programmer) also got booted from Cal Poly's arch program for -- Lack of imagination. &*(???? -

I think toasteroven hit the nail on the head

"Since most of these people are not trained as teachers, they struggle with how to teach students who do not fit into a particular type"

rethinkit - I actually think a "lack of imagination" is something that any teacher, no matter how good, cannot resolve. some people are just incapable of thinking outside the box.

I was alluding more to the fact that higher ed is more about "publish or perish" than it is about education. the emphasis is more on the prof's output and the money they bring in than their teaching performance. this is true for any discipline, and especially true for architecture, where big names bring in the students.

architrains,

I agree with your take on the schools. They are elitist, self-absorbed, and generalyl favor abstract thought rather than concrete, architectural proposals. Most built architecture is often the result of wealthy clients, however, when designing for civic institutions, remember that thy often serve and represent a broad cross-section of society and while their mission is not necessarily to serve the poor, etc...they should be edifying, meritocratic spaces...consider some of the beaux arts libraries built by Carnegie at the turn of the century

Of course, I think there is a growing concern among architects to offer professional design services to the poor, and that certainly is something interesting, worthwhile.... a welcome development.

Finally, many architects think they are astoundingly brilliant, but in fact are rather conservative and mediocre in their approach to things, regardless of how "wild" their designs or representations might be. They often fail to appreciate their own ignorance. Don't worry about them, just remember that architecture is important and strive to give it your best.

I think the school's curriculum can be elitist and self-absorbed, but in my experience the students crave to learn how to design in a very real and practical way. This may be because my school isn't the most elite to start with, but students genuinely want to learn, design and build.

Also, I disagree with your premise that upper middle class white people can't help poor and struggling communities. We are all humans, and as long as we have the capacity to really listen to other people we are capable of using our skills to make a difference.


"Finally, many architects think they are astoundingly brilliant, but in fact are rather conservative and mediocre in their approach to things, regardless of how "wild" their designs or representations might be. They often fail to appreciate their own ignorance." - Jayness

This is so true. I'm amazed at some people's complete ignorance of basic human conduct. I know some students who are convinced they are brilliant and yet they have no ability to design, construct or engage with people. If anything it is this sort of people that are degrading the reputation of the profession.

Also, Architecture firms are for-profit, but they have a long history of mentoring the next generation of designers. They often do pro-bono design work or reduced rate designs for charities. A lot of individual architects donate time to sit on city boards, parks projects and Community Development Corporations. Architecture is more diverse than the star architects creating status symbols for the rich. We as a profession need to convince middle-class people that design is important and affordable if done properly.

it is harder then you think to get people to do this, not just with architecture students.

There are lots of skills that architects (white or not) can offer disadvantaged communities - if we take the time to listen.

architrain you're on the right track. keep it going.

Yea! There are way too "minorities" in architecture. I hear that they don't even submit portfolios or have to take the GRE to get into school. I can't tell you how many times I've seen some "minority" waltz into our office and take away a job from a hard workin' REAL American. They should be out on the jobsite, pouring concrete or installin' drywall... or busing my dishes! While we’re at it, architecture schools should stop letting in so many dang women too. You know if they weren't so many uppity women in schools, there'd be plenty of jobs waiting for us deserving men-folk.

hey aqua: go.fuck.yourself.

I'd agree with Barry.

There's a disconnect between the real world and the real world.

About a year ago, I saw a position for one of those "all-in-one" firms. The firm was advertising for someone to work on a 'team of individuals.' Anyways, this firm seems to do mostly 'nightlife' oriented projects-- you know... bars, nightclubs, wine bars, restaurants et cetera.

So, anyways, I'm thinking "AWESOME!"

Then, at the very bottom of the ad... It said "We are an EOE and drug-free workplace. By submitting an application, you agree to submit to regular drug and alcohol testing."

Drugs? Okay. I get that.

Alcohol testing? You want me to design the interiors and exteriors of bars and clubs without actually experiencing them in all their glory? WHAT THE CUNTING PISS ARE YOU... SOD OFF, YOU SLAGHOLE!

Architrains,
I think this is probably the most thoughtful and usefull post that I've seen on here. More should be like it. Having attended a total of three different schools in my educational path as an architect (2 for B.Arch and 1 for M), I can say that I've seen what you talk about in various forms at all schools. I actually left my first school during my third year for the very same reasons you state above.

I think we tend to be insular and detached as a profession. Lately I find myself disliking the architectural personality quite a bit and struggling to discover why. I share your doubts, anxieties and concerns.

Architrains,
I think this is probably the most thoughtful and usefull post that I've seen on here. More should be like it. Having attended a total of three different schools in my educational path as an architect (2 for B.Arch and 1 for M), I can say that I've seen what you talk about in various forms at all schools. I actually left my first school during my third year for the very same reasons you state above.

I think we tend to be insular and detached as a profession. Lately I find myself disliking the architectural personality quite a bit and struggling to discover why. I share your doubts, anxieties and concerns.

architecture school is us. it is not imposed and not an activity taking place without our participation. This is some sort of strange masochistic self-hating, rather than self-improvement thread.

very humbly, if you do not like the way the profession works then do what cameron sinclair did and find a way that makes a difference. otherwise, its just bitching.

of course white kids from suburbia can help disadvantaged minorities. perhaps they need a bit of training, but there is not inherent impossibility. more interesting problem is if impoverished groups cannot help architects, and how to get them whispering in our youthful ears when we still have energy to act on what we are hearing.


well anyway, i hear lots of bitching but it sounds self-serving for the most part. anyone have something useful to take from the issues beyond the typical one that "the world is not understanding me?"

Is it kind of like what they say when you're wondering if you're genuinely going crazy?

If you think you are, you aren't.

Hence, if you think you're brilliant, you've probably got a long way to go.

EKE-

Well stated--"reality= equal parts..."

A university, which houses academia, is a money making institution - a business. Its first priority is to make money, not to educate. That is an idealist goal, so consider that the subtext of every ivory tower is the that very practical and concrete, real world condition. The weeding out process, seems to me, to be more like a governor or safety valve for the collective frustration of this institution which really wants as many people passing money onto it as it can while trying to appear elite and prestigious so its degrees remain worthwhile. All universities are 'for-profit' - some have a legacy that others do not.

I don't believe (what will be formerly) middle-class white kids with no 'real world' experience, who've grown up entirely isolated from people who are different and from truly having to work for something, can or even WANT to 'help the poor minorities'. Not to mention, we are not being asked to step in and fix their lives (the modernist fantasy of architecture is exhaustingly maniacal).

Architectural professors are in a unique position: they have to keep students to retain money for their college, but they have to reduce over head which is huge from our educational process (studio, for example), most faculty have a personal drive/desire to retain 'quality' students, but their job is to cultivate quality in the willing student (and so, the unwilling student). Within this college/university dynamic, the adult and professional designer is to educate, mostly, privileged white kids who are so entirely naive about themselves and the world that frustration is unavoidable. Hence the delight in weeding out students.

In 07 I graduated with my undergrad, was lucky enough to find work in a very, very exclusive niche market doing custom homes in a historic district. These are houses for the wealthiest americans, a true aristocracy, the top 1-2% of american wealth. There are names. They are all white, have absolutely no taste, no concern for ideas and generally have zero conscience regarding the fact that millions and millions of dollars and countless resources are mobilized at their whim so that they can get what they want. Architects are, indeed, the house pets of the rich, as was mentioned earlier (and to sorta quote Foster).

Although I was designing the most atrocious Architectural Digest/thomas kinkade-esque schlock (because thats what got me paid) my education was modern/post-modern - and in reflection, I saw how the subtext of my education is oriented toward this structure. Architecture sits on a bedrock of hyperbole because it occupies an interesting place in the world and the psyche - it is gazed AT and gazed THROUGH.

And how should a 4 year degree progress so that it teachers you EVERYTHING? impossible. There are technical communication skills, endless facts and formula's for calculation, technology which advances of its own accord, and that truly frightening 'human' dimension. I think our education is, without a doubt, priceless. Our degrees, however, are far to often useless.

Would you not agree that there are in fact two kinds of money-making universities? The first makes money in order to provide genuinely better quality of teachers, classes, curriculum and service. The second makes money so that so much accumulated excess exist for all kinds of sports stadiums and brand name architecked-buildings, and for that sheer ego-boosting endowment index at cocktail parties. Then perhaps there is a hybrid between the two with so much endowment that most of its running cost is paid by the dividend from that endowment such that a good part of its aggregate tuition goes back to the endowment. Only a handful in the entire world qualify for this last hybrid model.

For these reasons, the money-making institution does not immediately qualify that institution as greedy and socially-irresponsible. Rather, it is how the money is being used. In an age where the state and the federal levels are running an increasingly large and unserviceable deficit, I would rather have independent institutions that are financially-able then one that has to cut classes and teachers to make ends meet. In the latter, no one can be truly served.

You make it sound like there is a conspiracy involved making complicit everyone from the chancellor to the janitor...I think even if a school may be elitist--and architecture has mostly been an elitist pedagogical and economical process--there are teachers and leaders within this sphere that do not submit wholly to this elitist process. There are pockets of resistance, and if you look for it, you will find it.

There is another phrase to describe your party of wealthy but tasteless clients, and that is, self-entitlement. If one is wealthy, then one is by station of birth, entitled to this and that. Yes, there are many who are like that. But again, this class has also championed some of the more liberal social causes in this country (e.g. university gifts so that more can receive an education) so it is not always right to say that they are all self-serving, irresponsible and tasteless cattle.

Whether architecture sits on a bedrock of hyperbole is dependent on how you construct your perspective of this field, and how much you really know (and don't know). There are varying depths to this field and I suppose it is very easy to discount it as either irrelevant, or marginal, or hyperbolic. More challenging is how to find pockets of insights and opportunities in this field to address--not comprehensively or in a utopian way--the pressing problems in design and society today. On this, I think architects are able to perform (design) investigations and make changes to the social sphere in ways that would make both the natural and the social scientist jealous. I was reading a book on Naoto Fukasawa, who may not be readily known in architecture but is a big name in industrial design. I think more architects ought to think in his little but powerful ways.

You are quite right: 4 or 5 years, or 6 years cannot teach one everything, even if one is very willing and hard-working. I like to think of the architectural education as a priceless seed--once planted it is one's responsibility to tend and to flourish.

Degrees are a class-entrenched social myth. They are only as useful as the subjective person who approves it. More importantly is the intellectual levels by which one operates in the practical world. On this I think the capacity to analyze, think and create are very objective qualities. And I think the architectural education can be said to provide the seeds to these objective qualities.

Brevity is clarity.

At peridotbritches:

Your attitude toward architecture is very sad. Anyone has the ability to make a difference in people's lives. This is not about over-privileged middle-class white kids going into impoverished communities to tell them how to live. Projects if done should be pragmatic and focus on finding/addressing the needs of a community. It's also about planting the seed for community engagement in young architecture student's minds. All it takes is to go to a community meeting and listen. Students don't have to be in charge of anything because they don't have enough experience. They do have to listen to people and come up with possible solutions. That is what architects do, and it should be part of school.

You need to get out of your class mentality. People are people even if they are rich snobs. You as a trained architect have an opportunity to engage people and show them possibilities. You can choose to just 'practice' architecture and design for wealthy people, and there certainly is nothing wrong with that. But if you are unhappy, why not do some pro-bono work? Design/Build a playground out of scraps. Build an awning for a local restaurant to improve your neighborhood. Get in touch with your community development corporation or planning board. Practice can be great for making money, but it can do more if you want more from it.

Just go to a block party and hang out with people. Architects have knowledge, and that can only be used if they have relationships with people in an informal way. Offer genuine advice (when asked) without an air of elitism and people will respond.

"Anyone has the ability to make a difference in people's lives."

"L'enfer est plein de bonnes volontés et désirs [hell is full of good wishes and desires]." --Saint Bernard of Clairvaux

you're all talking past each other again.

Architrains, as a teacher, I suggest you read:
The Myth of Sisyphus by Albert Camus
The Glass Bead Game by Herman Hesse
As a prerequisite, you should read Frederich Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil

Your haze will eventually clear and you'll start to answer your own questions.