Tickets €3, available at the venue from 20:30 on the evening of the debate.

In the midst of a global economic crisis, where money is tight even for the essentials of life, is ‘architecture’ expendable - an unnecessary luxury in an age of austerity? It is widely appreciated that we need to build infrastructure - hospitals, houses, schools and even cities - but does it matter what they look like? We need universities, airports and commercial buildings, but do they need to be architect-designed? The booming cities of China are certainly the product of a much more dynamic economy than is to be found in the West. But in China, too, this does not necessarily include for the provision of good architecture. Does it matter?

In Portugal, where 40 per cent of architecture graduates are unemployed and half-finished construction projects litter the landscape, how should architects respond to critics who argue architects would be better off doing something else entirely? With the recent Lisbon Triennale expanding the definition of architecture far beyond what is conventionally accepted, design and construction gave way to ‘dialogue’, ‘multi-disciplinary collaboration’ and ‘social engagement’. Do these somewhat nebulous ambitions represent self-doubt and a loss of direction? Or are they a welcome outcome of a moment of self-reflection? Do architects even have to do buildings – could they not be artists, critics and philosophers? In the future can or should architects help society in other ways?

Indeed, architecture today is seldom discussed in its own terms (possibly because few architects would even profess to know what ‘its own terms’ are). Instead, many tend to justify or defend their work rather than explaining it. Instead of enlightening the viewer, they humour or pander. In fact, they are more likely to stress design’s moral contribution to myriad issues, including responsible consumption, social inclusion and sustainable living, with little regard for the design itself. As such, rationing, building sustainable communities, adapting to climate, promoting health, minimising travel, encouraging responsible design, prioritising localism, advocating recycling or reducing footprints - in other words, social-policy issues - seem to be synonymous with a designer’s professional duty and emblematic of good architecture.

So this session asks whether architecture is necessary? Does it offer the transient appeal of fashion or should it lift the eternal spirits? Is it about high ideals or practical realities? Does architecture have to be ‘for’ anything at all?