Introduction
Mission Economy’s main idea is that, rather than simply regulating or facilitating markets, the state should take on a more active, mission-driven role, collaborating with the private sector to achieve common goals. Urgent global challenges such as climate change, inequality, and resource scarcity cause the pairing of a mission economy and architecture to gain traction. You can read about Mission Economy here.
But how does this intersection between mission economy and architecture work? In this post, we will explore how the mission economy framework can inspire the architecture of tomorrow, addressing both the immediate and long term challenges our built environment faces.
What is a Mission Economy?
Mazzucato’s idea is the belief that governments should set ambitious missions aimed at solving significant societal challenges. These missions could range from tackling climate change to advancing social equality or creating sustainable infrastructure. Rather than relying on the private sector alone, governments are encouraged to take an entrepreneurial approach, directing resources and funding towards high-risk, high-reward innovations. This approach fosters collaboration between the public and private sectors, encouraging breakthrough technologies and processes that can create a lasting impact.
- Source:
Mazzucato, Mariana. The Entrepreneurial State: Debunking Public vs. Private Sector Myths (2013).
Mazzucato, Mariana. Mission Economy: A Moonshot Guide to Changing Capitalism (2023)
The Role of Architecture in Mission Economy
The built environment plays a major role in tackling some of the most pressing challenges of our time. Architecture is not just about creating beautiful spaces. It can have a profound impact on sustainability, resource use, and social equity. In a mission-oriented economy, architecture can become a key vehicle for addressing urgent global issues.
Government led missions in architecture could focus on goals such as reducing carbon emissions, creating resilient urban spaces, and designing for social equity. By aligning architectural practices with these larger societal goals, the mission economy framework could spark a revolution in how we design and build our cities and communities.
Mission-Oriented Projects and Architecture
For centuries, there has always been a tight connection between architecture and governing bodies. This collaboration, either partially or fully publicly funded, refined architecture as a domain. I gave us Architectural styles in correlation with cultural movements. It made our cities safer, more liveable. It created a basic standard of living that would protect the health and safety of each individual.
Below are some points gathered from recent literature regarding current threats and how the general built environment can contribute to resolving them. I do not fully agree. You can read my personal thoughts at the end of this article.
1. Sustainable Architecture for a Green Future
One of the most critical challenges in today’s world is climate change, and architecture is a vital part of the solution. The construction and operation of buildings account for a large portion of global carbon emissions. Mission-driven government investment in sustainable design could accelerate the transition to net-zero buildings—structures that minimize energy consumption and use renewable materials.
Governments could incentivize architects and developers to design buildings that utilize eco-friendly materials, such as recycled steel, bamboo, or carbon-capturing concrete (e.g., carbon-negative concrete, as explored by research institutions). These innovations, supported by state funding, would pave the way for environmentally responsible construction practices that create a lasting, positive impact on our planet.
- Source:
World Green Building Council, World Green Building Trends 2018.
2. Designing Inclusive and Resilient Communities
Architecture has the power to reshape societies by designing inclusive, resilient, and adaptable urban spaces. Mission-driven economies could fund projects aimed at reducing urban inequality by focusing on designing affordable, high-quality housing and public spaces. This could mean funding mixed-use developments, creating green spaces for low-income neighborhoods, and developing transport-oriented designs that ensure equitable access to services and employment opportunities.
A prime example of this in action could be the development of eco-villages or smart cities that incorporate green roofs, solar panels, and community centered designs. As consequence, these cities would aim to reduce environmental impact. They could also promote inclusivity and equal access to resources, providing socio-economic equity for all residents.
- Source:
3. Innovation in Building Materials and Construction
A key aspect of the mission economy is technological innovation, and architecture can benefit from this by developing new construction materials and building techniques. Government missions could focus on funding research into sustainable building materials—such as biodegradable products or 3D-printed structures—to reduce the environmental impact of construction.
Architects and developers could collaborate with scientists and researchers to bring novel technologies to life. In turn, this could enable the use of environmentally friendly materials that reduce waste, energy consumption, and pollution.
- Source:
4. Resilience Against Global Crises
Architecture plays a crucial role in creating resilient communities that can withstand natural disasters, pandemics, and social disruptions. In a mission economy, governments could prioritize the development of buildings and urban spaces that can adapt to emergencies and ensure the safety and well-being of their inhabitants.
By funding such projects, the state ensures that architectural innovation can keep up with global challenges, protecting citizens and preserving resources.
- Source:
UN Habitat, The State of the World’s Cities 2012/2013: Prosperity of Cities.
Furthermore, a decentralised approach to energy supply can strengthen the resilience of even the most vulnerable communities. By facilitating decentralised renewables and fostering energy communities governments and architects could act together. The result would be creating proper energy communities.
Conclusion
The concept of a mission economy has the potential to aid architecture in addressing the most critical challenges of our time. By aligning architectural practice with large scale missions (whether for sustainability, social equity, or resilience) we can create spaces and cities better suited to the future.
If governments would invest more in transformative missions, architecture could actively participate. It is more than just a physical structure. It has the potential to be a vital tool for achieving societal goals. The collaboration between architects and government can occur on several levels. Thus through systemic innovation such as design thinking. It can include a shared vision from concept to implementation and later on in behaviour studies. Architects can contribute to building a better world, one mission-driven project at a time.
Concerns
The integration of architecture in a possible mission economy is enticing. However, most correlations regarding sustainability and the natural environment have already been proven as being inefficient. Using recycled materials in construction costs more energy than using traditional materials. In the past, we have seen how Mission Economy and Architecture correlate, creating a fabricated past through symbolism, needed to unify an otherwise culturally divided country. Though these design exercises of creating something new, born out of a mixture of several traditional symbols together with “contemporary” building technologies, the buildings are far from being sustainable. You can read more about this in Yugoslavian Brutalist Monuments, an article.
I do agree with the concept that it is the architect who can provide a bridge between public and private entities. I would also argue that the architect’s practice would be better off less exposed to the market. A layer of protection by the government would be helpful. There is, of course, the possible liability of the relationship between architect and government to be a little too close. This can have tremendous negative consequences on the individual that ultimately has to live in these environments.