BUILDINGS ARE A SYMBOL OF OUR NATION'S VALUES.

Byline: Scott Berman

SEPT. 11 demonstrated that friend and foe alike recognize the enormous symbolic importance of buildings. In fact, public buildings and monuments are the most physically conspicuous symbols of our nation's ideals and our way of life. Symbols matter, as do how we design and understand those symbols.

What can the buildings you encounter on your commute or at work tell you? Much.

For example, a spare, efficient, nondescript modern building most notably reveals its economic imperative: the most shelter for the lowest possible price.

A great neoclassical facade most notably reveals its builders' ambitions for their city, state or nation. All public buildings are partially designed to persuade you that the building is sound, or that the organization inside is credible and efficient, for example. But a public building is not just a symbol, it is also a thing: a place where men and women work and citizens are served.

One result of Sept. 11 will be more scrutiny of public building designs, and not only in terms of security, or cost, although the importance of these aspects cannot be underestimated.

Greater scrutiny should also center upon high design issues, such as the building's aesthetics, quality, communicative ability, and potential for longevity.

Well-designed public buildings can instruct and remind people about shared values and civics, and do so through the universal architectural language, no matter what the style.

Even in an increasingly diverse society, architecture that is clear, user-friendly, and proud will remain imminently readable. Because no matter where a person is from or what their native language may be, anyone can appreciate a building where they can find their way, and that addresses their human need for shelter and beauty.

There is no exact formula for bold, beautiful, symbolic public architecture, because every site, building need, and time period is unique. But there are recent precedents:

--The Government Services Administration, the federal agency that oversees the design of federal buildings nationwide, has placed an increasing emphasis on high design. Some critics believe the agency's competitions for building commissions are too restrictive and demeaning, but the spotlight on quality and aesthetics is an important step.

--The city of Milwaukee has been a leader in tying architecture to the economic growth of the community. The city has done this by favoring pedestrian-friendly downtown designs over parking lots, and by balancing high design with cost control: the two are not mutually exclusive by any means.

--The Walt Disney Concert Hall and Universal CityWalk audaciously proclaim culture, entertainment and commercialism without apology. Maybe these are unusual precedents to mention for public buildings, but let's also make such provocative statements with more of our public buildings, but statements for our Constitution and human rights.

Public entities deciding on public building designs should reach out to unexpected places for ideas. Why not approach more commercial developers for fresh ideas about public spaces? If they have created mediocre commercial architecture, at least they know how to make architecture which average people can find familiar and comfortable.

The result would not necessarily be frivolous public buildings, just architecture very ``readable'' to people. They will understand the building's civic messages through its massing, form and scale combined with sculpture and art.

The way to start a broader interest in public architecture is education. Basic architectural education should be enhanced at the primary and secondary levels. There should be an architectural literacy movement similar to the growing media literacy movement.

People better equipped to understand the buildings they encounter each day will have a greater sense of ownership of their built environments. This can only lead to more public participation in building approval processes, as well as more creativity, beauty, quality and security in our public spaces.

So when we build structures that exemplify our way of life, let's make bold, audacious statements about our beliefs. It will take more awareness among nonexperts, not necessarily more money.

The United States itself is still an audacious, wondrous experiment. Shouldn't the buildings that serve and symbolize our nation likewise be audacious and wondrous?