The human dimension.

It is both a privilege and a pleasure to have succeeded to the editorship of The Architectural Review; it is also a little daunting, given the long and successful editorship which recently concluded. As you will notice in the early pages of this issue, Peter Davey continues to be a valued contributor to the AR; the abrupt severing of long-term relationships, and the discontinuities that ensue, are best avoided in the world of architectural magazines as well as architecture itself. Year Zero propositions about architecture and its history are rarely convincing, since the more you understand the origins of this or that architectural movement, the more you find links to (or roots in) the architects and architecture of previous eras. This is not an argument belittling the idea of significant change (still less modest change), but an acknowledgement that the past deserves respect and attention if change is to be constructive and long-term rather than merely cosmetic.

Creative response to circumstance, whether geographical, climatic, financial or political, is part of the architect's stock-in-trade, and is why a broad understanding of history, as well as architectural history, is so important to the achieving of architecture of genuine merit. Circumstances change, but quality of response should not, especially given certain fundamental conditions related to our experience of architecture. Those conditions are about the way that people, as individuals and in groups, respond to the natural and built environment around them. The skill of the architect is in understanding those basic conditions (sight, touch, smell and sound), and other ways in which we further experience the environment (approach, circulation, exploration, departure), whatever the scale of project.

Consider the human dimension in relation to the towers that have characterised cities in the 'developed' world. How can human scale relate to these vertical mega-structures? How can one avoid being overwhelmed, and how can a historical context survive the physical intrusion of these gigantic monuments to commerce or the joys of apartment living? The answer lies in the experience of these buildings at their human scale, that is to say in the way they touch the ground, the contribution they make to street life, the facilities they bring not just to the occupiers of the building above, but to people in general.

This is not to say that every building can deliver the same benign urban experience, only that the architect's response to brief should incorporate without fuss the benefits that a scheme might offer to its context, as well as to the client and the building's specific users. Does the proposal offer more to the world than it takes away? Successful architecture will always offer the former, and the pages of the AR will continue to reflect the aspirations of architects and clients who see themselves as contributors to the world as a whole.