The paradoxes of progress have plagued architecture for most of the last century. We revitalized our cities and ended up concentrating poverty, we used technology to bring us closer to nature and ended up damaging the environment, and we established a progressive design culture and ended up isolating ourselves from the very public whose lives we sought to improve. As we begin the next century, we should ask how we might avoid the unintended consequences of our often well-meaning efforts.

That will demand a rethinking of modernism. As the philosophers Robert Solomon and Kathleen Higgins have argued, the modern world brought ‘a new emphasis on objectivity…(but) the source of the objectivity, paradoxically enough, was to be found in one's own subjectivity. Thus the modern age was founded on an apparent contradiction: we come to know the world “outside” by looking “inside.“’Solomon, Robert and Higgins, Kathleen. A Short History of Philosophy. Oxford University Press, Oxford. 1996. pp. 177–178. The utopian tradition of modern architecture reflects that contradiction, as architects have asserted highly subjective visions as the basis for a universal transformation of the objective world. Whether it be the technological utopia of LeCorbusier's Plan Voisin or the Arcadian utopia of Wright's Broadacre City or the rational utopia of Burnham's Chicago Plan, architects emerged in the 20th century at the vanguard of efforts around the globe to realize, as a universal objective fact, one person's subjective vision. And we have paid a heavy price for that hubris: not only a physical price — whether in the loss of the historic cores of our cities in realizing LeCorbusier's urban vision or in the destruction of the rural landscape in realizing Wright's suburban one — but a political price as well — in the tremendous human and environmental losses we've taken in realizing the utopias of Marx, Nietzsche, and now in the midst of global laissez-faire capitalism, Adam Smith.

As we look ahead, can we have ‘progress without utopia’ as Edward Rothstein asked recently in the New York Times? Can we improve the lives of all people and respect the existence of all species, without lapsing back into our old utopian ways of imposing singular subjective visions onto others? That will depend upon our finding a new relationship between the objective and subjective realms, in which they are neither totally separate nor as a matter of one dominating the other, but instead interwoven and mutually respectful realities. For architecture, that means shaping environments whose objective reality recognizes the diverse subjective realities of those who inhabit what we create, as well as seeing our own subjective reality, as architects, as just one of many inputs into the objective realities we design.

Andres Duany's essay ‘Ad majorem gloria me: order out of the chaos of architectural education’ (Perspective 1, p. 105) will evoke both wry smiles and cries of outrage. Although written with the North American scene in mind it refers to a fairly widespread phenomenon — the grooming of architecture students ‘for the position of Next Mediated Genius … or bust’. It is by no means a universal condition even in North America but it is common enough to cause considerable concern on the part of those who want both a strong profession and better buildings and places — the subject of Robert Gutman's ‘Critical issues for architectural practice’ (Perpective 2, p. 107).

In his critique, Gutman reviews the first two publications sponsored by RIBA Future Studies — an admirable venture set up two years ago to stimulate radical thinking on strategic architectural issues. He is critical of both publications, feeling that they do not address the crucial issues facing architectural practice. In particular, he takes issue with the emphasis on ‘flagship buildings’, questioning their often unimpressive long-term performance. Such a focus on monuments like Gehry's Bilbao and Foster's Reichstag tends to inhibit debate on other, more prosaic but common buildings.

The subject matter of the first of our two Design pieces, Hans van der Heijden's ‘The diagram of the house’ (p. 110) is of far greater relevance to society than any flagship building. The author and his colleagues at BIQ Architecten seem a million miles away from many of their better publicised peers in the Netherlands. Working on the renovation of problematic post-war housing estates and on the creation of new housing communities on both almost featureless sites and in well established urban areas, they collaborate closely with contractors and, in their designs, embrace the ordinary. This is not ‘fashionable’ work, but it is immensely impressive for its integrity, its spatial control and its low-key innovation.

Now take a look at Paolo Tombesi's paper ‘A true south for design? The new international division of labour in architecture’ in the Practice section (p. 171). Pointing to the sharp wage differentials between architects in the developed and developing regions, he suggests that, in a few years, most architectural work will be documented in places such as South-East Asia. Where does this leave the many thousands of young people — Duany's Next Mediated Geniuses — undergoing architectural education in the more privileged parts of the world? And what are the implications for professional institutes obsessed by flagship buildings?

The time has surely come for a more modest and vastly more intelligent approach to architectural education and the needs of society in the developed world.

‘Linking practice with research’ is both our cover slogan and our objective. arq covers the broad spectrum of architectural endeavour – which comes together in design and buildings – and publishes contributions from both academics and practitioners. Take this issue.

First, it covers and considers architectural research in many forms and ways. There's Rem Koolhaas' research on shopping; a pioneering application of a passive environmental system; a competition-winning scheme for new housing; an account of a completely unknown project by Le Corbusier; and an introduction to an alternative to air-conditioning in hot, dry climates. There's also a timely look back towards the beginnings of university-based architectural research in the 1960s; the first English translation of Freyssinet's remarkable essay on the sublime; and a review of Zaha Hadid's recent work and its theoretical base.

Second, each of this broad spread of topics is design and practice-related. Most of the authors have academic affiliations but seven are also architects in practice and one is a practising engineer. Just two are architectural historians. Two of the articles – those on the design of the Jersey Archive and on passive downdraught evaporative cooling are interdisciplinary and based on considerations of sustainability. Our letters pages reveal a bias towards practice – but, although all our correspondents are practising architects or engineers, most have strong connections with academia.

But this issue takes things a step further: it is the very first arq to carry an article directly based on an architect's drawings and design report – rather than on a piece especially written for publication. ‘From table to basin: St Mary's Island’ (pp. 229–247) is a lightly edited version of a competition-winning entry for a large ‘brownfield’ site in South-East England. For many years, there have been very few competitions of this kind. The Editors felt that Buschow Henley's scheme deserved more coverage than it had enjoyed in the professional press. Our referees agreed and made just one recommendation – that the architects should write a short introduction outlining their theoretical position.

In our second issue, in the middle of a lively debate then being conducted in our pages (arq 1/1 and 2), Philip Tabor wrote a leader entitled ‘Design is research: is it?’ He asked whether ‘a design submission, entirely drawn and unaccompanied by text, would be awarded a research degree in architecture? Or, closer to home, would arq’s editor and referees, accept it for publication?’ The answer he concluded, was ‘Probably not.’ Six years on, ‘From table to basin’ represents a shift in editorial policy and a demonstration of the way in which designers can reflect upon their work as research in a way that journalists cannot.

Theory is usually assumed to precede practice but ‘Practice preceding theory’ is the telling sub-title to Patrick Hodgkinson's essay on Leslie Martin on p. 297 of this issue. It is a full year since we published an extended celebration of Martin's work together with his essay ‘The grid as generator’ (arq 4/4). Kenneth Frampton's subsequent Postscript (arq 5/1) placed Martin in a historical perspective. Spurred by Frampton's assessment, Hodgkinson now reminds us how Martin's later theoretical work can be said to have had its origins in the studio's early work.

This thought-provoking reminder comes at a time when, in the UK, architecture's standing as a research-led university discipline remains as low as ever. Once again in the government's recent Research Assessment Exercise no architecture school achieved the highest rating. This was unremarked upon both by the professional press (which was much more interested in the upsets at the top end of the league-table) and by the RIBA (which probably hasn't even noticed and has certainly never grasped the significance of university research). It seems that neither much of the ‘theory’ which so many architecture academics expound nor the odd bit of practice that they manage to undertake is highly rated by the assessors.

This, of course, is not the outcome intended by the 1958 Oxford Conference on Architectural Education (master-minded by Martin) which determined that in future all architects should be educated within the research-led university system. But does the RAE debacle matter? It certainly does. Research-rich schools are better resourced — and that benefits both teaching and practice. We need to take a hard look at why architecture fares so badly — and to question its grouping with construction management and surveying. We must also consider the very nature of university-based architectural research. Hodgkinson is right when he concludes, ‘much thought still needs to be given to architectural theory if it is to raise itself from being purely academic — and therefore practically useful.’

But take a look, too, at the articles on pp. 305 and 312 of this issue. The first, by occasional practitioner and academic Peter Blundell Jones, sets out the case for ‘Working with the given’. In the second, ‘New meanings from old buildings’, Blundell Jones and another practitioner/academic, John Sergeant, appraise three very modest house conversions and extensions designed by them and by David Lea. These architects have evolved their position over many years — developing, through building, discussion and writing, a genuinely sustainable approach to the use of resources. Their buildings may be modest but, together with their writing, they eloquently encapsulate an approach or theory that is increasingly relevant — and utterly practical.

David Porter's letter in arq 5/1 was timely. In recognizing the benefits to be gained from the ‘two-way street’ that connects architectural education and practice, Porter follows on from Robin Webster's plea in arq 4/2 for ‘ordinary’ practitioners to teach ‘a high standard of ordinariness’. Webster's letter was provoked by Dean Hawkes' paper, ‘The architect and the academy’ (arq 4/1), in which he quoted Kahn, Zumthor and Scarpa on education, all regarding teaching as a process of (self) discovery.

Paolo Tombesi sets out a very interesting thesis that Asia will become the ‘back office’ of Western design practice in, ‘A true south for design? The new international division of labour in architecture’ (arq 5/2, pp.171–180). There are many instances of this happening already, though mainly in engineering and in US style architectural practice where documentation consists of the application of rules-based methods and the work used to be done by ‘tracers’. Practices with computer-based standard detailing can have schematic drawings worked up overnight and corrections similarly serviced. UK architectural practice is largely done without back offices or standard solutions and drafting help must be closely supervised. Price competition from the South may well become a factor for change.

How refreshing to re-read Leslie Martin's classic ‘The Grid as Generator’ (arq 4/4). Where did it hide during the last 28 years? How useful it would have been as a measure for the proliferation of approaches to the city that have followed in a period that includes Krier's journey from the Royal Mint Square perimeter block to Poundbury, and Koolhaas' from Manhattan to the new dense megacities of the Far East.

Martin's essay is in many ways exemplary. Coming from a cultured architectural position, but open to the possibility that certain parameters of design can usefully be quantified, he opens the possibility of a middle way for architectural research between the established numerically-based model of the physical sciences and the emerging discursive models of cultural studies.

It has been some consolation for the loss of Leslie Martin, a major figure in twentieth-century British architecture, to read the special issue of arq (4/4) dedicated to his memory. He was a great Englishman, a rare combination of theorist and teacher, of politician and generous benefactor. His resuscitated article of 1972, ‘The grid as generator’, is a theoretical demonstration of the qualities of the urban grid, and of how it may form the basis for a latter-day return to the problem of controlling urban development. As such it is masterly in its explicative power and in its prescience. And yet it raises some questions as to the role of design in urban design.

Every contributor to arq is sent a number of free copies of the issue by the publisher. Recently, some complimentary copies were despatched to Gunnar Asplund (the author of the ‘document’ paper in arq 5/2) at the Weslch (sic) School of Architecture in Cardiff. They were, of course, meant for Simon Unwin and Christina Johnsson, the introducer and translator of Asplund's inaugural lecture. It may happen again …

Paolo Tombesi's paper (arq 5/2) managed to be both entertaining and thought provoking.

I owe Leslie Martin a great personal debt: in 1964 he asked me to come and teach at Cambridge and at the same time arranged for me to design a laboratory building at Royal Holloway College. I went on to teach at Cambridge for 12 years and to design, among others, two further buildings at Royal Holloway, part of London University. It was the ideal combination of practice and academic activity of which Martin was a prime exponent.

I warmly congratulate Jacques Heyman on the absolute clarity of his ‘An observation on the fan vault of Henry VII Chapel, Westminster’ (arq 4/4). But while this was not the subject of the author's study, many of us might well be interested to hear his view as to why the Perpendicular pendant came about since it is unnatural constructionally. Historians no longer with us sometimes supposed the pendants remembered the columns between nave and aisles in a larger church or cathedral, but I have not seen this referred to recently.

The environmental analysis in Rob Marsh, Michael Lauring, and Ebbe Holleris Petersen's paper ‘Passive solar energy and thermal mass: the implications of environmental analysis’ (arq 5/1, pp.79–89) is an important example of how important analysis is in identifying the design issues.

When given the opportunity to re-read Leslie Martin's article, ‘The grid as generator’ (arq 4/4), and the letters that it attracted (arq 5/1), I found myself moving in two levels: the archaeology of the Cambridge School of Architecture, and the problems of urban design.

You are right to claim in your Leader (arq 4/3) that ‘most unsustainable behaviour gets written into the initial problem statements in projects’ and you are right also to claim that [architects] ‘need to get out in front of the building process and begin to rewrite the rules and redesign the processes that now generate so much unsustainable development … [often] talking clients out of what they think they need …’

As an architect involved in the design of many shopping centres in the UK and Europe over the past 25 years, I feel moved to respond to the interview with Rem Koolhaas in your last issue (arq 5/3). Regrettably, as I write, the Harvard Design School Guide to Shopping is not yet available: I can therefore only comment on the interview.

In Peter Hall's introduction to Leslie Martin's ‘The Grid as Generator’ (arq 4/4) he states that ‘the crucial link between research and design has been fatally lost’ and that ‘it is more than high time that architecture schools begin to rediscover it’. I am not so sure Hall is correct in saying that the link has been broken, though the parameters may have changed since Leslie Martin's day. Martin's work was set in the context of post-Oxford Conference architectural education and research, with its alliance to the models of the sciences and objective analysis. The link between research and design could then be identified as an instrumental one, with the former directly guiding the latter along prescriptive tramlines. The intellectual strength of such methodological approaches may be apparent, and to some extent they fulfilled the Oxford Conference's mission of saving architecture within the elite academies. But there are also dangers in the determinist use of research to direct design.

Andres Duany's critical sketch of architectural fashions rampant in US schools (arq 5/2, pp.105–106) carries a well-aimed barb, thrown from the right of stage. Duany's amusing categories call out for a post-modern Osbert Lancaster to illustrate them (as Lancaster did in Pillar to Post), except that the job is done monthly in the journals without comment. Anyone who has endured the Jencksian categorymania will enjoy this report from the zoo. The last comparable inventory was made by Aldo Van Eyck with his Rats, Posts and Pests speech.

While a number of apparently competing theories have come to dominate the architecture schools, they have many assumptions and formal conventions in common. The Miami architect and urban designer Andres Duany gives his view of this.

Max Fordham's perceptive comments (letters, arq 5/3) raise many interesting points on building physics and the environmental performance of buildings. Our article (arq 5/1) summarizes a research project that environmentally analyzed trends in Danish housing design. The results showed that the typical design strategies advocated by ‘traditional’ low-energy and passive housing design methods (large glass areas and heavy thermal mass) are not necessarily the most optimal. Such strategies only take account of the heating demand and do not use modern life-cycle analysis methodologies where the environmental impact of the building materials is also integrated.