Design has objective standards rooted in human needs and material constraints. Vitruvius in the first century BCE established firmitas, utilitas, venustas as measurable criteria of strength, function, and beauty that any building must satisfy to serve its users. Historical authority demonstrates design’s proper role as problem-solving discipline. Roman engineering, the Chicago School of the 1890s, and the Bauhaus in the 1920s applied systematic methodology to real challenges, creating solutions that worked across cultures and generations. These approaches succeeded because they measured success by user outcomes.

Postmodernists and deconstructivists created a false choice between function and cultural meaning. Peter Eisenman’s declaration “I don’t do function” in the 1980s rejects responsibility to users in favor of academic theory. These movements alienate users to serve designer interests. Theoretical sophistication masks practical failures while advancing careers while buildings become puzzles for critics rather than tools for human life. Contemporary movements claim to help marginalized communities while creating designs that work poorly for the people they claim to serve, advancing designer reputations while user needs remain unmet.

Correct design emerges from the rigorous standards established by Vitruvius through the Bauhaus. The designer’s moral commitment supports this rigor but cannot replace systematic methodology that measures success by real outcomes rather than theoretical compliance. Alejandro Aravena demonstrates this principle through Chilean housing that succeeds by analyzing earthquake zones, economic constraints, and family growth patterns. Design must return to measuring success by user outcomes rather than theoretical compliance. The path forward: rigorous problem-solving within specific contexts creates lasting human progress.