The Foundation of Big Philanthropy

It’s often said that one should never judge a book by its cover, an adage that has repeatedly proven its truth. However, the opposite could very well be true in the realm of architecture, particularly when it comes to nonprofit and charitable foundations. Architecture certainly has a certain way of reflecting both the function and character of those who dwell within it, and the philanthropic sector is no exception. 

While many not-for-profit groups operate exceedingly well in the most humble conditions, those representing the greatest margins of giving are housed in marvelous accommodations. But as with much government architecture, a grand and imposing building doesn’t always mean that what resides within is bigger and better. But does it necessarily suggest the opposite for philanthropic groups?

Some of the largest and most generous foundations leading the pack in modern philanthropy also boast some of the most impressive headquarters in the country. At the same time, some maintain their humble roots or original locations in the communities they serve. Yet both manage to significantly impact the world and the causes they champion. 

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is housed in a somewhat futuristic building with a gleaming metal and glass facade. The $500 million campus rests in the shadow of the Seattle Space Needle, and everything about its architecture seems to reflect the foundation’s somewhat technocratic approach to grantmaking, though generous and progressive.

In a twelve-story building on 42nd street in Manhattan (which cost a cool $16 million to erect in the 1960s), the Ford Foundation is built around an indoor atrium, with its glass office walls facing the open-air center, lush with green foliage. The Center for Social Justice may walk the talk in giving, but they certainly aren’t shy, in appearances, anyway, about their robust giving pool.

Meanwhile, some foundations seem to have difficulty deciding where they fall on the spectrum of design, location and character. For example, the W. K. Kellogg Foundation is an impressive display of postmodernism and progression yet has remained steadfastly rooted in its quaint hometown of Battle Creek, Michigan.

Foundations that make their homes in more modest or historic headquarters (the latter quietly boasting their underlying importance) include Bloomberg Philanthropies, Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation and the Lilly Endowment; all of which have a significant impact on the realm of philanthropy, without the architectural show. 

Some foundations, particularly those based in California like the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, place particular emphasis on their architecture in a more green light, remaining conscious of their overall footprint through development and operation by investing in sustainable, green headquarters. 

Is it fair to ask foundations to give the same consideration for design and grandeur to their projects as they do their housing? Many philanthropists and architects alike believe so. 

When it comes to social change work, design may be the next critical tool and ingredient for impact. In an ideal world, major projects like Rwanda’s stunning Butaro Hospital would become the norm rather than the exception to an unwritten rule. 

The foundation leaders and designers that work hand-in-hand may be able to find common ground in their very foundation, and perhaps they already have. After all, each of their foundations is built on humanistic characteristics such as empathy, understanding and action in solving the challenges that face a community. Perhaps these buildings are not a flashy statement of the wealth that emanates from them but rather a beacon for what their occupants hope to achieve.