Futures

Should design be a luxury or a necessity?

In the “Futures” lecture I picked up a quote, from Kate Stohr out of the book “Design Like you Give a Damn” (London: Thames and Hudson, 2006), page 34, which I like to discuss further.
The passage reads as follows: “This disconnect would eventually lead to a crisis of faith: What role should design play in providing basic shelter? How could architects best address the needs of the displaced and disenfranchised? And, at the heart of these questions: Should design be considered a luxury or a necessity?”
What I find the most interesting part is the question should design be a luxury or a necessity?
So is design a “fairy dust sprinkled on products”, a lifestyle we live or something much more important. Although please do not understand me wrongly, I think that fairy dust on a product is very important.
But should we not make intelligent use of design, should not that be the aim of a good designer. Should not form follow function?
I think design is not a luxury. Design is a tool, a tool to make sense of an object, make it practicable and not over-complicate it. In that sense I believe designers should approach design. Therefore do not only design for the 20 percent of the world population, which is considered as wealthy, but for the 80 percent, which live in poverty. I think, that in the future designers should aim to achieve so.
Design is not a luxury because design makes objects usable and only if it is designed it will achieve to fulfill its use in the best possible way.
The role of design in providing basic shelter is to make it practicable, cheap, useful, clever, adoptable, flexible, better and reliable. No architect can achieve so without the help of a designer.

Esse est percipi – “Design counts”.