Does politics have a role to play in architecture?

beatriz

Does politics have a role to play in architecture?
db online, 01 June 2007

Paul Hyett believes architects should make a stand but Robert Adam argues that taking politics into the profession is unwise

'Yes'
Paul Hyett, Chair, Ryder HKS International

In 2002 as president of the RIBA I visited Bloemfontein, where I apologised to the South African Institute of Architects for any upset caused by the RIBA’s decision to sever links 30 years earlier. In 1972 Nelson Mandela had served 10 years of his sentence at Robben Island’s penitentiary, and had not yet become the revered statesman who gave South Africa the forgiveness and future that at the time was unimaginable.
(...)

'No'
Robert Adam, Director, Robert Adam Architects

To promote architecture as a primary political activity is naïve and arrogant. Architecture is the servant of society, not its conscience. You cannot judge the quality of architecture as architecture according to who it serves. To so do would be to write off much of the Renaissance — nasty oligarchs, the Medicis — or to damn the constructivists as regicides. It is also very dangerous to try to make professional solidarity a political tool.
(...)

continue reading: http://www.bdonline.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=427&storycode=3088306&c=1&en

ozge

If someone is answering that question “no" I am afraid she is very romantic (!) I wish we could answer that important question "no" but the answer is definitely "yes."
For instance in Europe there is an agreement called; The European Landscape Convention. To contribute countries and to preserve nature and city landscape, it has been accepted. If politics had no power on design, architecture we would not need this kind of procedures.

Anonymous

Every building built is a political act. To ignore this truism is na

beatriz

I agree with you Julian, a definition of architecture as an object defined by its footprint is, to say the least, limited and limiting.

Architecture viewed this way, as sculpture, as an object and a commodity, may serve the interests of architects wanting to place their stamp on the city—a city needs this too—but architecture, limited to these kind of gestures, struggles to be meaningful and to serve the larger society. This is why only 5% of buildings in Australia have had the intervention of an architect. I believe this figure is 15% for the US—not great when compared to other urban traditions such as Germany and Spain among many others.

In the European tradition, architecture is part of a larger notion, the city. Engaging with the interest of the city necessarily requires considering societal needs. Cities are more that forms and space, cites are the embodiment of the social space—cities are therefore political.

While in Australia the role of architecture and therefore of architects is by large restricted to serve those who can afford architecture, this does not have to be the case. We can change this by extending our services to society, by participating in the political discussions that determine the form and culture of our cities—this is political.

We can also lobby to reduce the unjustifiable large footprint of houses, to build quality hospitals, to build more child care centres, to create walkable public spaces (and to connect them by sustainable means), to stop the sale of our architectural/cultural heritage (post offices, hospitals, old schools)—all these are political steps.

Architecture is political

N

Beatriz, that was very well said.

Robert Adam, whose work I am unfamilliar with, would be correct if architects stopped grandstanding and waxing political/theoretical about their buildings. Of course, this will never be the case and I believe that there is no reason for architects/landscape architects/planners/etc to stop making assertions and commentaries on the built environment. If what he believes ends up being put into practice you can pretty much kiss goodbye any sort of history in architecture and theory in architecture. While we're at it how about ditching design too, perhaps the statement made by design is too contentious politically?

I do not mean to be provocative in saying this, but it's about time that all designers took a step back to think about what their own personal beliefs are, and far be it for me to dictate what those beliefs are, because architecture/design as we've seen in this forum is not just a simple act of placing a design upon a site for the sake of it.