Public Space and the Privatised State

Any presentation of architectural work carries with it the danger of misrepresentation. A narrow focus gives what is perhaps the most fundamental misrepresentation, that of architecture as an object in itself, of design as creation ex nihilo. I find this tendency worryingly prevalent at this moment; perhaps the best that can be said is that this delusion provides some consolation to architects struggling in conditions far from this ‘ideal’. The broadest range is for the most part constituted by abstract narratives of transnational tendencies, or national stereotypes: the simplifications involved in this approach are of little assistance in understanding the complex dynamics of the climate in which building activity takes place.

Every act of building is a partial transformation of a signifying environment, whose socially negotiated topography has accreted over a long period. It is precisely for this reason that emotional responses to new buildings are so strong: parallel to the near-violent physical disruption engendered by the process of construction, a building once completed constitutes an alteration to the familiar world of countless people, redefining boundaries and altering self-images of a social community. Sometimes the social dimension of the change enacted through building is consciously willed; at other times, this is the by-product of narrower interests. In all cases, the architect works on contested ground, helping to promote conscious change or simply displaying the symptoms of an unreflected process.

download article (163 Kb)