We can't just talk about buildings

Several of the readings we have been looking at for the past couple weeks have focused on the inevitable link between a people and the built environment--it's quite clear that the built environment has effects on the way people live, and conversely that people in turn design and build that environment. In particular it recalls for me the famous J. J. Rousseau quote: "Man is born free, but is everywhere in chains."--referring, of course, to this tendency we have to invent our own social and political bindings. Now on the one hand, restrictions don't sound very nice, but on the other, I don't think any of us would dare propose abolishing all the restrictions architects deal with regularly--even if adjustment may be called for.

Perhaps the most interesting connection then is the built environment's reflection of the society--the best examples here showed up in the "Insurgent Public Space", I think, in discussion how different government types tend to use public space, and the changing use and location of public space reflect changes in political life. So for those of us with a lot of negative criticism for specific buildings and movements--where did that design come from? What does it say about us, for example, that Lee III is too white?

Soja mentioned John Rawls justice. While I don't think he intended that anyone dwell on that for more than a moment, it's an interesting idea to think of architecture from the "original position"--what would our designs look like if we were stripped from our own culture and experience, designing for someone with a completely unknown culture and experience? I'm not sure if we'd see something more along the lines of critical regionalism or more towards the Aravenas hyper-liberty approach--or maybe something else?