It is the architect's fault!

“Political, social and economic factors shape architecture; the question is whether architecture can in turn alter the distribution of power.”

“The fenestration pattern in a building’s façade has psychological and symbolic connotations and has been historically attached to political representations.”

I think the text “The Politics of the Envelope” by Alejandro Zaera Polo has several really rich points that I agree and disagree with for many different reasons. However, regarding the envelope of a building, I many times in life reflected about the intentions and results of a symbolic meaning whether it was a building design or a speech. In linguistics this is known as the emblematic dilemma between the meaning and significance. I wonder what went wrong with the Pruitt–Igoe project, or a housing project in Brazil that turned into a favela (like Cidade de Deus, for example). Were the architects involved with these projects really totally responsible for the results? 

In many topics today, profit dictates the outcome, and it seems that anything can be sold. I look at how car dealerships use the word “eco” as a marketing strategy, while the car is still being moved by  large combustible engine. Or food markets using the word “organic," when most of these foods come from overseas where unhealthy pesticides may be allowed.

To me, an ideology or a symbolic meaning of the envelope of a building is one more product to be consumed as in the car or food industry (referring to Marx). In an environment where profit is the only elements to be achieved, it seems that an architect has little power to change any politics. I think architects can effect change when people recognize and embrace the intentions of the designs.

Cidade de Deus in the 70's

Cidade de Deus recently

“History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce.” Karl Marx