Politics of Use

What is critical about Polo’s essay is that he is very attentive to a variety of effects of design decisions and that these are not just about form, shape or morphology, but about the political and social effects of the form choices we make. Because the variety of affects exist in many aspects (technical, cultural, constructional, experiential), the choice of the basic form type is not an easy one. What Polo is attempting to make us aware of is that that choice is not just about architectural effect, construction or tectonics but that we are also determining more difficult conditions and issues.

While I think it’s great that Polo is reminding us that form is significant and not something that should be ignored or left to chance (even though I feel like most of us already value form), I think he gives the physical characteristics of the building much more political and social responsibilities than they really have. Maybe I’m just taking what he’s saying too literally, but I think the use of a building is really what sets up a particular building to have some sort of political or social effect. Obviously, the physical design decisions made will either intensify or lessen the effects of the building, but really the building’s predetermined use determines the effects a building has on society. The form of a car wash and the form of a large scale apartment building don’t have remotely equal effects on society. So, I’m skeptical of Alejandro’s argument.