Architecture and Politics

It’s interesting, to me, to consider the relationship of the political world and the built environment. On one hand, architects, historically working for the rich and powerful, obviously have had invested interest in maintaining the powers that be. On the other, political overthrow and regime changes often require “new architectures”, new styles and symbols to replace the old and embellish the new. They offer the perfect environment for architecture again to be daring and different. All that is very nice, but I think what’s also incredibly interesting is how some politically driven architectures slip through the crack of time. Buildings of times past now are required to operate in completely different societies and cultures, good or bad. I think of Marion Square in Charleston, and the Citadel. Historically the square was organized and planned in such a way to function as political intimidation. Each day troops would march out the Citadel, circle the square, and reinforce the military power of the government, primarily in response to some of the deadliest slave uprisings in American history. Today, however, Marion Square functions beautifully as one of the most successful, in my opinion, and activated public spaces in Charleston. The political regime has changed… culture and society has changed… there’s been some instillations within the park and of course the bordering structure have evolved, but the political gesture from way back when is still in tact. It’s now an appropriated space, after so many years the story behind Marion Square may not be known to all. The same can be said about the boulevards in Paris. So, however politically charged we may feel a piece of architecture is, we can all rest easy at night knowing the eventually it’ll be lost and re-appropriated. Perhaps space grows with culture hand in hand, and any resistance is futile.