Dirty Politics in the City
“the
connection between economic and technological changes and the cultural
parallels that come alongside them lies in the possibilities opened by
advancing technologies…those very advances have increased the possibilities of
social manipulation and social control, of manufacturing needs and distorting values,
or maintaining allegiance to an existing system driven by the aggressive
competitive pursuit of wealth and power”
- Peter Marcuse, Beyond the Just
City to the Right to the City
If you’re
anything like me then maybe the quote above made you a little fearful in where
new technologies, politics, and the egos of today are going to take us in the
future! I’m afraid of how prevalent these dirty politics of the city really are
and the effects that they have on the last portion of the class, “Architecture
for whom”. If architecture and the city is truly supposed to be for the user,
how can the user trust that the reactions of those in power are genuine and
just and not full of social manipulation, control, distorted values, competition....ect.
Looking back to participatory architecture I think that it can have a real
effect on the success and longevity of architecture and planning. But what if
these negativities cover up the opportunity for the user to participate in this
portion of the design process? As architects in this situation I think it’s
appropriate to say that ethically we need to be a voice of reason or a voice of
the people. And then hopefully these advancing technologies and political
figures won’t have the opportunity for complete control in stealing the right
to the city.
I think there's a lot of parallels between technology/society relationships and the technology/architect relationship. It's incredibly important for us to stay on top of the technology, that is to say make sure that we are using technology as a tool rather letting the technology define what we can do. I've heard similar arguments against the people who design in Revit and other computer based programs. Don't let the computer define what our buildings look like. Sometimes it seems as though we can just look at a building and realize that it is a "Revit building".
ReplyDeleteI also ask myself these questions all the time. My experience with the political influence in our profession was negative. As an architect, I did not find a way to overcome it. Only working as a strategist, not as a designer, it was possible in my experience (by the way my post this week is about one of my experiences). I am really afraid that the same will happen with design/technologies and humans/technologies, as any technologies are actually just the instruments of power nowadays.
ReplyDeleteThis is a really god point, but I think it also assumes that architects have the perfect solution if only people would listen. You're right to point back to a participatory architecture where we minimize our unintended biases and make sure that we actually build to help, not just to build.
ReplyDelete