Politics and Architecture
I find the relationship between politics, the economy, society, and architecture very interesting. In a lot of countries, all of these seem to be related to one another and sometimes out of balance. In Spain, Venezuela, and many other countries, there are “urban skeletons”, as Santi puts it, found throughout the city. These unfinished buildings are often residential buildings or private property that were either expropriated by the government or forced to be abandoned and to stop construction on them due to the lack of credit of civilians to be able to afford these places. On the other hand, the same government and institutions, that influence inflation and unemployment, spend their funds on bettering their own real estate and buildings, creating a bigger discrepancy in social classes. This to me seems like an endless cycle that is destructive to society. Besides creating a discrepancy between social classes, this same situation creates a discrepancy in the suburbs of cities. Governments often spend most of their money on improving the infrastructure of the big cities in their country while neglecting the suburban more rural places. People in these places also want to have a life and a place in which they can live, go to work, and go out to the store or mall without having to travel or move all the way to a city.
These scenarios make me ask myself the following questions: Would involving people in the construction of the city make them feel happier? Would it help solve crisis moments since the citizens know the root of the problems? Could this end social inequality and major differences between social classes? Have people lost their say on what makes their city?
I'm interested in your second question, "Would it help solve crisis moments since citizens know the root of the problems?". This goes back to some of the conversations that we had in class about citizen power but just on a larger scale. While I am a huge proponent of community involvement I think it's important to remember that every "crisis moment" will have different factions with different opinions. As Harvey stated in this weeks reading, "How we view the world and define possibilities depends on which side of the tracks we are on and to what kinds of consumerism we have access to". I think that negotiating the communal right to the city absolutely necessary but how we achieve that is incredibly complicated and undiscovered at this point.
ReplyDeleteThis post for me conjures the feeling of an unfair advantage. The government seems to participate as both referee and player in this game of society. To boot, they have a monopoly on violence, enforcing the rules to benefit them whenever it is suitable. While I have deemed the gov. "they" the entity is comprised of a group of people with agendas, idea, and influence. As of 2022 there a no architects or architectural designers as members of the house of representatives or senate. Leading me to the conclusion that the government is severely lacking in its representation of a group of people who's sole function is to protect the public realm through the built environment. Without this crucial representation, how does an ordinary citizen navigate all the nuances within architecture "proper" along with the governmental control over the built environment like the highway system. I think you're correct in pointing out that there is a conflict of interest and a cyclical process that seems to lead us nowhere.
ReplyDeleteThaly,
ReplyDeleteIt is fascinating to take a step back from design and realize how much architecture impacts the politics of a given city. I found Santiago Cirugeda’s documentary to be insightful, particularly the opening scene where a massive bank tower is being erected in the background of an abandoned and decrepit housing project. This scene does a fantastic job of articulating Santi’s argument, and what you have explained in your post. Regarding your first question, I believe community involvement in design would solve many of society’s problems concerning the built environment. Not only would it give a sense of ownership, but as seen through Santi’s work, it is also an effective way to circumvent the government when you don’t agree with their decisions.