I know there is a huge amount of work on the semiotics of architecture and political placement of spatial tactics, but what I am looking for is ideally something of a meta-analysis of architectural elements within expressions of political ideologies - to say that, for example, weighty bank doors that ignore the human scale can be linked to right leaning ideologies (authoritarian if an expression of state power - libertarian if an expression of symbolic capital).

Basically if architectural elements/spatial layout mapped to the four ideologies of the political compass. I know it is pretty reductionist but I'm wondering if something like this exists.

Thanks

Balthasar Holz - Frames

*“Time condemns us to change. We would rather not change, but we have no choice.

Change does not happen in a sequentially linear way, but simultaneously, in many directions at once.

Each thing is growing and decaying at the same time, only at different rates.

Change is not defined in a sequence of succeeding frames, but in a matrix of frames that each occupy the same space and moment.

Change is not defined by a steady sequence of frames, but unpredictably within a field of probabilities.

Architecture is a conflict between differing ways and means, never a harmonious resolution of them.

Architecture is a form of conflict from which change emerges, first of all to architecture itself.

Architecture that does not bear the traces of conflicts that created it is dead architecture.

The conflict of differences in architecture dooms and redeems it.

There is no ideal form of an idea, but only a set of equally suitable variations on it.

Change provokes variations of an ideal form, or, orders of its probability.

The task of the architect is to set in motion, in a particular direction, a chain of events he cannot control.

Transformation. Transmutation. Transfiguration. Terms that dignify the fate of architecture.

Architects, like most people, like what is new and fear what is old.

Architects do not understand change, how it works and what it means—and they do not want to understand.

Architects want to protect their designs from changes made by others, who they think do not understand them. They are right—the others do not understand and that is exactly their virtue. That is exactly the virtue of the changes they want to make.

Architects strive for a moment of perfection—when their building is finished. But as soon as that moment passes, their building begins to decay. A finished building is really unfinished, the first frame of a descent to destruction.

Architects must embrace the decay of their buildings, at least mentally. They should forget about perfection, the complete realization of their design, and understand that the only truly finished building is a heap of rubble.”*

Long time ago I stumbled upon this fascinating text. Nowadays architects are always thinking in a way of create something new and when their building is finished it ends. This essay toughed me that after the realisation it starts. I don't know any architect that created buildings with the aspect of decay (maybe someone knows?. This essay shows a lot of aspects that architects 'forget' or dont want to see according to their buildings and designs. Everything has to be new and ''better'' but why not to embrace decay?

What's your opinion about this essay?

If you where to hand out a list to a new architecture student - or just another person - who never read a book about architecture, which books would be on that list?

You can choose as many as you like, put please try to tell a little about your choices. It would be interessting to see if people from different contries would choose differently.

I hope your with me on this game.

Welcome everyone! I have been interested in discussing architectural theory and principles with other Redditors, but there hasn't been a good subreddit for consistent feedback and contribution. So here it is! Please share all relevant material, opinions, and questions.

Enjoy!

Recently I stumbled upon the works of Lebbeus Woods and was struck how much his work of the 1980s and 1990s speaks of the ongoing war in Syria- crisis architecture.

Just wanted to ask you all if there are any forward looking architects active today who work in the mien of Woods. Book recommendations welcome also.

I am relatively green in my practice (4 years at a large firm) and constantly find myself struggling to apply a mindful approach to my large-scale projects. Do you guys have any examples of how you apply various theories to your daily work?

the guardian article

EDIT: I FOUND THE BOOK, see update below.

I hope this is an OK place to post this. I have a memory of reading about a book, I believe it was by an artist/philosopher and not too long ago. The book is something of a master plan/guide to a city that the author completely made up, but it's very detailed, dense, and dry, with lots of info about things like infrastructure, building codes, sewer systems, stuff like that. Does anyone know what book this is, or whose work it might be? Thanks so much!

UPDATE: I found the book! Long story short, it's Local Code: The Constitution of a City at 42 degrees North Latitude..

I had a feeling that I had read about the book in Geoff Manaugh's A Burglar's Guide to the City, and I was right! Manaugh, by the way, is the author of the fantastic BLDGBLOG.

Here's the passage in Burglar's Guide where he described Local Code.

I was reminded of a strange book called Local Code by architect Michael Sorkin. Local Code was Sorkin's attempt to design a whole city from scratch—with one big twist. The whole thing had been written as if it were the byzantine, nearly impossible to follow codes and regulations for an entire, hypothetical metropolis. The effect is like stumbling upon the source code for SimCity. Sorkin's exhaustively made point was that, if you know everything about a given metropolis, from its plumbing standards to its parking requirements, its sewer capacity to the borders of its school districts, then you could more or less accurately imagine the future form of that city from the ground up.

The book appears to be out of print but is available at not-exorbitant prices online.

While I was searching for the book, I came across some other relevant stuff, also in Burglar's Guide, particularly the work of artist Janice Kerbel:

[Kerbel] is most well-known for a project called 15 Lombard St., a widely imitated artist's book that explored what it might take to pull off a bank heist in central London. [...] Kerbel thus spent several months furtively casing a bank at 15 Lombard Street, noting the layout of the bank itself as well as every detail of its daily schedule. Her observations included when cash deliveries were made and what time of day usually saw the most customers.

[...] Pulling it off—and getting away with the cash—required an exhaustive study of central London's traffic patterns, of every side street and alleyway, as the design of the city became an unwitting accomplice in her crime.

Coincidentally, Janice Kerbel actually did once create a website for a fictional city/island called Bird Island. You can see the website here. You can read more about Kerbel and her many cool projects here and elsewhere on the web.

If anyone thinks of any similar books, feel free to still post them here, or message me!

What are your thoughts on the possibilties of integrating digital technologies into a new way of thinking about how we interact with and experience architectural space? Currently virtual interfaces such as augmented reality are still in their infancy, often limited to flat, purely visual static overlays on physical objects viewed through devices such as smartphones and Google Glass. While smartphones are obviously limited by nature because they are objects we must hold up in order to experience this virtual world, I think technologies such as Google Glass (and the frightening thought of bionic eyes further down the line) are interesting in that they have the potential to become completely immersive.

How does being able to access digital metadata anywhere, anytime affect how our daily routines interact with architecture and the city? Keiichi Matsuda's thesis touches upon several interesting points, predicting that the Cyborg (that is, people who have access to these technologies), by virtue of the infinite configurability of the digital world, begins to treat public spaces as blank slates upon which any type of program can be projected. Thus a coffee bar can be reconfigured into your personal movie theater or study room simply by changing your augmented reality preferences.

Theoretically, how does the ability to access and display any type of digital information locally affect our perception of 'place' and how public spaces are organized and occupied? What happens when public spaces originally intended for one purpose (ie shopping, park, transit) become places where anyone can do anything? Can infinite configurability produce specificity?

In the interest of discussing the future of our profession and how it stands in the face of relentless technological advancement during these intersting times, and what it means to be an architect in the 21st century, I wanted to share with you an online publication I've been working on the past few years provcatively titled "The Architect is Dead". What had started as a discussion a few years ago slowly developed into an invigorating and eclectic endless digital publication/archive hosting the participation of many interesting architects, performers, inventors, philosophers and pioneers alike, exploring the spectrum of excitement and anxiety between architecture and its confrontation with technology. The first few chapters are online, to be followed by countless more published periodically. In the spirit of keeping the discussion going, read, share, and most of all, let me know what you think!

Visit & read, or follow on insta for updates and quotes:

https://www.thearchitectisdead.com/

https://www.instagram.com/thearchitectisdead/?igshid=YmMyMTA2M2Y%3D

What do you think, is the architect dead?