A critique of the new 'social architecture' debate: Moving beyond localism, developmentalism and aesthetics

Authors: Nina Gribat and Sandra Meireis
Year: 2017 (published online January 25, 2018 in City, Vol. 21, No. 6, pp. 779-788)
Source type: article
Raw file: raw/articles/gribat-meireis-2017-critique-social-architecture-debate.md

Summary

Gribat and Meireis critique the emergent "social architecture" debate that has gained prominence through exhibitions like MoMA's "Small Scale, Big Change" (2010) and various publications (Architecture for Humanity, Lepik, Feireiss). The debate rests on proclamations of a crisis in architecture — that it has "placed itself too much in the service of economic and political interests and has had too little regard for social concerns" — and calls for architects to adopt more "people-centred" approaches building for marginalized populations. The authors identify three problematic claims: (1) that small interventions can have wider social effects; (2) that the debate establishes global scope through problematic representations of rapid urbanization and poverty; (3) that aesthetics plays a central but underexamined role. They argue the debate needs to move "beyond localism, developmentalism and aesthetics" by giving up "the fixations on projects and on the power of architects to change the world."

Key Claims

• Social architecture debate emergence: "In recent years, the emergence of a new 'social architecture' has been celebrated in several high-profile exhibitions such as 'Small Scale, Big Change' at the Museum of Modern Art (MoMA), NYC in 2010 and in a range of publications."

• Perceived crisis: "The new social architecture debate rests on a perceived crisis of the design professions—a widespread loss of relevance—which is mainly portrayed as homemade: 'architecture [...] has placed itself too much in the service of economic and political interests and has had too little regard for social concerns' (Lepik 2010, 12)."

• Exclusivity complex: The resulting "'exclusivity complex' (Feireiss 2011) of architecture is epitomised by the rise of so-called 'starchitects' (Lepik 2011) and an increasing detachment from social concerns."

• Naive assumption: "Inherent in this is the belief that architects can 'do good' and improve living conditions by merely designing and building good projects for the right kinds of people. This in itself is a rather limiting and naive assumption, which has been critiqued outside and inside of architecture for decades."

• What makes projects 'social' (three aspects):

  1. Design process: "participatory approaches are favoured in which the future users are asked to contribute to the design process"
  2. Materials/construction: "projects mostly rely on local materials and (neo-vernacular) methods of construction that are considered sustainable and that allow for the involvement, training or employment of local people as (often low-skilled) builders"
  3. Design/aesthetics: "this preference for local materials and neo-vernacular construction methods translates into an endorsement of sensible, down-to-earth and seemingly more authentic approaches"

• Fleeting historical references: "In the new social architecture debate, fleeting references are made to debates from the 1960s to 1970s... such as on self-help housing (Turner 1972, 1976), advocacy planning (Davidoff 1965) or vernacular building traditions (Fathy 1973). However, the social architecture debate does not respond to the intricacies of the arguments in these older debates, or to the critiques that have been developed subsequently."

• Three critiques developed:

  1. Small scale—big change: Examines claim that small-scale interventions can contribute to wider social change
  2. Developmentalism: Analyzes how rapid urbanization and informal urban growth are portrayed, showing projects symbolize development while wider power relations remain unaddressed
  3. Aesthetics: Explores how questions of design and aesthetics are addressed, questioning whether design should limit itself to form-giving practices

• Localism critique: "In the urban studies literature, the question of how social change can be achieved has been discussed controversially, in particular with reference to the potentials of small-scale interventions or activities on the local scale in contexts of urban neo-liberalisation." Different approaches range from highlighting local as potential "'trap'" (Purcell 2006) to emphasizing it as tangible sphere for "deep democracy" (Appadurai 2001).

• Participation ambivalences: "In the context of neo-liberalisation the ambivalences connected to community participation in public service provision have been accentuated. Processes of outsourcing state service provision to civil society can, for instance, undermine emancipatory ideals of participation such as potentials for self-determination." Participatory design "runs the risk of being similarly complicit with neo-liberalisation."

• Makeshift urbanism: "Despite these ambivalences, it has been pointed out that urban interventions, even if temporally limited and rather small in scale, can exploit the cracks of mainstream patterns of urban development and contribute to a 'makeshift urbanism' (Tonkiss 2013)." However, "tangible social effects remain far from clear."

• Makeshift politics: "'These makeshift urban strategies have less to do with countering austerity urbanism via a "frontal politics of transformation". [...] Rather, they are concerned with the politics and practice of such incursions in material space, the possibilities they open up and the forms of sociality they might entail'" (Tonkiss 2013, 313).

• Developmentalism problem: Social architecture debate portrays projects as symbolizing development "whereas wider power relations remain unaddressed." Uses critiques of developmentalism to understand problems in representations of rapid urbanization, poverty, and urban upgrading.

• Aesthetics question: Authors use literature from architecture that asks "whether design should limit itself to form-giving practices" to critique how aesthetics is addressed in the debate.

• Core argument: "Our argument questions whether projects are the right currency to make claims to the social in the social architecture debate. We highlight the need for a more radical rethinking of architectural practices in such debates to either address the social more fully or not make such wide claims."

• Pragmatism vs. programmatic: Projects aim "'to change spatially defined situations through tangible architectural means and plans, irrespective of political conditions. Compared with their historical predecessors, these new approaches prove to be more pragmatic than programmatic'" (Lepik 2013b, 8).

• Wider effects still envisaged: Despite proclaimed pragmatism, wider effects are still expected. In description of Red Location Museum of Struggle (South Africa): "despite not being able to solve poverty and other overarching problems the museum is still envisaged to eventually 'improve living conditions for all residents'."

Connections

Debates: critical-vs-projective
Related source notes: sklair-2006-iconic-architecture-capitalist-globalization, jones-2009-putting-architecture-social-place

Direct Quotes

"Architecture [...] has placed itself too much in the service of economic and political interests and has had too little regard for social concerns." — Lepik

"Inherent in this is the belief that architects can 'do good' and improve living conditions by merely designing and building good projects for the right kinds of people. This in itself is a rather limiting and naive assumption."

"Our argument questions whether projects are the right currency to make claims to the social in the social architecture debate. We highlight the need for a more radical rethinking of architectural practices in such debates to either address the social more fully or not make such wide claims."

"These makeshift urban strategies have less to do with countering austerity urbanism via a 'frontal politics of transformation'. [...] Rather, they are concerned with the politics and practice of such incursions in material space, the possibilities they open up and the forms of sociality they might entail." — Tonkiss

Open Questions

• How does the critique of "social architecture" relate to Johnson's critique of Koolhaas/CCTV — are both critiques of architecture claiming social/political effects while actually serving power?
• What is the relationship between "makeshift urbanism" and de Certeau's "tactics" — both operate in cracks of dominant systems, but do they differ in political ambition?
• Does the social architecture debate's focus on Global South projects replicate colonial dynamics that the wiki's postcolonial architecture critique (Sklair, Vale) identifies?
• How does the "participatory design runs risk of being complicit with neo-liberalisation" finding connect to Bourdieu's field theory (Jones 2009) — is participation a form of recasting economic imperatives as social ones?