In this issue of ATR, we present a wide-ranging, far-reaching set of papers that each, one way or another, is in conversation with discussions that have become long-standing in the pages of the journal. Papers pick up the themes of “Terms and Conditions” (ATR 26, no. 1, 2022), edited by Maren Koehler and Jasper Ludewig; “Cosmopolitanism’s Others” (ATR 26, no. 3, 2022), edited by Eunice Seng and Jiat Hwee Chang; as well as “The Architectural Model as Tool, Medium, and Agent for Change” (ATR 24, no. 3, 2020), edited by Matthew Mindrup and Matthew Wells—in this case by one of that issue’s co-editors.
This issue begins with Alberto Franchini’s reconsideration of “participation” in the work and legacy of Giancarlo De Carlo. Franchini examines De Carlo’s post-war writings and projects to identify his social and political ambitions. Through this analysis, Franchini traces the expansion of De Carlo’s conception of participation and argues for its centrality in understanding his post-war oeuvre, while also arguing against a monolithic idea of the concept for which De Carlo is most well known.
From De Carlo’s Italy we move to a pair of papers that consider the modern architecture of the Arab world, spanning from the turn of the twentieth century to the post-war era as a regional history, and on to the specific case of Kuwait into the 1960s. Nadi Abusaada documents the “first milieu of trained Arab architects” in Palestine, Syria, Lebanon and Egypt in the first half of the twentieth century. This addresses a lacuna in architectural scholarship, which has, he argues, historically focused “on the legacies of colonial architects and planners in shaping Middle Eastern cities and built environments.” Shifting from the Middle East generally to the specific case of Kuwait, Dalal Musaed Alsayer and Ricardo Camacho in their paper identify the role of the Arab architect-engineers, the muhandis, in the modernisation of Kuwait in the 1960s, a period within which “a distinctly local architecture emerged.” This period was marked by a collaborative approach to architectural authorship, that ended with the award of the new Kuwait National Assembly Building project to Jørn Utzon in the 1970s. (Abusaada’s paper is properly read in the context of the special issue “Cosmopolitanism’s Others,” in which it originally figured.)
Turning next to Japan, and an older point of reference, Michael Fowler provides a novel reading of the Geppa-rō tea pavilion at Katsura Rikyū, Kyoto. Borrowing from David Bohm’s Wholeness and the Implicate Order (2002), and through a careful reading of historical literature, Fowler argues for an understanding of Geppa-rō based on the “unfolding” of its architecture, and the “enfolding” of its landscape.
Then on to Melbourne, where David Beynon, Freya Su, and Van Krisadawat discuss “diverse diasporas from the Global South” and their implications for the suburb of Springvale. They ask, how are notions of cosmopolitanism “geographically reinterpreted” through the settlement of refugees and migrants in Australian suburbs? In answering this question, they identify the transformation of geographically suburban peripheries into centres of “local cosmopolitanism.”
Returning to an Australian case through the lens of the issue he co-edited in 2020, Matthew Mindrup asks, how did the “affective transition” of scale architectural models lead to the shift from them being “a medium of contemplation” to an “object of consumption”? Drawing from Jean Baudrillard’s conception of the “perpetual flight” of consumer objects from technological to cultural systems, Mindrup explains how a scale architectural model in the hands of a Santa Claus—as in the cover image for the 1945 Christmas issue of Australian Home Beautiful—becomes a sign for the “Australian Dream” of home ownership.
Finally, in a timely meditation on economic paradigms of housing, Jesse Honsa reflects on the question of how architects have “historically engaged” with “economies of scale” in the context of land for housing. From eighteenth-century cottages to garden cities, and from Fordism to post-war liberalism, he traces movements that have sought to redefine conceptions of “value” in housing.
Rounding out this issue are reviews of Adesola Akinleye’s Dance, Architecture and Engineering (2021) and the volume edited by Ashley Paine, Susan Holden and John Macarthur, Valuing Architecture: Heritage and the Economics of Culture (2020). Of the former, Franz Anton Cramer writes how Akinleye draws from her experience as a dancer and choreographer to interrogate “the various levels of embodiment at play both in her own practice,” as well as in architecture, urbanism, and engineering. Of the latter book, James Lesh reflects on the examination offered across its fourteen chapters of “how social and cultural practices produce value for architecture,” writing of its contribution to the “shared mission” of redefining the “theoretical and practical frames” through which cities and places are understood.
In closing this editorial introduction, we would like to announce that Andrew Leach and Jasper Ludewig, in their respective roles in the ATR editorial group, are now joined by two additional editors, improving our collective capacity to respond well to the many submissions we receive each month. A hearty welcome to Maren Koelher, an academic fellow at the University of Sydney, and a welcome return to Lee Stickells, also at Sydney, to our efforts. This year we continue to be supported by Jason Dibbs, and likewise welcome Anna Li and Miriam Osburn as editorial assistants. This reconfiguration of the journal’s management will shortly extend to a review of its editorial board, which was last refreshed a decade ago. We look forward to further updates in a future editorial.
Disclosure Statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).