A critique of the new ‘social architecture’ debate

Abstract

In recent years, a new ‘social architecture’ debate has emerged within the discipline of architecture. This debate is based on proclamations of a crisis of architecture and design. It calls on architects to adopt a more ‘people-centred’ approach and give up their reliance on an ever more exclusive market. The debate is founded on a range of selected architectural projects, which are thought to epitomise this new social architecture: improving the living conditions of marginalised parts of the population all around the world. In this paper, we critique some of the claims of the social architecture debate by bringing them into dialogue with different fields of literature from urban and planning studies and also from within architecture. Firstly, we examine the founding idea of the debate that small interventions can have wider social effects; secondly, we analyse how the debate establishes its claims to a global scope; thirdly, we explore the central role aesthetics plays in the debate. Our aim is to not only reveal some of the shortcomings of the social architecture debate, but to indicate directions of how it could be developed further in a more reflective manner, for instance, in giving up the fixations on projects and on the power of architects to change the world.

Key words:

• social architecture
• architecture
• design
• makeshift urbanism
• developmentalism
• localism
• aesthetics

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

1 Selected exhibitions include: ‘Design for the Other 90%’—Cooper Hewitt, Smithsonian Design Museum, NYC, 2007; ‘Small Scale, Big Change’—Museum of Modern Art (MoMA), NYC, 2010; ‘Testify! The Consequences of Architecture’—Netherlands Architecture Institute (NAi), Rotterdam, 1 July–13 November 2011; ‘Think Global, Build Social!’—German Architecture Museum (DAM), Frankfurt/M., 2013; ‘Afritecture’—Technical University München, 2014; ‘Architecture of Independence—African Modernism’ and ‘Making Africa—A Continent of Contemporary Design’, both Vitra Design Museum, spring 2015.

2 The debate has been largely produced by a small group of individuals and institutions based in Europe and North America. It has gained some popularity in the disciplines of design and architecture. The social architecture debate is far from being coherent, even if our examinations may suggest otherwise because of our focus on three selected and rather common issues in the debate. In practice contexts, which we do not examine here, the tensions inherent in different understandings of social architecture employed by architects, clients and community members tend to come to the fore (Jones and Card 2011).

3 To give an idea of the diversity of projects based on which the arguments of the new social architecture debate are made, we are providing a list of the projects of the ‘Small Scale, Big Change’ Exhibition at MoMA, NYC, 2010: Primary School in Gando, Burkina Faso, designed by Diébédo; Quinta Monroy Housing in Iquique, Chile, designed by Elemental; Inner-City Arts in Los Angeles, designed by Michael Maltzan Architecture; METI-Handmade School in Rudrapur, Bangladesh, designed by Anna Heringer and Eike Roswag; Casa Familia: Living Rooms at the Border and Senior Housing with Childcare in San Isidro, California, designed by Estudio Teddy Cruz; Housing for the Fishermen in Tyre, Lebanon, designed by Hashim Sarkis A.L.U.D.; $20K House VIII (Dave's House) in Newbern, Alabama, designed by Rural Studio, Auburn University; Metrocable in Caracas, Venezuela, designed by Urban-Think Tank; Manguinhos Complex in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, designed by Jorge Mario Jáuregui; Red Location Museum of Struggle in Port Elizabeth, South Africa, designed by Noero Wolff Architects; Transformation of Tour Bois-le-Prêtre in Paris, France, designed by Frédéric Druot, Anne Lacaton and Jean Philippe Vassal (see http://www.moma.org/interactives/exhibitions/2010/smallscalebigchange/index.html).

4 The notions of Global North and South refer to what have also been labelled ‘developed countries’ or ‘the First World’ and ‘developing countries’ or ‘the Third World’. These notions are problematic due to their implicit assumptions of homogeneity across different categories. However, Global North and South offer the least worst fit denoting differences between formerly colonising and postcolonial powers.

5 It is important to note that we do not assume that this uniformity adequately represents the different ways in which each of the projects was developed. The fact that these are not shown highlights that these differences were of no central concern for the editors and curators.

6 There have been numerous historical starting points of challenging universal modernist aesthetics, for instance, in analysing local building techniques and self-help housing (Rudofsky 1964; Turner 1976). The social architecture debate partly builds on these historical achievements, but fails to take the aesthetic challenges a few steps further: what are the qualities of contemporary architecture without architects? What does contemporary housing by the people look like? How do these building practices challenge conventional aesthetics nowadays?

7 This resonates with historical ideas that architecture, as the built environment, has a direct effect on humans and that it can educate people (e.g. Wichert [1928]2012).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Nina Gribat

Nina Gribat is professor of design and urbanism at the Department of Architecture, TU Darmstadt.

Sandra Meireis

Sandra Meireis is a researcher for architecture theory at the Institut für Architektur at TU Berlin. Email: [email protected]