“An Architecture of change”

Review of “An Architecture of change”

Gamez and Rogerd state that we are now in the post critical and post political age, the new age after postmodernism. The authors warn of this current situation where current architects tend to be politically blind. I agree that the field of architecture tends to separate from the field of politics. However, I guess it is not because architects have become politically blind but architects intend to make architecture free from power. I think this attitude is a critic against modernism which have strong connection with politics. For example, the public housing projects and urban planning in modernism had strong connections with political aim and it has failed. 

Gamez and Rogerd’s points out that current architecture does not contribute in real issues except for a few rich people who are only 2% of the population. For the improvement of this situation, the authors think that the field of architecture needs new theories that can transform architectural practice into the societal and political fields. I think it is necessary to engage with societal field but not sure with politics. The political project in architecture has already disappeared from main stream architecture. Why we now need to engage with politics?

I agree with the authors’ opinion that academia has important roles in filtering the idea or movement. So I think it is very variable to seek the ways in which architectural academy may engage with existing world issues. I believe that the field of architecture has possibility to contribute in solving or reducing issues but have not work well yet.

Gamez, Josel, S. and Rogers, Susan. “An Architecture of Change”.  Expanding Architecture: Design as activism. ed. Bell, Bryan and Wakeford, Katie. New York: Metropolis books, 2008: PP18-24.