The Limits of Social Architecture: The Tension Between Aims and Actions

Holden, Samuel ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5019-6476 (2023) The Limits of Social Architecture: The Tension Between Aims and Actions. ARQ: Architectural Research Quarterly. ISSN 1359-1355 (In Press)

Preview

Accepted Version Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial No Derivatives. Download (335kB) | Preview

Abstract

The resurgence of the word ‘social’ in architecture has been defined as an emergent opposition to the increasingly anti-social and uneven reproduction of the urban. Those engaged with social architecture form a broadly left-wing group who intervene and build in the urban realm as part of this opposition. The term social architecture, as used here, builds upon Kaminer’s ‘participatory movement’ and the usage of ‘social architecture’ in an increasing number of literatures. Kaminer used the ‘participatory movement’ to define the group that “emerged a few years after the anti-globalization movement consolidated in the 1999 protests in Seattle, motivated by the desire to re-establish architectural efficacy in the realm of politics.” Due to its diversity, Kaminer notes this group is difficult to define, explaining how phrases including ‘Tactical Urbanism’, ‘Everyday Urbanism’, ‘Guerrilla Urbanism’, and ‘DIY Urbanism’ have all previously been used but have failed to encompass the movement because they only highlight specific aspects and so do not encompass the whole. This is also true of Kaminer’s definition, as not all the members are inherently participatory, which is why the term social architecture is used here. In this way, social architecture serves to encompass all these terms to a broader, or lesser, degree.