Influences of architecture: Marxism and capitalism

Published: 2020-05-14 03:06:03
9338 words
34 pages
printer Print
essay essay

Category: Architecture

Type of paper: Essay

This essay has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work written by our professional essay writers.

Hey! We can write a custom essay for you.

All possible types of assignments. Written by academics


Section 1: Introduction
Section 2: Marxist LITERATURE REVIEW

Manfredo Tafuri
Ira Katznelson
David Harvey
Frederic Jameson
Modernism & A ; Architecture
Postmodernism & A ; Architecture


The Present State of the Development Industry in the United Kingdom ( I ) Politics & A ; Government

( two ) Society & A ; Culture

Conscience & A ; the Development Industry
Sustainable Development & A ; Social Sustainability


Globalization & A ; the Architect
Visual Training & A ; the Architect
Changing Functions: The Architect as ‘Problem Solver’

Section 5: Decision – ARCHITECTS OF THE FUTURE
Section 1: Introduction
Socially lay waste toing, visually gorgeous, is a orderly encapsulation of the chief quandary for a 21st century designer. This designer is assailed by two contesting force per unit areas. On one side, he is cognizant that the most outstanding and stylish manner of modern-day architecture promotes glamourous and glitzy designs that bewilder the oculus and imaginativeness. On the other side, he observes that such architecture betrays a straitening deficiency of societal and cultural consciousness, and so exalts manner over substance. The British development industry favors such modern-day architecture and with its tremendous power and influence it exerts much force per unit area upon designers to conform to this manner – no affair what the societal deductions. Consecutive authoritiess excessively have been complicit in this displacement off from socially-minded development towards that which is externally arresting but inwardly waste. This thesis so is an scrutiny of the assorted force per unit areas and influences that circle about and imperativeness upon the modern designer. It observes and analyses excessively the altering function of designers from ‘form-providers’ to their present position as ‘problem-solvers’ .
The causes of these influences and developments of the architect’s function are to be found in the economic and cultural surroundings of the 2nd half of the 20th century. Thus this essay, by an analysis of the available literature, makes an scrutiny of the economic and societal events that have led to our present world-view, and so to the peculiar influences upon the modern designer. These events and theories centre upon the alterations to systems of capitalist economy and to the corresponding Marxist readings that have been given to them. For this, the work of bookmans such as David Harvey, Manfredo Tafuri, Ira Katznelson, Frederic Jameson and others are discussed at length. The thoughts of these writers lead to a treatment of postmodernism as the predominating spirit of our age, and of the alterations brought postmodernism upon our societies by and large and upon the designer in peculiar. This thesis briefly analyses the two main architectural manners that have emerged in this century in the context of these cultural turbulences: Modernism ( or Internationalism ) and Postmodernism. Globalization excessively is examined as a powerful recent phenomenon that exerts new force per unit areas upon the 21st century designer. In footings of architecture, the branchings of capital motions and postmodernism have produced a manner that is visually breath-taking but which consequences in societal ossification. Societies are ignored in the considerations of modern developments and this has contributed to their prostration. Built-in to this treatment is an scrutiny of province and attitudes of the British development industry and its relationship with the authorities. Finally, the treatment turns to the ocular prejudices in the preparation of modern-day designers and the demand for a re-orientation and re-balance of this preparation towards one that stresses the societal and economic effects of an architect’s work. Here, the demand for sustainable development that is compliant with societal sustainability is shown to be critical.
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

( 1 )Introduction

Contemporary or postmodern architecture is the phenomenon of a universe that is dominated by the motions, developments and vicissitudes of capital and of capitalist economic systems. A planetary economic system has meant that national authoritiess have small opposition to the force per unit areas of planetary markets and tendencies, and are normally obliged to reform their national economic systems to follow with the planetary economic system if they are to stay competitory. In footings of architecture, capitalist economy and globalisation mean that developments and edifice undertakings have besides begun to conform to an about cosmopolitan design that appears the same in London, Mexico City, Dallas or Berlin. Contemporary architecture has acquiesced about without protest to these motions towards homogeneousness and accepted it as inevitable. It is at this point that a Marxist review of postmodernity, capital and, specifically, modern-day architecture is utile. Marxist architectural historiographers and bookmans such as Tafuri and Katznelson argue that whilst capitalist economy has had an tremendous influence upon architecture, it is non the merely feasible influence upon architecture. They assert that by using Marxist theories of the metropolis and development to modern architecture it is possible to permeate it with a sense of societal orientation and cultural consciousness that is absent in postmodernism. The work of postmodernist Marxist bookmans such as David Harvey and Frederic Jameson is besides discussed here to explicate how the postmodern universe was conceived and as to how it functions. Finally, this subdivision discusses the two chief architectural manners that have emerged in the context of 20th century capitalist economy: Modernism and Postmodernism.
( 2 )Manfredo Tafuri
The work and thoughts of Marxist architectural historian Manfredo Tafuri are peculiarly of import for understanding how capitalist economy has affected the manners and transmutations of architecture in the 20th century. Tafuri’s work is extremely respected internationally, and he was possibly the foremost Italian architectural historiographer and critic of the 20th century. His better known books includeProgetto vitamin E Utopia( Architecture and Utopia ) andVia Guila, both of 1973, andL’armonia vitamin E I Conflitti( Tafuri, 1983 ) . Tafuri chief station was as manager of the Institute of History at theInstituto Universatario di Architettura de Venezia.His first important book,Teorie vitamin E Historia Dell’Architettura(Theories and History of Architecture) ( Tafuri, 1980 ),was outstanding for its prophetic expectancies of the failings and dislocation of modernism and for doing clear modern-day architecture’s unhealthy dependance and familiarity with capitalist economy. These sentiments of course betrayed Tafuri’s unfastened Marxist understandings and their influence upon his ideas about architectural history. Most of Tafuri’s plants made extended mentions and analogies to the societal and political elements that affected the designs and edifices featured in these books. Tafuri’s two most of import plants on the topic of the influence of Marxism upon architecture areTheories and History of ArchitectureandArchitecture and Utopiasuggest that postmodern architecture is a beautiful cadaver ; a beautiful cadaver that can non be embalmed or sustained without profound effects for our civilization and society. Tafuri argued further that modern society is the bondage of capitalist economy and that the appetency and values of capitalist economy have corrupted traditional ways of life instead than advancing them. These erodings of rules and ways of life have meant that socially witting and socially inventive architecture no longer has popular support amongst Western populations. So excessively Tafuri vociferously scarified modern designers for their capitulation to the will of capitalist economy and their failure to defy its lay waste toing societal effects. Tafuri suggested that the past two centuries of architecture have witnessed a inclination to disregard the monolithic societal turbulences wrought by the industrial age, by revolutions and by wars and has alternatively produced a type of architecture that is basically a obstinate denial of these alterations and is unwilling to advance or stand for their world. Tafuri’s acknowledged that his thoughts were strongly influenced by Michel Foucault, Walter Benjamin, and Theodor Adorno.
( 3 )Ira Katznelson
‘Defeated in the East and discredited in the West, and missing in knowing or popular support, Marxism has broken down as an political orientation and as a usher to administration. … ( but for ) all its profound and infirming defects, Marxism remains a critical tool for apprehension and raising inquiries about cardinal facets of modernness. … Key failings of Marxism as a societal theory can merely be remedied by coercing it to prosecute earnestly with urban-spatial concerns, peculiarly the relationship between construction and bureau which is at the bosom of all utile theory.’
( Ira Katznelson, 1992, p. seven )
This citation from Katznelson’sMarxism and the Cityis set down here at such length because it encapsulates so good the critical thought of his idea: Marxism as a political doctrine may be dead, but as a tool for societal and metropolis planning it may yet be priceless. Marxism is so a great device to understand the manner metropoliss map, how their infinite is organized and how people use and respond to these agreements of this infinite. For Katznelson, Marxism is an counterpoison to the societal forgetfulness of postmodern architecture.
Marxism and the Cityis a consummate reappraisal of some of the many scholarly reviews that have been made in the past century of the topographic point of Marxism in the organisation and development of metropoliss and their ‘space’ . Katznelson finds in the literature of Marxism intimations and suggestions that the political and economic failings of Marxism can be converted into a theory of metropolis planning and development to replace or complement the societal suspensions of capitalist economy. Katznelson argues that Marxism is still critical for historiographers seeking to understand how society developed from a universe of feudal system into a globalized system of capitalist Western economic systems and national-states where the bulk of workers have weakly become enthralled by the allurements and force per unit areas of capitalist economy. Katznelson perceives in the bing Marxist literature of the metropolis an overemphasis upon the failings of traditional Marxist theory and suggests alternatively that there should be a re-balance of sentiment in favor of the advantages of ‘re-spatialized Marxism’ .
Marxism in the Citystarts with a chapter named ‘Marxism and the City? – where the inquiry grade represents what Katznelson thinks is a cardinal mistake in the thought and methodological analysis of traditional Marxism. He argues that whereas Marx was acutely cognizant of the political and societal state of affairs of workers in Russian and European metropoliss, he however gave small accent to the spacial worlds and conditions of these metropoliss. Marx ought to hold urged, harmonizing to Katznelson, that revolutions within the construction of the labor should hold been accompanied by matching alterations in the organisation of the infinites and developments within those metropoliss. That is, renovation of the architecture and edifices of metropoliss could transform the economic and societal conditions of the workers who inhabited them. But alternatively, plaints Katznelson,‘… the metropolis was virtually ignored in the development of Marxist theory for more than a century’ ( Katznelson, 1992 ) . Consequently, the application of Marxist rules to the development and architecture of metropoliss might hold had, and still might, a profound consequence upon the spacial and social makeups of those metropoliss – even if Marxism’s political thoughts could non. This thought is captured in the rubric of Katznelson’s 3rd chapter titled ‘Towards a Re-spatialization of Marxism’ . Katznelson acknowledges here the gratitude he owes to Harvey, Castells and Lefebvre for ‘demoing Marxism the manner back to the metropolis’ ( Harvey, 2001 ) . However, he rejects most of the suggestions of these bookmans as to how this re-spatialization of the metropolis ought to be conducted. Katznelson suggests that Engels’ original attack inCondition of the Working Classes in England in 1844( Engels, 1892 ) espouses a more intelligent manner to harmonise modern capitalist economy, working constructions and spatial property. It is necessary and imperative to bring forth an ‘urban geographical imaginativeness into the analysis of working category formation’ ( Katznelson, 1992 ) . Thus the cardinal undertaking of the application of Marxist theory to the metropolis is to advance a better apprehension of infinite. Katznelson says on this that his purpose is to ‘reveal and expose the devising, significance and utilizations of urban infinite’ ( Katznelson, 1992 ) . Katznelson’s acknowledges in his review the parts of Mark Gottdiener and Hobsbawm and E.P. Thomson to this inquiry of the re-spatialization of metropoliss.
In decision, Katznelson non merely supplies an elegant reappraisal of the bing literature on the topographic point of Marxism in modern development ; he besides suggests a solution to the job of ‘demoing Marxism a manner back into the metropolis’ where Harvey, Castells and others have, he alleges, failed.
( 4 )David Harvey
‘… the experience of clip and infinite has changed, the assurance in the association between scientific and moral judgements has collapsed, aesthetics has triumphed over moralss as a premier focal point of societal and rational concern, images dominate narrations, ephemeralness and atomization take precedency over ageless truths and incorporate political relations, and accounts have shifted from the kingdom of the stuff and political-economic foundations towards a consideration of independent cultural and political practices.’
( Harvey, 1989 )
Professor David Harvey is one of the world’s pre-eminent bookmans and writers on the topic of postmodernity. The above citation compactly sums up his description of the aetiology of postmodernity and it manifestations. Importantly, many of the mentions that Harvey makes by and large of postmodernity can be applied to postmodern architecture specifically. Harvey sighs ‘Aestheticss has triumphed over moralss’ and ‘ephemeralness and atomization take precedency over ageless truths’ : so excessively in architecture now aesthetics and outward shallowness are exalted above practical and societal necessities, whilst the ‘fragmentation’ of modern architecture is a telling symbol of the mental atomization of the postmodern planetary citizen.
David Harvey has been Professor of Geography at John Hopkins University for over a decennary now ; between 1987 and 1993 he sat on the Halford Mackinder Chair of Geography at Oxford University. Harvey’s work shows definite influence of Marxist theories of capitalist economy – doing him, in some eyes, a sympathizer of the Frankfurt School ; whereas his thoughts have besides been compared with those of The Institute for Social Research. Possibly Harvey’s most celebrated book and the most relevant to our present treatment is hisThe Condition of Postmodernity: An Enquiry Into the Origins of Cultural Change( Harvey, 1989 ) . In this seminal work of four parts – ( 1 )The Passage From Modernity to Postmodernity in Contemporary Culture, ( 2 )The Political-Economic Transformation of Late Twentieth Century Capitalism, ( 3 )The Experience of Space and Time, and ( 4 )The Condition of Postmodernity –Harvey seeks to follow and explicate the causes and manifestations of the postmodern status. Throughout the work Harvey argues that all of the assorted present forms and signifiers of postmodernism arise from the activities and motions of capital and capital economic systems. Harmonizing to Harvey, capital as been the prevailing economic and cultural influence in the universe since at least 1800 ; Harvey sympathises with the positions of the ‘regulation school’ of economic theory in seeing ‘…recent events as a passage in the government of accretion and its associated manner of societal and political regulation’( Harvey, 1989 ) . In other words, postmodernism grows from the coming earlier in the century of an industrialised government of mill production that depends upon a stiff and rigorous method to roll up capital – and herein Harvey clearly shows his commitment to a Marxist reading of economic history. Harvey besides refers to the term ‘Fordism’ to explicate the modernist inclinations towards harmonisation, industrial graduated table production and working force stableness. However, since the 1970’s the universe has witnessed a extremist transmutation in the manner capital operates ; it no longer adheres to the rigorous rules and moorages of ‘Fordism’ but becomes freer and more volatile. It is this development of capital towards free motion that finally produces the phenomena of globalisation and postmodernism.
Professor Harvey introduced several new footings into the scholarly treatment about the aetiology of postmodernity. For case, he refers to ‘space-time compaction’ . The outstanding characteristic of the postmodern universe is the displacement from ‘Fordism’ to flexible accretion of wealth, and its corresponding rushing up of clip and compaction of infinite. ‘Fordism’ and old-style capitalist economy imposed certain limitations upon the velocity at which capital could travel, and the pre-war universe still had a sense of the bulkiness of planetary infinite. However, as ‘Fordism’ has in the past 50 old ages been superseded by modern capitalist economy, the universe has shrunk in footings of perceptual experience of infinite and man’s motion within that infinite has accelerated dramatically. Professor Harvey relates how this space-time compaction has caused the atomization of the modern universe and produced an copiousness of apparently different worlds and dimensions – something represented dramatically in postmodern architecture. Modern life is incoherent because of these conflicting worlds and modern adult male is the topic of this convulsion.
Turning specifically to architecture, Professor Harvey’s makes several critical parts to the analysis of postmodern architecture. His ideas represent a comprehensive effort to encapsulate the entireness of cultural motions since the coming of modernism. Furthermore, his theories about the planetary motions of capital seem prophetically accurate when compared to present observations of economic phenomenon. So excessively, Professor Harvey’s analysis of the societal and cultural branchings of these alterations are strongly converting ; the theory of space-time compaction tantrums neatly with the observations of others writers such as Baudrillard, McHale and Foucault.
If some unfavorable judgments are to be made of Professor Harvey’s thoughts so they possibly center on his instead formulaic constructions of his idea. That is, he depends entirely upon Marxist theories of capitalist economy to explicate the phenomenon of the postmodern universe, and so efficaciously refuses to see alternate contributory factors. Ira Katznelson besides suggests that although Professor Harvey’s part to demoing that Marxism can be utile in metropolis development is unquestionable, his methods for making this are unequal. However, weight in the wider balance of his parts to postmodernity and apprehensions of present 21st century society, these unfavorable judgments weigh far lighter than the benefits of his work.
( 5 )Frederic Jameson
Another writer who has contributed significantly to the Marxist and postmodernist argument is Frederic Jameson: Professor of Comparative Literature and Director of the Duke Centre for Critical Theory at Duke University. Professor Jameson’s most famed plants includeThe Prison House of Language( Jameson, 1972 ) ,Marxism and Form( Jameson, 1971 ) , andLate Marxism( Jameson, 1990 ).Possibly his most celebrated and influential work on this subject nevertheless isPostmodernism: the Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism( Jameson, 1991 ).This work is basically an anatomy of the differences between the modern and postmodern esthesias. This review involves a thorough history of the alterations wrought by postmodernism upon the single planetary citizen. Jameson’s basic statement, like Harvey’s, is that postmodernism is a cultural phenomenon born out of the vicissitudes of a capitalist economic system. The typical characteristic of this cultural phenomenon is – and it is interesting that Jameson and Harvey use the same word – ‘fragmentation’ . Individual lives become hopelessly disconnected under postmodernism and all accent is upon superficial glamor instead than significant thoughts. This postmodern age is basically impersonal, cold and lifeless. Postmodernism has small impulse, inspiration or energy of its ain, but alternatively, to utilize Jameson’s look, ‘cannabalizes’ different historical manners and seeks to do out of them something of its ain. Jameson refers to this procedure as ‘contemporary transnational capitalism’( Jameson, 1991 ) . In other words, the postmodern universe has witnessed a profound displacement in the nature of the material existence and its mechanisms of capitalist economy.
With mention to postmodern architecture Jameson argues that postmodern architectural signifiers are excessively advanced and incompatible with present society and cultural being. This is the root of modern atomization: the single member of society can non maintain gait with the signifiers that represent modern infinite and so he becomes disconnected. Designs are excessively futuristic and multi-dimensional ; people can non yet happen correspondence with such an experience of advanced signifiers in their ain lives. Jameson takes the Bonaventura Hotel in Los Angeles as a premier illustration and argues that infinite has mutated to such an extent that the hyperspace of the postmodern universe has surpassed the ability of the individual homo to orientate itself in relation to its signifiers and edifices.
( 6 )Modernism & A ; Architecture
The motions of capital in the 20th century – be they interpreted from a Marxist or capitalist place – produced two chief manners of architecture: Modernism and Postmodernism. The 21st century designer finds himself in a competition to take between these two manners and ‘philosophies’ of architecture, but he is aided in that pick if he knows something of the historical outgrowth of these manners.
Modernism foremost emerged in the early 20th century and was predominant between the 1930’s and 1980’s. The three taking advocates of this manner were Le Corbusier, Mies van der Rohe and Walter Gropier ; today outstanding British advocates of modernism include like Sir Norman Foster and Lord Rogers of Riverside. Examples of modernist architecture include the Seagram Building, the Bauhaus motion, Lever House and the architecture of Frank Lloyd Wright. Stylistically, simpleness and efficiency of lines, rectangular geometry and the absence of historical manners characterize modernism. Modernism stresses the absence of ornamentalism and degeneracy ; modernist designs are functional, logical and utilize the most cost-effective stuffs available. These manner rules grow out of the cardinal modernist strong belief that edifices should be designed for a societal intent, they serve communities and society. Modernist edifices ought to be, to utilize Corbusier’s celebrated phrase: ‘machines for life’ [ 1 ] . They ought to see in their design how their usage of infinite, installations, organisation and so away will harmonise and bring forth benefits for the communities who live in and utilize them. However, modernist manner has received a scathing reproof from postmodern designers. They lament the drab, suffering concrete freaks – for case the Hayward Centre — and ‘windswept plazas’ that arose everyplace in England in the 1960’ , and the endlessly humdrum manner of modernism – something Philip Johnson competently put as ‘being bored of the box[ 2 ] ’ . The spirit of modernist architecture is caught in the slogan ‘less is more’ and ‘signifier follows map’ . Above all, modernism is dominated by the thought that societal considerations ought ever be considered first and aesthetic considerations second.
( 8 )Postmodernism & A ; Architecture
Put compactly, postmodern architecture bears witness to a re-emergence of ornamentalism, genius and ornament in blunt contrast to the restraint and simpleness of modernism. Modernism was characterised by edifices whose forms and constructions were determined by their societal utility and so were correspondingly apparent and bland ; postmodern architecture sees an exuberance and detonation of showy forms, usage of strange and alien stuffs, and eclectic merger of assorted historical manners. With postmodernism aesthetics are celebrated for their ain interest, and non merely for their functionality. Postmodernism finds look in the plants of designers like Phillip Johnson, Ricardo Boffil, James Stirling, John Burgee and Robert Venturi and in edifices like the State Gallery in Stuttgart and Charles Willard Moore’s Piazza d’Italia. The architecture of postmodernism is therefore described as ‘neo-eclectic’ : it delights in glamourous and adventuresome signifiers that are cosmetic, excessive and rich with historical associations ; the manner employs non-orthogonal forms and rare surface stuffs to accomplish. Such architecture is viewed by the modernist school as vulgar and decadent and socially irresponsible. Architects of postmodernism accuse modernism of being bland, unhistorical and exanimate, zestless. There is as such a crisp and acrimonious limit between the attacks of postmodernism and modernism.
( 9 )Decision
In decision to this subdivision, it ought to be said that the Marxist review of architecture and postmodernity has much to inform the designer of. Principally, it suggests to him, on the macro degree, an option or complementary manner to understand the function of architecture in relation to capitalist economy. Greater understanding by designers to Marxist theories might instil in designers a greater societal and cultural orientation in their work. However, at the macro degree the Marxist review is found to hold certain lacks: possibly most evidently, it lacks a practical orientation and instruction for the designer at the mundane degree.
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

Section 3: Development Industry

( 1 ) Introduction

The development industry is critical to the United Kingdom’s economic system: it represents 10 % of national GDP and employs 1.5 million workers. Industry Output was ?81.9 billion and growing was an exceeding 9.7 % in 2004, harmonizing to the Department for Trade and Industry ( DTI ) . Soon, the British development industry in financially comfortable due to a healthy economic system and heavy authorities investing through strategies such as Private Finance Initiatives ( PFI’s ) . The British development industry is notoriously volatile and susceptible to the troughs and extremums of economic rhythms. The industry consists of clients ( house builders and commercial houses ) , material and component makers and contractors. Major development undertakings are conducted for retail merchants, authorities bureaus and homebuilders. Government undertakings represent 40 per centum of the entire production of the United Kingdom’s building undertakings. A major job that has historically affected the British development industry every bit good as peculiarly the nowadays is the absence of strong abroad competition. British development is protected from European competition by its European isolation and so is non exposed to international force per unit areas. Therefore there has been much stagnancy in British development since the war in comparing with other British industries ; people do non feel the demand for greening and so the spread that separates much of British development from that of the continent is excessively great. Two peculiar issues face the British development industry: the progressively scare handiness of land suited for residential lodging and the demographic displacement towards individual individual adjustment.

( 2 ) The Present State of the Development Industry

( I ) Politics & A ; Government

The present province of the British development industry can be described politically, economically, socially, culturally and in footings of physical features – though of class these descriptions each portion some common countries.
Politically, recent authoritiess can merely be described as holding submitted and acquiesced to the demands and programs of powerful edifice and building anterooms. These anterooms are avidly capitalistic and their chief involvement in development is personal net income and addition. The attitude of the development industry towards architecture and edifice is similar to that of a corporation that seeks to take down costs and outgo every bit much as possible so as to harvest the maximal possible net income. Development is a concern, and everything else must be low-level to the occupation of doing money. The government’s recent attitude towards the covetous appetency of the development industry can most accurately be described as one of indorsement and support. The present Labour authorities is often accused of shallowness and of seting ‘spin’ and ‘gloss’ before substance ; viewed in the visible radiation of its policies towards the development industry this charge of shallowness seems to transport much weight. Labour, a chiefly socialist and people-centred party, has supported a series of developments that are superficially calendered, elegant and beautiful but whose societal and environmental part has been about nought. The authorities has been accused of being in a cozy relationship with major building and edifice houses because it portions their capitalistic attitudes towards development: edifices must be built every bit cheaply as possible, though with the maximal sum of aesthetic attractive force.
To many perceivers the authorities is, in regard of its attitudes towards development, seen to hold betrayed the socialist rules and historical background that had been a major ground for their re-election in 1997. Socialism asserts a sense of national community and chumminess, centred upon metropolis life and inter-action ; the government’s affinity with ‘big business’ nevertheless suggests that they are seting net incomes and economic considerations before societal 1s. As national legislator and main client, the authorities sets considerable influence over the way of the development industry through the Department of Trade and Industry ( DTI ) and its Construction Directorate and Planning Directorate. At local scene, Regional Development Agencies ( RDA’s ) control the ordinances and waies for the industry. Organizations like the British Property Federation ( BFP ) stand for private householders and the commercial universe and manage assets valued ?70 billion or more – holding a strong and influential relationship with the DTI.
The DTI is the chief authorities section that trades with the development industry. The work of the section covers ‘stuffs and merchandises, providers and manufacturers, edifice services makers, suppliers and installers ; contractors, subcontractors, professionals advisers and building clients’ ( DTI website ) . The government’s Rethink Construction enterprise Strategic Forum for Construction declares that its vision is: ‘…for the UK building industry to be systematically universe category in presenting merchandises and services that maximize value for clients and terminal users and exceed outlooks’ ( DTI website ) . The Construction Forum states that ‘Our effectivity depends upon a good apprehension of the building industry and on developing trust between the Unit and the companies and trade associations that make up the industry’ ( DTI website ) . The Forum seeks to accomplish this by several steps. One: by hammering strong relationships with corporations, trade organisations and other industrial groups and by keeping frequent conversations and correspondence between each other. Two: by changeless analysis and greening of the domestic and international fight of the development industry – and by planing action programs to raise this fight. Three: by the reconstitution of trade organisations and the publicity of cross-organization communicating. Four: by puting in research in the development industry and peculiarly in sustainable development – publishing the consequences of this through theConstruction Best Practice Programme. Five: by carrying the development industry to partake in authorities enterprises for development in the United Kingdom. Six: by promoting the industry to print its consequences and advancement in the signifiers of benchmarks and public presentations. The DTI seeks to mensurate its ain success troughCardinal Performance Indexs. Above all, the DTI accent is upon close communicating and apprehension between the development industry and itself.
( two ) The Present Social and Cultural Situation
The present political province of the development industry in the United Kingdom is closely linked to that of the cultural and societal state of affairs in development. Indeed, the present government’s fancy for capitalist economy and relentless subscription to the protocols of a market economic system are the grounds why it supports the development industries demand for cheap and expeditiously built developments, but which besides are without any societal orientation or consideration. Recent old ages have seen lifting populations and dramatic demographic displacements in the United Kingdom ; these alterations have given birth to certain economic troubles. It is for case widely agreed by politicians, geographers, economic experts and designers that the United Kingdom will necessitate to construct many 1000s of new places in the following few decennaries to get by with alterations in its demographics. Whilst this point is by and large agreed, huge dissension hovers over the inquiry of how these development demands should be met. The authorities appears convinced that these edifice undertakings must be undertaken in the most cost-effective and economic mode possible ; though of class such developments must be visually appealing so as tantrum with the aesthetic preferences of our postmodern society.
Critics of the authorities nevertheless accuse them of being single-mindedly set on a class of development that is economically and financially determined, and of declining a populace and national audience about the best manner to continue with this immense plan of development. The authorities is similarly accused of declining to even contemplate option or complementary theoretical accounts for development such as those proposed by the Marxist review of the metropolis and urban development. The societal effects of this refusal may turn out lay waste toing. Enormous and huge building undertakings are being planned across Britain whose chief design doctrine and ethic is cost-efficiency and ocular glamor ; but the societal and community facets of these undertakings seem to hold been mostly ignored. The determinations made now about development will hold branchings for the type of metropoliss, edifices, infinites and communities that many hundred of 1000s of Britons will see for the following several decennaries. The authorities is therefore vastly powerful in the development industry, and bears chief duty for its future way. The authorities passes statute law about types of edifice development, and it is to authorities ministries and sections that developers must use to for any major building undertaking ; likewise, single curates and commissions finally decide the success or failure of controversial development determinations. But in visible radiation of these considerable powers that the authorities possesses, it is a hurt for many people to see the extent to which this power is used to smooth the way of capitalistic-centred and economically-determined developments. The authorities is argued to hold abused its duties to supply balanced developments that measure societal effects and community considerations against pure fiscal 1s.
( 3 )Conscience & A ; the Development Industry
Though liberally aided by the authorities, the development industry itself is to be held chiefly responsible for present accent in development upon aesthetic glamor and maximization of net incomes, and absence of a societal map or community significance. The overpowering bulk of new developments in the United Kingdom are built harmonizing to the capitalist doctrine that such developments must maximize net incomes whilst looking to be aesthetically delighting. Very few present developers take into history the societal or cultural deductions of their edifices when planing such undertakings ; this absence of societal and cultural consciousness points both to a profound failure in the complete instruction of designers and developers, and to their deficiency of moral and societal scruples. Developers nebulously argue that by maximizing net incomes they produce the greatest possible sums of wealth for a state and that this wealth later filters down to society and single communities who benefit from it. This attitude is used by developers to pardon themselves from holding to take societal and cultural dimensions straight into their work – but alternatively can offload it into some distant economic construct. It can appropriately be said that most modern private and commercial developers have small or no construct of ‘community’ or of the effects of their developments upon such communities. Furthermore, the nature of a capitalist economic system and capitalist-orientated developers is to maximize a net income upon a short-run investing. This short-run attitude means that such developers fail to include in their development strategies the medium and long-run societal and cultural effects of their developments. When a development is chiefly about doing money these societal and cultural concerns are a onerous vex, and are given short shrift. They become ‘someone else’s problem’ because they are non an immediate job, and since each new developer has the same attitude the inquiry of long-run community is perpetually postponed. This delay of course accumulates over consecutive decennaries, and the societal and cultural decrepitude of the communities within and around these developments grows. Developers seem incognizant – or take to disregard – the fact that metropoliss without recognizable communities and which are wholly dependent upon economic and planetary influences become socially fossilized.
Whilst the mass of incrimination for this transient and short-run attitude to development belongs to developers, some duty besides rests with biddable citizens who do excessively small to protest against the types of developments that are built around them. This acquiescence is, harmonizing to Harvey and Jameson, a status of postmodernity where people are persuaded by passing issues such as aesthetic beauty and disregard the deeper moral and societal issues that lie behind an of import inquiry. It is hence desperately necessary for more British citizens to be educated and made aware of developments that are built around them in their towns and metropoliss, and of the medium and long term societal effects of the infinites and environments they live in. When citizens see in their communities proposals for developments that are dilapidating and petrifying for that community so they must protest more vehemently than is done at present against such strategies. If these protests do non come, so citizens have some grade of duty for the negative effects upon their environment that will necessarily come from their entry.
( 4 )Sustainable Development & A ; Social Sustainability
‘Sustainable development’ is a phrase upon the lips of many authorities and development industry figures at present, but there is small national acknowledgment that sustainable development is impotent unless it is accompanied by societal sustainability besides. The authorities and the development industry have much work to make before development sustainability and societal sustainability become harmonious.
The authorities and building industry have invested well in sustainable development of late, but this investing has tended to disregard the societal deductions of sustainability. In the past five old ages the Department of Trade and Industry launched theSustainability Forum( antecedentlySustainable Construction Task Group) ( DTI website ) chaired by Ian Coull and charged to research and find ways to speed up and widen the pattern of sustainable building in the United Kingdom. The Strategic Forum includes prima participants from industry, the authorities, commercial companies, private clients and so on. The intent of the Strategic Forum is to revise and widen the recommendations ofRethinking Construction( DTI website ) , and to ‘provide leading, advice and influence’ ( DTI ) about how sustainable development ought to be achieved. The Forum implements the recommendations of the 2002 Task Force studyRepute, Risk and Reward( DTI web site ) which was an probe of the long-run effects of an extension of sustainable development in the United Kingdom. The study declared that ‘sustainability is every bit much about efficient profit-oriented pattern and value for money as it is about the environment’ — . Following this study the authorities held theSustainable Construction Stakeholder Reviewin which taking building and sustainability figures participated. This led to the realisation that sustainable development would be more successful if its business-sense and advantages were promoted throughout the industry, and this produced the preparation ofThe Sustainable Construction Task Groupthrough which this airing of information was to take topographic point. The authorities besides convened theBetter Buildings Summitin 2003 meaning it as a debating forum for how to continue with sustainable development. The intent of the enterprise was to speed up the building of greener more socially oriented edifices more quickly.
But despite these abundant enterprises there has been a cardinal deficiency of action and pattern by both the development industry and the authorities. More distressing still is the observation that both groups seem unaware of the confidant relationship and inter-dependence between development sustainability and societal sustainability.
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –



As was put at the beginning of this thesis, the modern designer finds himself to be the object of contending force per unit areas and influences. The prevailing subject of postmodern society is emphasis upon aesthetic luster, fragmentariness and passing satisfaction ; in postmodern architecture these subjects are supreme besides. Furthermore, these thoughts are given powerful support by the development industry and by authoritiess and international establishments. A modern-day designer is obliged to daze, temptingness and capture the populace if he is to stay employed. Furthermore, the modern-day designer notices a cardinal re-orientation in his manner of work that sees him transformed from merely a ‘form-provider’ to a ‘problem-solver’ besides. It appears so that everything is drawing the modern designer off from the consideration of the societal and cultural deductions of his work. However, despite the strength of pull towards postmodernism, there is a sense of capitulation in the attitude of many modern designers: capitalist economy and postmodernism are perceived as resistless forces. This weak entry to the demands of the capitalist ethos points to a serious misbalance in the preparation of the many modern designers. This preparation is chiefly ocular and emphasises the originality of form and eclectic method of manner ; but what is frequently wholly what is frequently losing in this preparation is the societal facet to attach to the ocular. This deficiency of societal preparation has of class profound effects for communities that have to populate in and these modern developments. An designer is responsible non merely for the physical design of a edifice or development, but besides for the type of community that that development can further and advance. If an designer designs a development harmonizing strictly to its fiscal and net income facets so he is disregarding a cardinal professional responsibility to see the people who will utilize and populate that development and the community that will be produced by it. This suspension in the preparation of modern designers is compounded by the fact that these designers are extravagantly praised for planing developments that are visually dramatic but which are socially lay waste toing. This congratulations flows from the architectural universe, from the development industry, from authorities and from the general populace ; and until such groups of people persistently protest against the domination of manner over substance so designers and developers will experience no irresistible impulse establish their work harmonizing to its societal effects.
( 2 ) Globalization & A ; the Architect
A main consequence and force per unit area upon modern designers is that of globalisation. Roger Lewis, a taking architectural observer in the United States, has spoken of ‘Architecture and the Global City’ and of the ‘McDonaldization of Architecture’ ( Lewis, 2004 ) . In its economic sense globalisation refers to the recent phenomenon of greater world-wide economic homogeneousness whereby national markets show great similarities with all others. This is brought approximately by the free motion of capital, by easier methods of transit, faster communicating and a turning international consensus about political and economic thoughts. It is going progressively hard for national authoritiess to keep economic, societal or political policies that are markedly different from those of international tendencies. Globalization demands that, to be competitory, conformance with international criterions must be obeyed at all costs. Applied to architecture, globalisation puts force per unit area upon designers to conform to whatever tendency or manner is prevailing internationally at that clip. The chief effect of this conformance is the decease or suppression of the individualism of metropolis architecture and manner. All designers and travelers can of speak of those typical characteristics of architecture that impress them when they travel to Athens, Tokyo, Madrid, New York, Cordoba and so on. Each metropolis as its ain alone historical manner or manners and the differences of these manners from one another are one of the main grounds for their single attractive forces. This peculiarity is nevertheless in danger of being swamped by the phenomenon of the ‘global city’ . Globalization has non merely made the communicating of thoughts and manner easier, but besides the conveyance of foreign stuffs. Thus it is now both desirable and possible to hold metropoliss in all parts of the universe following the same design and being made of the same glass, steel and concrete stuffs. Thus skyscrapers in Shanghai, Chicago, London, Sao Paulo and Sydney look about indistinguishable – they could belong anyplace.
Two schools of idea have emerged with regard to the globalisation of architecture. The first is basically a defensive reaction to it that seeks to continue the originality and uniqueness national manners: of chapels in Florence, mosques in Cordoba and classicalism in Athens. This school stresses the demand for the continuation of historical traditions and to beef up them by alteration of technique and inflow of inspiration. This school celebrates diverseness and condemns uniformity as bland and lifeless. The 2nd school, represented by postmodern advocators of globalisation, promotes the rules of systematization and economic necessity: edifices must be every bit efficient as possible, as so are likely to conform in manner to one another. Furthermore, commercialism, conveyance and communicating have superseded national boundaries and so an international architecture must make the same besides.
Rogers suggests nevertheless that the phenomenon of a dominant global manner is non alone in the history of architecture. He points, for illustration, the architecture of the Roman Empire that spread across its imperium – that of classicalism. Still, local manners remained beneath the laterality of classicalism and were able to boom as the imperium began to decline. After the Second World War architecture saw the birth of another dominant manner: that of ‘Internationalism’ or ‘Modernism’ promoted by designers such as Walter Gropius and Mies van der Rohe. This manner emphasized an overturning of classicalism and neoclassicism, and an embrace of a functional architecture and sketchy and cosmetic architecture that stressed efficiency of manner, economic system and standardisation of stuff and societal consciousness. Standardization and motions of capital and cost-effectiveness influenced this manner tremendously. This manner rapidly came to act upon the design of office edifices, infirmaries, schools and authorities edifices around the universe. Today, two chief force per unit areas of globalisation exert themselves upon architecture: the commercial civilization and the design civilization. Commercial civilization is driven by the desire for the compatibility of universe markets and economic forces, advertisement and of all time wider airing of similar thoughts are the natural consequence of this. The commercial civilization manifests itself in edifices such as the skyscrapers of celebrated Bankss, hotel ironss, shopping ironss and strings of retail shops that are all basically indistinguishable in design and ethos no affair in which what state in which they appear – for case, the shopping Centre in Canary Wharf, docklands, is typical of many 100s across great Britain.
In the concluding analysis, it seems likely that the force per unit area of globalisation to bring forth uniformity of design in architecture pitted against the demand for national singularity and individualism will be one of, if nonthe, dominant subject of architecture in the 21st century.
( 3 )Visual Training & A ; the Architect
Architects of the postmodern epoch are progressively trained harmonizing to ocular rules instead than rules of economic or social consequence. Postmodernist architecture displays a bewildering array of forms, stuffs, eclectic mergers of manners from all historical epoch, and to the oculus these edifices and developments are utterly beautiful and beguiling ; to the societal sense nevertheless they rapidly appear as basically mis-designed and misplaced. The accent upon preparation in modern architecture is upon glamourous manner, but is detained excessively briefly by the societal and economic effects of that design. The modern designer must see his work in footings of both the macro and micro degree. At the macro degree this forsaking of societal accent comes from the national and international forces of globalisation discussed in the paragraphs above. Architects are economically and ideologically obliged to conform to predominating international manners. The authorities excessively is complicit in the purposes of the edifice industry to fabricate edifices that perform no societal intent. The authorities excessively has some duty towards instruction: a major job for the designer is the deficiency of societal scruples and consciousness of clients or ‘end-users’ . It is frequently hard to carry or convert end-users ( clients ) to take into history in their edifices the societal effects for employees, occupants, users and so on. This has of class to make with the deficiency of instruction and edification of the end-users themselves who are extremely waxy and likely to be influenced by whatever manner appears stylish at the clip — no affair what its societal and cultural virtuousnesss. Therefore the modern designer progressively has the duty of doing end-users aware of the societal impacts and effects of their designs.
( 4 ) Changing Functions: The Architect as ‘Problem Solver’
This duty represents a basic alteration in the map and function of the designer which has evolved from being that of ‘form-provider’ to its present prevailing sense ‘problem solver’ . This leads on to the modern architect’s duties at the micro degree. The modern designer is progressively an adjudicator and justice between the conflicting involvements of a peculiar edifice or development. One the one manus, he has to stand for the involvements of the client who may desire to construct a glamourous tower that is a stylish and powerful emblem of that companies involvements ; but on the other manus he has a duty to inform his client of the possible unsuitableness of this design for this peculiar location. He has to inform his client of the societal and economic effects of a peculiar design. It may besides be necessary for the designer to emphasize strongly or even pull strings his client towards certain societal considerations. For these things the modern designer needs a set of accomplishments that were non pre-requisites for his predecessors. He must hold first-class communicating abilities besides, be adept at presentation every bit good as something of a man of affairs besides. It will be seen that in these respects the function of the modern designer goes far beyond the pure proficient accomplishments that were required of earlier designers.
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

Section 5: Decision
In the concluding analysis, it must be conceded that globalisation, consumerism and capitalist economy have forced great alterations upon the profession and concerns of the designer. At the national degree the turning strength of globalisation in confederation with capitalist economy mean that authoritiess experience impelled to do national determinations based upon the province and fluctuations of the planetary economic system. The planetary market penetrates and influences the lives of single provinces more than of all time before, and so to stay competitory authoritiess must take their policies harmonizing to predominating universe tendencies and forms. For the designer, these influences mean that he excessively feels obliged to plan developments that are in agreement with the dominant universe sentiment at that clip ; and at the present clip sentiment is that developments should be aesthetically attractive, though without any expressed societal content. Consecutive authoritiess have been complicit in this move off from the societal orientation of development towards fiscal and aesthetic concerns. Whilst all matter-of-fact and painstaking authoritiess ought to detect globalisation to see if it can be used to act upon national policy, recent authoritiess have submitted wholly to these influences and have intransigently refused to see alternate methods of development. The Marxist review of infinite, development and community espoused in writers such as Katznelson and Tafuri has been paid far excessively small attending by both authoritiess, private and commercial developers and architects themselves. Had more attending been given to this review so British developments would get down to demo greater societal and cultural consciousness. Application of and indorsement of Marxist theories and thoughts might even transform the present aesthetic/social towards the predomination of the societal component.
It is besides clear that the instruction and preparation of the modern designer needs a thorough re-orientation off from its present sole dependance upon the fiscal and the ocular towards a more balanced attack that stresses the partnership and harmoniousness between society and communityandfinance and the ocular. This re-direction of the attitude of designers requires a similar alteration of stance from the authorities. The authorities can no longer show firm support for the development industry at the disbursal of our metropoliss and communities. The authorities must utilize instruction and statute law to oblige the development industry to put in more socially orientated development. There is besides a personal and moral dimension to the profession of the designer ; the present nature of the development industry is extremely favorable to designers because of the immense wages they can be paid. Thus the enticement for the single designer to set about the most moneymaking work possible, no affair what its societal benefits, is overpowering. However, the designer has a moral duty to worsen such moneymaking work if it has no delivering societal characteristics whatsoever. If designers refuse to cut their wages to reconstruct unity to their profession so the present jobs of exanimate communities and mass-produced developments will be perpetuated. Above all, the call for a great extension of sustainable development, whilst commendable, must be accompanied by a similar grasp and understanding that such development is merely possible if societal sustainability is promoted besides.
If designers can larn to equilibrate the force per unit areas of economic system and globalisation with the demand for societal development and investing, and if designers can react to the profound function alteration towards ‘problem-solver’ that has come upon the profession in the past 30 old ages, so the hereafter of designers and sustainable development likewise in Great Britain is assured to be comfortable.
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
— Dianne, G. ( 1996 ) .Architecture After Modernism.Thames & A ; Hudson, London.
— Dutton, T. A, & A ; Mann, L, M. ( 1996 ) .Reconstructing Architecture: Critical Discourse and Social
Practice.University of Minnesota Press, Minnesota.
— Engels, F. ( 1892 ) .The Condition of the Working Classes in England in 1844.Progress Press,
— Harvey, D. ( 1989 )The Condition of Postmodernity: An Enquiry Into the Conditions of Cultural
Change. Basil Blackwell, Oxford.
— Harvey, D. ( 2001 ) .Spaces of Capital: Towards a Critical Geography.Edinburgh University Press,
— Harvey, D. ( 2003 ) .The New Imperialism.Oxford University Press, Oxford.
— Jameson, F. ( 1991 )Postmodernism, or, the Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism.Verso, London.
— Jameson, F. ( 1998 ) .The Cultural Turn: Selected Hagiographas on Postmodernism 1993-1998.Verso,
— Katznelson, I. ( 1992 ) .Marxism and the City.Clarendon, Oxford.
— Lewis, R. ( 2004 ) .Architecture and Globalization.Smart Press, Preston.
— Marcus, T.A. ( 1993 ) .Buildings and Power: Freedom and Control in the Origin of Modern Building
Types.Routledge, London.
— Noever, R ( Ed. ) ( 1990 ) .Architecture In Passage: Between Deconstruction and New Modernism.
Prestel, Munich.
— Portoghesi, P. ( 1980 ) .After Modern Architecture.Rizzoli, New York.
— Tafuri, M. ( 1976 )Architecture and Utopia.M.I.T. Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
— Tafuri, M ( 1976 )Modern Architecture.Faber, London.
— Tafuri, Manf

Warning! This essay is not original. Get 100% unique essay within 45 seconds!


We can write your paper just for 11.99$

i want to copy...

This essay has been submitted by a student and contain not unique content

People also read