The Commodification of Architecture:
How it Challenges the Right to the City
Introduction
Architecture is grounded in utopian thinking. What is the job of the architect if not to try to design the best possible future for people and society? This perspective is challenged in today’s cities, where the interests of the market take precedence over the interests of people. In 1967, Henri Lefebvre wrote an essay called “The Right to the City”, which demanded the right for citizen participation and appropriation of space.1 One year later, the general strike and student uprising in France, known as May 1968, put Lefebvre’s words into action. Students and workers rose to challenge neoliberalism, capitalism, and consumerism which had come to dominate postwar urbanization. It was a demand for centrality for those who had been peripheralized, referring to immigrants, women, workers, the ghettoization of low-income neighbourhoods and public housing.2 Lefebvre saw May 1968 as “Utopia’s last stand”3, because the uprising ultimately failed, leaving cities to become more deeply intrenched in neoliberal hegemony. Emerging out of Lefebvre’s work on “The Right to the City”, came one of his most influential books, The Production of Space.4
Architecture is grounded in utopian thinking. What is the job of the architect if not to try to design the best possible future for people and society? This perspective is challenged in today’s cities, where the interests of the market take precedence over the interests of people. In 1967, Henri Lefebvre wrote an essay called “The Right to the City”, which demanded the right for citizen participation and appropriation of space.1 One year later, the general strike and student uprising in France, known as May 1968, put Lefebvre’s words into action. Students and workers rose to challenge neoliberalism, capitalism, and consumerism which had come to dominate postwar urbanization. It was a demand for centrality for those who had been peripheralized, referring to immigrants, women, workers, the ghettoization of low-income neighbourhoods and public housing.2 Lefebvre saw May 1968 as “Utopia’s last stand”3, because the uprising ultimately failed, leaving cities to become more deeply intrenched in neoliberal hegemony. Emerging out of Lefebvre’s work on “The Right to the City”, came one of his most influential books, The Production of Space.4
The following paper draws on some of the key concepts discussed in this book, such as the commodification of space and the right to centrality, which is further analyzed in relation to urbanism and architecture through the works of Nathaniel Coleman, David Harvey, and Stefan Kipfer. With a majority of the world living in urban areas today, space within cities has never been more contested. Cities are the center of consumption, and architecture has become commodified to the point that it has become a part of what Marx theorizes as “commodity fetishism”.5 Lefebvre’s emphasis on the importance of the “everyday” becomes central to how architects can work outside the realm of commodity fetishism. This paper argues that the commodification of architecture challenges the Right to the City and reduces the ability for architects to both represent and design for the reality of everyday life. However, architects can challenge this through alternative forms of representations and counter-hegemonic practices that use architectural knowledge and awareness of space to critique society and expand participation and collaboration.
History of Urbanization and Rise of Consumption
By looking at the history of urbanization since the mid-20th century, one can get a better understanding of how consumption has come to define the way we think we should live our lives, and the way that architects design. Harvey states that “since urbanization depends on the mobilization of a surplus product, an intimate connection emerges between the development of capitalism and urbanization”.6 During the 1940s, the capacity for industrial production was significantly increased for the war effort. Once WWII ended, this capacity for production needed new outlets for consumption to stabilize the economy.7 In North America, this was done through suburbanization and promotion of new lifestyles. Harvey states,
These lifestyles were further engrained into society by offering subsidies that made it possible for people to own their own homes. This strategy not only put values of property ownership and individualism before the community, but also pacified the population.9 Those who owned property and were paying off debts were less likely to cause civil unrest.10 This contributed to neoliberal hegemony, which Antonio Gramsci argued was constantly perpetuated through “popular culture”.11 A level of consent amongst society continues the dominance of hegemony, because if people are invested in these new lifestyles, they refrain from challenging the status quo, making it difficult for people from seeing any other alternative way of life. Suburbanization left the cities abandoned, except by those who could not afford to leave.12
Cities became the antithesis of the suburbs and centers for civil unrest. They were places for the homeless, squatters, and those who did not fit into the new lifestyles in the suburbs. The desertification, lack of investment, and financial crash in the early 1970s, led to many cities becoming bankrupt, such as New York City in 1975.13 According to the government, cities were in a crisis. The response to this crisis was to create a new urban market. During this time, buildings in downtown were affordable, if not abandoned. This invited squatter movements, and the growth of underground cultures and arts communities. Inevitably, as these places became more popular, so did the cost of living.14 A new market started to focus on the service industry, which targeted students and yuppies that came to live in these areas.15 Harvey argues that 1972 was a turning point towards a new kind of capitalism, which he calls “flexible accumulation”.16 The rise of the entrepreneurial city led to the competition amongst cities to be centers of consumption in response to deindustrialization.17 During this time we see a shift in architectural thinking, from the modernist to the postmodernist movement, which was a shift from having a sense of social responsibility of urban renewal towards commodification and aestheticization that became a symbol of social status.
There was an ambition amongst modern architects to solve the world’s problems, through standardization, efficient design for the masses, and social housing developments.18 Modernism also had a political edge through promoting democracy. This is seen by advocating transparent diplomacy through the free plan and Hannes Meyer’s glazed rooms of his proposal for the League of Nations.19 As cities became deteriorated, there was an opportunity to reshape them. This led to a complete restructuring of the city centre, with government funded public housing projects that would ensure the pre-war slums would not re-emerge.20 However, by the 1960’s many began to criticize the modernist movement. McLeod describes the changing views of the public housing projects, which became seen as a “wasteland of urban renewal”.21 She further states that the style of the architecture became seen as “arcane, mute, and of little appeal outside a narrow cultural elite”.22 Modernism became associated with capitalist accumulation and Fordist modernization, which dominated the internationalist corporate aesthetic.23 Lefebvre’s critique of urbanism was partly in response to the homogenization and standardization of modernist architecture.24 Despite the failures, there was at least a sense of responsibility amongst architects to address concerns in society. Postmodernism rose out of a reaction to modernism, with a much lower sense of social responsibility.
By looking at the history of urbanization since the mid-20th century, one can get a better understanding of how consumption has come to define the way we think we should live our lives, and the way that architects design. Harvey states that “since urbanization depends on the mobilization of a surplus product, an intimate connection emerges between the development of capitalism and urbanization”.6 During the 1940s, the capacity for industrial production was significantly increased for the war effort. Once WWII ended, this capacity for production needed new outlets for consumption to stabilize the economy.7 In North America, this was done through suburbanization and promotion of new lifestyles. Harvey states,
“The suburbanization of the United States was not merely a matter of new infrastructures… it entailed a radical transformation in lifestyles, bringing new products from housing to refrigerators and air conditioners, as well as two cars in the driveway and an enormous increase in the consumption of oil”.8
These lifestyles were further engrained into society by offering subsidies that made it possible for people to own their own homes. This strategy not only put values of property ownership and individualism before the community, but also pacified the population.9 Those who owned property and were paying off debts were less likely to cause civil unrest.10 This contributed to neoliberal hegemony, which Antonio Gramsci argued was constantly perpetuated through “popular culture”.11 A level of consent amongst society continues the dominance of hegemony, because if people are invested in these new lifestyles, they refrain from challenging the status quo, making it difficult for people from seeing any other alternative way of life. Suburbanization left the cities abandoned, except by those who could not afford to leave.12
Cities became the antithesis of the suburbs and centers for civil unrest. They were places for the homeless, squatters, and those who did not fit into the new lifestyles in the suburbs. The desertification, lack of investment, and financial crash in the early 1970s, led to many cities becoming bankrupt, such as New York City in 1975.13 According to the government, cities were in a crisis. The response to this crisis was to create a new urban market. During this time, buildings in downtown were affordable, if not abandoned. This invited squatter movements, and the growth of underground cultures and arts communities. Inevitably, as these places became more popular, so did the cost of living.14 A new market started to focus on the service industry, which targeted students and yuppies that came to live in these areas.15 Harvey argues that 1972 was a turning point towards a new kind of capitalism, which he calls “flexible accumulation”.16 The rise of the entrepreneurial city led to the competition amongst cities to be centers of consumption in response to deindustrialization.17 During this time we see a shift in architectural thinking, from the modernist to the postmodernist movement, which was a shift from having a sense of social responsibility of urban renewal towards commodification and aestheticization that became a symbol of social status.
There was an ambition amongst modern architects to solve the world’s problems, through standardization, efficient design for the masses, and social housing developments.18 Modernism also had a political edge through promoting democracy. This is seen by advocating transparent diplomacy through the free plan and Hannes Meyer’s glazed rooms of his proposal for the League of Nations.19 As cities became deteriorated, there was an opportunity to reshape them. This led to a complete restructuring of the city centre, with government funded public housing projects that would ensure the pre-war slums would not re-emerge.20 However, by the 1960’s many began to criticize the modernist movement. McLeod describes the changing views of the public housing projects, which became seen as a “wasteland of urban renewal”.21 She further states that the style of the architecture became seen as “arcane, mute, and of little appeal outside a narrow cultural elite”.22 Modernism became associated with capitalist accumulation and Fordist modernization, which dominated the internationalist corporate aesthetic.23 Lefebvre’s critique of urbanism was partly in response to the homogenization and standardization of modernist architecture.24 Despite the failures, there was at least a sense of responsibility amongst architects to address concerns in society. Postmodernism rose out of a reaction to modernism, with a much lower sense of social responsibility.
The financial crash in the early 1970’s and a lack of work for architects led to a rise in theoretical exploration, which created space for architects to question the modernist movement. The failures of the public housing projects led to a disillusionment amongst architects, questioning if architecture could be an effective tool for social change.25 Postmodernism reacted to what was seen as dull and mundane, and sought to explore diversity and complexity in design. Architecture came to be seen as an art rather than an agent of social change.26 The nature of art relies on the idea of praise, which promotes ideas of luxury and elitist consumption.
As soon as the economy picked up in the 80s, architects went from focusing on theory to cashing in on this new ability to market architecture.27 As an art, it was able to be sold through books, magazines, and exhibits like never before.28 Harvey states that “postmodernism is nothing more than the cultural clothing of flexible accumulation”.29 Just as modernism became associated with the corporate aesthetics of the elite by the end of its reign, so too did postmodernism become the new style of the elite classes. Whereas modernism was focused on form, postmodernism focused on image.30 As the cities were becoming reclaimed by the social elite, architecture was becoming more commodified and sold through promoting an image of social prestige.
Today we have entered a new level of urbanization. Richard Florida’s book called The New Urban Crisis31, was written in response to the criticism he received from his earlier book written in 2002, called The Rise of the Creative Class.32 In this earlier book he argued that the success of cities relied on the ability to attract and support the young “cultural creatives” who attract large businesses and high-paying jobs.33 He was criticized for supporting gentrification as good for cities.34 This led him to re-think his argument, in which he recognized that he was ignoring the fact that gentrification was leading to a homogeneity of wealth, a decrease of the middle-class, and increased inequality in cities. This is what he is referring to as “the new urban crisis”. When Harvey discussed the “entrepreneurial city” and inter-city competition, he was referring to displays of wealth and commodification through the development of sports facilities and Disney worlds during the rise of postmodernism.35 Today, this competition amongst cities has transitioned to focus on what Florida calls,
He is emphasizing the need for cities to be vibrant, diverse, inclusive, and accessible. However, this ideal vision of the city lifestyle is not realistic. In the past, these vibrant music and art cultures only emerged because artists and diverse groups of people could afford rent in the cities when they were undesirable places to live. Now, cities have become highly desired and unaffordable. These “cultural creatives” are being pushed out of the city centre, and regions of “deadened trophy districts” are emerging, where “the global super-rich park their money in high-end housing investments as opposed to places in which to live”.37 Harvey argues that today “the traditional centrality of the city has been destroyed”.38 When cities were undesirable, they were places of refuge for those who could not afford to leave. The modernist movement sought to address this through mass public housing projects to prevent urban slums. Once cities became desirable again, the elite sought to take back the city centre from those who never left. Lefebvre’s notion of the Right to the City and the Right to Centrality is raised once again. Merrifield points out that maybe now, the right to centrality does not necessarily mean the physical centre of the city, but rather the centre of your being. The physical centre of the city has become so unattainable for most people. With the world becoming more urbanized, there needs to be multiple centers throughout the periphery that allow people to fulfill their needs of everyday life within their own neighbourhoods.
As soon as the economy picked up in the 80s, architects went from focusing on theory to cashing in on this new ability to market architecture.27 As an art, it was able to be sold through books, magazines, and exhibits like never before.28 Harvey states that “postmodernism is nothing more than the cultural clothing of flexible accumulation”.29 Just as modernism became associated with the corporate aesthetics of the elite by the end of its reign, so too did postmodernism become the new style of the elite classes. Whereas modernism was focused on form, postmodernism focused on image.30 As the cities were becoming reclaimed by the social elite, architecture was becoming more commodified and sold through promoting an image of social prestige.
Today we have entered a new level of urbanization. Richard Florida’s book called The New Urban Crisis31, was written in response to the criticism he received from his earlier book written in 2002, called The Rise of the Creative Class.32 In this earlier book he argued that the success of cities relied on the ability to attract and support the young “cultural creatives” who attract large businesses and high-paying jobs.33 He was criticized for supporting gentrification as good for cities.34 This led him to re-think his argument, in which he recognized that he was ignoring the fact that gentrification was leading to a homogeneity of wealth, a decrease of the middle-class, and increased inequality in cities. This is what he is referring to as “the new urban crisis”. When Harvey discussed the “entrepreneurial city” and inter-city competition, he was referring to displays of wealth and commodification through the development of sports facilities and Disney worlds during the rise of postmodernism.35 Today, this competition amongst cities has transitioned to focus on what Florida calls,
“the new people-driven, place-based economy turned on doing the smaller things that made cities great places to live and work – things like making sure there were walkable, pedestrian-friendly streets, bike lanes, parks, exciting art and music scene, and vibrant areas where people could gather in cafes and restaurants. Cities need more than a competitive business climate; they also needed a great people climate that appealed to individuals and families of all types – single, married, with children or without, straight or gay.”36
He is emphasizing the need for cities to be vibrant, diverse, inclusive, and accessible. However, this ideal vision of the city lifestyle is not realistic. In the past, these vibrant music and art cultures only emerged because artists and diverse groups of people could afford rent in the cities when they were undesirable places to live. Now, cities have become highly desired and unaffordable. These “cultural creatives” are being pushed out of the city centre, and regions of “deadened trophy districts” are emerging, where “the global super-rich park their money in high-end housing investments as opposed to places in which to live”.37 Harvey argues that today “the traditional centrality of the city has been destroyed”.38 When cities were undesirable, they were places of refuge for those who could not afford to leave. The modernist movement sought to address this through mass public housing projects to prevent urban slums. Once cities became desirable again, the elite sought to take back the city centre from those who never left. Lefebvre’s notion of the Right to the City and the Right to Centrality is raised once again. Merrifield points out that maybe now, the right to centrality does not necessarily mean the physical centre of the city, but rather the centre of your being. The physical centre of the city has become so unattainable for most people. With the world becoming more urbanized, there needs to be multiple centers throughout the periphery that allow people to fulfill their needs of everyday life within their own neighbourhoods.
Commodification of Architecture
When cities become desirable, the spaces within them become highly valued as a commodity. Many theorists have discussed the terms “use value” and “exchange value”. Adam Smith defines use value by the usefulness that a product can fulfill ones needs.39 Exchange value is determined not by its usefulness, but by its purchasing power.40 Marx defines the relationship between use value and exchange value as a commodity. The only use value a commodity has for the owner is through the amount of exchange value it holds.41 Harvey discusses the issues that arise when land becomes the commodity.42 Firstly, people cannot exist without occupying space.43 This brings into question human rights that revolve around occupying space, one of them being the right to housing. Secondly, those who own property are more concerned with exchange value, yet they have a monopoly over determining its use value.44 When exchange value takes precedence over use value, architects become limited in their ability to design for how people use space. Instead, they must ensure that the design does not compromise the exchange value, despite what the present use of the space may be. Anna Minton points out in her essay “Who is the City For”, that “Lefebvre’s conception of the Right to the City was based around the everyday experience of people inhabiting the city, emphasizing use value over exchange value”.45 However, the Right to the City is being challenged by prioritizing exchange value. The development of land becomes dependent on its ability to sell. Lefebvre states, “We build on the basis of papers and plans. We buy on the basis of images”.46 Just as a city relies on marketing itself through imagery, so too does architecture become more concerned with its representation rather than its use. The representation of architecture for the means of selling brings it into the realm of Marx’s “commodity fetishism”.47 Architecture becomes a symbol of social status, feeding an endless need for consumption.
Architecture has and always will be communicated through drawing, imagery, and representation. Mass media and communication has contributed to an increased awareness and interest in architecture amongst the general population.48 The representation of architecture is not just for other architects, builders, and designers, but is used as a marketing tool to sell in the greater public sphere. There is always an intent behind an image. Swati Chattopadhyay recognizes three different kinds of representation.49 The first is a portrait, which is intended to portray a reality. The second is a “proxy”, which acts as a stand-in. The third is political, that which forms a critique. The public perception of architectural representation is that it is forming a portrait of reality. However, if the intent behind that representations is to sell, then the image can become heavily distorted. Lefebvre states, “the image kills”.50 When architecture becomes a commodity, the representation of it does not portray the whole truth, and even tries to “conceal and deceive”.51 As cities portray a deceiving image of a livable environment, the architectural representation that is used to do so becomes further separated from reality.
The nuclear family living in the single-family home in the suburbs is no longer the lifestyle that is being marketed on a grand scale as in the post-WWII period. Today, it is focused on young professionals living in condos in the downtown city. Gillad Rosen discusses the power that developers have in shaping cites, specifically Toronto52, which would be considered one of Florida’s “superstar city tech-hubs.53 Toronto has gone through a similar process of post-war deindustrialization as discussed in the previous section. What was once an industrial focused city, has grown into a consumer and real estate driven environment. Rosen uses the term “condo-ism” to describe the way developers have transformed our cities. Condominiums have become so ubiquitous in the city, that they are the new dominant form of rental housing. However, they are not managed like typical rental buildings, which would have one governing body. Instead, a new form of governance emerges that involves multiple internal private owners.54 This reduces the ability for public regulation over rental housing.
When cities become desirable, the spaces within them become highly valued as a commodity. Many theorists have discussed the terms “use value” and “exchange value”. Adam Smith defines use value by the usefulness that a product can fulfill ones needs.39 Exchange value is determined not by its usefulness, but by its purchasing power.40 Marx defines the relationship between use value and exchange value as a commodity. The only use value a commodity has for the owner is through the amount of exchange value it holds.41 Harvey discusses the issues that arise when land becomes the commodity.42 Firstly, people cannot exist without occupying space.43 This brings into question human rights that revolve around occupying space, one of them being the right to housing. Secondly, those who own property are more concerned with exchange value, yet they have a monopoly over determining its use value.44 When exchange value takes precedence over use value, architects become limited in their ability to design for how people use space. Instead, they must ensure that the design does not compromise the exchange value, despite what the present use of the space may be. Anna Minton points out in her essay “Who is the City For”, that “Lefebvre’s conception of the Right to the City was based around the everyday experience of people inhabiting the city, emphasizing use value over exchange value”.45 However, the Right to the City is being challenged by prioritizing exchange value. The development of land becomes dependent on its ability to sell. Lefebvre states, “We build on the basis of papers and plans. We buy on the basis of images”.46 Just as a city relies on marketing itself through imagery, so too does architecture become more concerned with its representation rather than its use. The representation of architecture for the means of selling brings it into the realm of Marx’s “commodity fetishism”.47 Architecture becomes a symbol of social status, feeding an endless need for consumption.
Architecture has and always will be communicated through drawing, imagery, and representation. Mass media and communication has contributed to an increased awareness and interest in architecture amongst the general population.48 The representation of architecture is not just for other architects, builders, and designers, but is used as a marketing tool to sell in the greater public sphere. There is always an intent behind an image. Swati Chattopadhyay recognizes three different kinds of representation.49 The first is a portrait, which is intended to portray a reality. The second is a “proxy”, which acts as a stand-in. The third is political, that which forms a critique. The public perception of architectural representation is that it is forming a portrait of reality. However, if the intent behind that representations is to sell, then the image can become heavily distorted. Lefebvre states, “the image kills”.50 When architecture becomes a commodity, the representation of it does not portray the whole truth, and even tries to “conceal and deceive”.51 As cities portray a deceiving image of a livable environment, the architectural representation that is used to do so becomes further separated from reality.
The nuclear family living in the single-family home in the suburbs is no longer the lifestyle that is being marketed on a grand scale as in the post-WWII period. Today, it is focused on young professionals living in condos in the downtown city. Gillad Rosen discusses the power that developers have in shaping cites, specifically Toronto52, which would be considered one of Florida’s “superstar city tech-hubs.53 Toronto has gone through a similar process of post-war deindustrialization as discussed in the previous section. What was once an industrial focused city, has grown into a consumer and real estate driven environment. Rosen uses the term “condo-ism” to describe the way developers have transformed our cities. Condominiums have become so ubiquitous in the city, that they are the new dominant form of rental housing. However, they are not managed like typical rental buildings, which would have one governing body. Instead, a new form of governance emerges that involves multiple internal private owners.54 This reduces the ability for public regulation over rental housing.
Furthermore, the business of selling these condos rely heavily on branding and marketing, focused on the city centre, young professionals and promoting the condo lifestyle.55
The images that are used to promote this lifestyle are often deceptive, for example real estate agents go to extreme lengths to make spaces look more livable than they are. With the use of new technology, such as drone photography and virtual tours, the representation of space can be highly manipulated. Wide camera angles are used to make spaces look much bigger than in reality. Steven Fudge, a sales representative in Toronto states,
People are not willing to see spaces in the reality of how we live. The fact that real estate agents have no choice but to resort to distorting reality to sell homes shows that there is a bigger problem of a lack of livable housing in the city.
Regent Park was Canada’s first and largest public housing development. It was built in the mid-20th century, during the time when the modernist movement had ambitions for social responsibility and urban renewal. In 2003, it was approved to be one of Canada’s first revitalization projects, which rested on the model of socially mixed income development. What set this development apart from others was its unique “right-of-return” policy, which guarantees a unit of similar size to existing tenants.57 However, only 27% of the new housing was subsidized, with a lottery determining who would be able to return.58 Martine August argues that the mixed-income development was marketed under the guise of promoting equality, when really it was about unlocking land value and introducing middle-upper income consumers into the city centre.59 August further argues that the city strategy for gaining support for the revitalization project was to “vilify, then gentrify”.60 To vilify the neighbourhood by spreading negative rhetoric that claims the only fix is to completely demolish everything and start with a clean slate. Then gentrify, by bringing higher income residents into the area to increase land value. The city plan even used language that August points out was very “paternalistic and condescending”.61 The Regent Park Revitalization Plan stated,
Regent Park is an example of the city putting precedence of exchange value over use value. Higher-income residents are already able to command the space around them through exchange value, where as low-income neighbourhoods rely heavily on the community for support. By deconcentrating low-income residents, it becomes more difficult for people to contribute to and receive support from their communities. It is also a way to make poverty invisible. Before the revitalization of Regent Park, there were strong community ties, and the ability to organize that support was much easier. This is what Lefebvre would see as important to commanding ones own space in everyday life. Instead, the strategy of cities is to declare entire areas as “diseased”, and “they can only be cured by radical surgery as something necessary for protecting citizens”.63
“homebuyers are so reluctant to envision themselves anywhere but an unlived-in show home… buyers expect to step into a manufactured, aspirational lifestyle, and sellers are penalized if they don’t want to buy into the process”.56
People are not willing to see spaces in the reality of how we live. The fact that real estate agents have no choice but to resort to distorting reality to sell homes shows that there is a bigger problem of a lack of livable housing in the city.
Regent Park was Canada’s first and largest public housing development. It was built in the mid-20th century, during the time when the modernist movement had ambitions for social responsibility and urban renewal. In 2003, it was approved to be one of Canada’s first revitalization projects, which rested on the model of socially mixed income development. What set this development apart from others was its unique “right-of-return” policy, which guarantees a unit of similar size to existing tenants.57 However, only 27% of the new housing was subsidized, with a lottery determining who would be able to return.58 Martine August argues that the mixed-income development was marketed under the guise of promoting equality, when really it was about unlocking land value and introducing middle-upper income consumers into the city centre.59 August further argues that the city strategy for gaining support for the revitalization project was to “vilify, then gentrify”.60 To vilify the neighbourhood by spreading negative rhetoric that claims the only fix is to completely demolish everything and start with a clean slate. Then gentrify, by bringing higher income residents into the area to increase land value. The city plan even used language that August points out was very “paternalistic and condescending”.61 The Regent Park Revitalization Plan stated,
“Behavioral patterns of lower-income tenants will be altered by interaction with higher income neighbours. For example, social norms about workforce participation will be passed on to lower income residents”.62
Regent Park is an example of the city putting precedence of exchange value over use value. Higher-income residents are already able to command the space around them through exchange value, where as low-income neighbourhoods rely heavily on the community for support. By deconcentrating low-income residents, it becomes more difficult for people to contribute to and receive support from their communities. It is also a way to make poverty invisible. Before the revitalization of Regent Park, there were strong community ties, and the ability to organize that support was much easier. This is what Lefebvre would see as important to commanding ones own space in everyday life. Instead, the strategy of cities is to declare entire areas as “diseased”, and “they can only be cured by radical surgery as something necessary for protecting citizens”.63
How Architects Challenge the Commodification of Architecture
It is difficult to imagine how architecture can be an agent of social change when the work of an architect depends so heavily on others, which further perpetuates this sense of hegemony. Architects often feel frustrated with the external influences that prevent them from doing the kind of work they want to do. Samuel Mockbee states,
“The professional challenge, whether one is an architect in the rural American South or elsewhere in the world, is how to avoid being so stunned by the power of modern technology and economic affluence that one does not lose sight of the fact that people and place matter”.64
Lefebvre sees any form of building as a “direct expression of power”.65 However, Coleman provides some solace through pinpointing aspects of Lefebvre’s work that indicate how one can challenge the commodification of architecture. Lefebvre saw the everyday urban setting as a driver for capitalist consumptions, as well as a source of resistance.66 Coleman calls Lefebvre the “philosopher of cracks”.67 By finding these contradictions in everyday life, one can form cracks in the system that begin to break away at the entire structure. Coleman states that, “In Lefebvre’s view, it is also – at least potentially – the landscape of the everyday out of which change can arise, but not before the everyday is subjected to sustained critique”. This requires rethinking the definition of an architect and expanding the scope of their work. The following section will explore examples of three different ways architects can challenge the commodification of architecture. The first is through representation that does not deceive and try to upsell unattainable lifestyles. The second is by using architectural knowledge to provide a critique of society, making the public see something that they may have overlooked before. The third is by broadening the role of the architect to design not for others, but with others. Each of these examples, which I would classify as counter-hegemonic practices, emphasize process over the final product.
Architects cannot escape representation; it is the basis of how they communicate. However, architects do have control over what they are communicating. Extra attention must be drawn to this when the imagery is being consumed by the masses. With increased public attention towards architecture as an art and a commodity, there lies a responsibility, and an opportunity for architects to capture this attention and draw it towards more realistic and meaningful perspectives. There is also a danger of not just fooling the potential buyers, but also fooling the architects themselves.68 Technology and computer visualizations have allowed architects to visualize imagined spaces in new ways that appear polished and perfect as soon as they are digitally modelled. As Coleman states, jumping to these techniques too early can “prematurely convince them of the value of their own work”.69 Tatiana Bilbao is a Mexican Architect that bans renders from her process until the very end of a project. Instead, she uses collages, models, and sketches, which allow for mistakes during the design process, and remind one that it is a work in progress. Bilbao states, “A Collage allows a lot of voices to be in one place.”.70 Figure 1 shows a collage for a Masterplan for Hunter’s Point in San Francisco. This kind of representation does not control the intent of the image but allows for multiple interpretations of it.
![]()
Figure 1. Masterplan for Hunter’s Point in San Francisco.71
When representation is about reality, honesty is important. However, as discussed earlier, representation can also be political, providing a critique about society.72 Architects are trained to see space in ways that others have not, and can make others see things that they may not have previously thought much about. In 1973, Gordon Matta Clark, part of the Anarchitecture Group, used his knowledge of space as an architecturally trained artist, to critique the “value of space”.73 His project titled Reality Properties: Fake Estates, consisted of buying left over bits of land that was being auctioned off by the city of New York.74 As seen in Figure 2, Matta Clark presents this work by displaying the legal written descriptions of the land, with the architectural plans of the city block and realistic photographs of each plot, in order to reveal the conflicting interests and intentions behind each form of representation.76
![]()
Figure 2. Reality Properties: Fake Estates (Maspeth Onions’), 1973.75
Stephan Walker states that, “Matta-Clark’s initial purchases and subsequent (re)presentations call into question the illusory space of the drawing that predicates the real estate system”.77 There was a total of 15 estates, each one completely useless, yet still contained enough exchange value that the City of New York was not willing to let go of the land without some monetary exchange.
It is difficult to imagine how architecture can be an agent of social change when the work of an architect depends so heavily on others, which further perpetuates this sense of hegemony. Architects often feel frustrated with the external influences that prevent them from doing the kind of work they want to do. Samuel Mockbee states,
“The professional challenge, whether one is an architect in the rural American South or elsewhere in the world, is how to avoid being so stunned by the power of modern technology and economic affluence that one does not lose sight of the fact that people and place matter”.64
Lefebvre sees any form of building as a “direct expression of power”.65 However, Coleman provides some solace through pinpointing aspects of Lefebvre’s work that indicate how one can challenge the commodification of architecture. Lefebvre saw the everyday urban setting as a driver for capitalist consumptions, as well as a source of resistance.66 Coleman calls Lefebvre the “philosopher of cracks”.67 By finding these contradictions in everyday life, one can form cracks in the system that begin to break away at the entire structure. Coleman states that, “In Lefebvre’s view, it is also – at least potentially – the landscape of the everyday out of which change can arise, but not before the everyday is subjected to sustained critique”. This requires rethinking the definition of an architect and expanding the scope of their work. The following section will explore examples of three different ways architects can challenge the commodification of architecture. The first is through representation that does not deceive and try to upsell unattainable lifestyles. The second is by using architectural knowledge to provide a critique of society, making the public see something that they may have overlooked before. The third is by broadening the role of the architect to design not for others, but with others. Each of these examples, which I would classify as counter-hegemonic practices, emphasize process over the final product.
Architects cannot escape representation; it is the basis of how they communicate. However, architects do have control over what they are communicating. Extra attention must be drawn to this when the imagery is being consumed by the masses. With increased public attention towards architecture as an art and a commodity, there lies a responsibility, and an opportunity for architects to capture this attention and draw it towards more realistic and meaningful perspectives. There is also a danger of not just fooling the potential buyers, but also fooling the architects themselves.68 Technology and computer visualizations have allowed architects to visualize imagined spaces in new ways that appear polished and perfect as soon as they are digitally modelled. As Coleman states, jumping to these techniques too early can “prematurely convince them of the value of their own work”.69 Tatiana Bilbao is a Mexican Architect that bans renders from her process until the very end of a project. Instead, she uses collages, models, and sketches, which allow for mistakes during the design process, and remind one that it is a work in progress. Bilbao states, “A Collage allows a lot of voices to be in one place.”.70 Figure 1 shows a collage for a Masterplan for Hunter’s Point in San Francisco. This kind of representation does not control the intent of the image but allows for multiple interpretations of it.
Figure 1. Masterplan for Hunter’s Point in San Francisco.71
When representation is about reality, honesty is important. However, as discussed earlier, representation can also be political, providing a critique about society.72 Architects are trained to see space in ways that others have not, and can make others see things that they may not have previously thought much about. In 1973, Gordon Matta Clark, part of the Anarchitecture Group, used his knowledge of space as an architecturally trained artist, to critique the “value of space”.73 His project titled Reality Properties: Fake Estates, consisted of buying left over bits of land that was being auctioned off by the city of New York.74 As seen in Figure 2, Matta Clark presents this work by displaying the legal written descriptions of the land, with the architectural plans of the city block and realistic photographs of each plot, in order to reveal the conflicting interests and intentions behind each form of representation.76
Figure 2. Reality Properties: Fake Estates (Maspeth Onions’), 1973.75
Stephan Walker states that, “Matta-Clark’s initial purchases and subsequent (re)presentations call into question the illusory space of the drawing that predicates the real estate system”.77 There was a total of 15 estates, each one completely useless, yet still contained enough exchange value that the City of New York was not willing to let go of the land without some monetary exchange.
The ability for architects to critique society also goes beyond representation. Today in Chicago, Theaster Gates turns land that has almost no exchange value left and uses it to create a space that has immense use value for the surrounding communities. Although this kind of work may be difficult in “superstar” cities like New York, where even the small slivers of land retain a significant exchange value, there are opportunities in the peripheral landscapes of cities that can bring a sense of centrality to their residents. Theaster Gate’s project, Stoney Island Arts Bank (Figure 3), where he turned a derelict building into an art and cultural centre, was presented in the Chicago Biennale 2019.78 The Biennale that year was titled “…and other such stories”. This topic emerged out of a desire for architecture to not neglect its social responsibility and impact on society. The crisis of urbanization that has dominated the planet, in combination with neoliberal hegemony, has raised concern within the architectural community to remind themselves that architecture is really about people. This biennale exhibited many powerful stories were told through the lens of architecture that reminds us of Lefebvre’s call for the Right to the City.
![]()
Figure 3. Stoney Island Arts Bank.79
The top-down approach to architecture, where the architect holds all the intelligence, lends itself to commodification by monopolizing knowledge. Architectural knowledge should instead be used in conjunction with others, especially those that will be the users of what is being designed. Just as Lefebvre sees the potential for change in the everyday, Sarah Wigglesworth and Jeremy Till examine architecture outside of the realm of vanity, perfection, the iconic, and the monumental, by looking at architecture in the context of the everyday.80 The Everyday and Architecture is a collection of work by architects, such as Samuel Mockbee and others alike, who emphasize that the “real productive potential for architects lies in an endless movement between engagement and retreat”,81 to allow creativity to flourish and have many voices heard. Spatial Agency: Other Ways of Doing Architecture, of which Till is also a contributor, along with Nishat Awan and Tatjana Schneider, look at many examples of architectural practice, just as Matta Clark’s Fake Estates, which work outside the neoliberal realm of commodification.82 They also speak to Henri Lefevre, stating that “Lefebvre wrests the production of space from the clutches of specialists, most notably architects and planners, and places it in a much broader social context.”83 The contributors to this book argue not to abandon architectural intelligence, but instead foster mutual knowledge and agency to broaden the profession of architecture.84
An example of a practice that exemplifies what Wigglesworth, Till, Awan and Schneider are advocating is an organization in Sao Paulo called USINA_ctah.85 Their work was also displayed in the Chicago Biennale 2019.86 Sao Paulo is often discussed in terms of the Right to the City, due to its legal recognition of a collective right to the city that was included into their constitution in 2001.87 USINA_ctah is a group of architects, and researchers that work with communities to help them build their own homes and public spaces.88 Their exhibit, The Architecture of Land Struggles, displayed some of their projects that emphasize their focus on collaborative construction processes. One of the more substantial projects they worked on was the construction of Talara, which consisted of 20 buildings, a community hall, and a daycare, which would accommodate for 408 families.89 These were more than just single-family homes. Their main objective was to utilize the skills of the members within the communities to be included in both the decision making and construction process. They focused on “innovative uses of space driven by the needs of those who use it”.90 By reducing the need for skilled construction labor as much as possible, the community members were able to construct 5 to 6 storey buildings using self-supporting masonry (Figure 4-6). Their main objective is to
In addition to their practice, they work to expand the knowledge of what they do through exhibitions and educational workshops. In this context, the profession of the architect has been broadened to not just work for a community but with a community.
![Figure 4. Talara Building Section (92)]()
![Figure 5. Talara Site Plan (93)]()
![]()
Figure 6. Construction of Talara94
Figure 3. Stoney Island Arts Bank.79
The top-down approach to architecture, where the architect holds all the intelligence, lends itself to commodification by monopolizing knowledge. Architectural knowledge should instead be used in conjunction with others, especially those that will be the users of what is being designed. Just as Lefebvre sees the potential for change in the everyday, Sarah Wigglesworth and Jeremy Till examine architecture outside of the realm of vanity, perfection, the iconic, and the monumental, by looking at architecture in the context of the everyday.80 The Everyday and Architecture is a collection of work by architects, such as Samuel Mockbee and others alike, who emphasize that the “real productive potential for architects lies in an endless movement between engagement and retreat”,81 to allow creativity to flourish and have many voices heard. Spatial Agency: Other Ways of Doing Architecture, of which Till is also a contributor, along with Nishat Awan and Tatjana Schneider, look at many examples of architectural practice, just as Matta Clark’s Fake Estates, which work outside the neoliberal realm of commodification.82 They also speak to Henri Lefevre, stating that “Lefebvre wrests the production of space from the clutches of specialists, most notably architects and planners, and places it in a much broader social context.”83 The contributors to this book argue not to abandon architectural intelligence, but instead foster mutual knowledge and agency to broaden the profession of architecture.84
An example of a practice that exemplifies what Wigglesworth, Till, Awan and Schneider are advocating is an organization in Sao Paulo called USINA_ctah.85 Their work was also displayed in the Chicago Biennale 2019.86 Sao Paulo is often discussed in terms of the Right to the City, due to its legal recognition of a collective right to the city that was included into their constitution in 2001.87 USINA_ctah is a group of architects, and researchers that work with communities to help them build their own homes and public spaces.88 Their exhibit, The Architecture of Land Struggles, displayed some of their projects that emphasize their focus on collaborative construction processes. One of the more substantial projects they worked on was the construction of Talara, which consisted of 20 buildings, a community hall, and a daycare, which would accommodate for 408 families.89 These were more than just single-family homes. Their main objective was to utilize the skills of the members within the communities to be included in both the decision making and construction process. They focused on “innovative uses of space driven by the needs of those who use it”.90 By reducing the need for skilled construction labor as much as possible, the community members were able to construct 5 to 6 storey buildings using self-supporting masonry (Figure 4-6). Their main objective is to
“overcome the authorial and strictly commercial production of architecture and urbanism… to integrate and engineer alterative processes to the logic of capital through counter-hegemonic social, spatial, technical and aesthetic experiences”.91
In addition to their practice, they work to expand the knowledge of what they do through exhibitions and educational workshops. In this context, the profession of the architect has been broadened to not just work for a community but with a community.
Figure 6. Construction of Talara94
Conclusion
Having a sense of social responsibility towards urban renewal is not new. This was evident in the modernist movement before it became branded as a corporate aesthetic. In hindsight, we can learn from the failures of their intentions. However, they had the support of the government behind them. In North America today there is a stigma against public housing, and governments are less willing to financially back them. They are however, still promoting equality and social responsibility to back urban renewal projects, which have been revealed as a guise for unlocking exchange value of land. Cities have entered a crisis today where the value of land and development is so high that architects are designing buildings that are not for those who live in the cities. This begs the question, who are cities for? This re-ignites Lefebvre’s famous call for the Right to the City. The commodification of space, combined with the focus of architecture as an art which ignores any sense of social responsibility, is a recipe for commodity fetishism. It is not that architecture cannot be artistic and beautiful. The problem occurs when that art no longer becomes about the users of the architecture. Architecture is not just about art; it is about creating spaces that address how people interact in their everyday lives. As Mcleod states, “buildings are rarely perceived at once for their aesthetic qualities and “content”; rather their impact occurs gradually through use and repeated contact”.95
Having a sense of social responsibility towards urban renewal is not new. This was evident in the modernist movement before it became branded as a corporate aesthetic. In hindsight, we can learn from the failures of their intentions. However, they had the support of the government behind them. In North America today there is a stigma against public housing, and governments are less willing to financially back them. They are however, still promoting equality and social responsibility to back urban renewal projects, which have been revealed as a guise for unlocking exchange value of land. Cities have entered a crisis today where the value of land and development is so high that architects are designing buildings that are not for those who live in the cities. This begs the question, who are cities for? This re-ignites Lefebvre’s famous call for the Right to the City. The commodification of space, combined with the focus of architecture as an art which ignores any sense of social responsibility, is a recipe for commodity fetishism. It is not that architecture cannot be artistic and beautiful. The problem occurs when that art no longer becomes about the users of the architecture. Architecture is not just about art; it is about creating spaces that address how people interact in their everyday lives. As Mcleod states, “buildings are rarely perceived at once for their aesthetic qualities and “content”; rather their impact occurs gradually through use and repeated contact”.95
Architecture as a commodity puts the final product before the process. I argue that it is the process that brings greater value to architecture, which never actually reaches a final product, because it is always subject to daily use and changes of use.
The role of the architect is once again being challenged to not be passive, and instead be what Samuel Mockbee calls “subversive leaders and teachers”.96 He states,
The examples discussed above show incremental ways that architects can be active actors in the community. Although it is incremental, these strategies provide real change in people’s lives. A modest project can have a larger impact on everyday life than a prestigious project can, which may look aesthetically pleasing but is deemed useless to the majority of the population. The neoliberal hegemonic system may seem so pervasive that it is hard to imagine any alternative. Rather than tackling the entire system as a whole, incremental counter-hegemonic practices that focuses on everyday life can reveal cracks in the system that challenge the commodification of architecture and create opportunities for everyone to have a right to their own centrality.
The role of the architect is once again being challenged to not be passive, and instead be what Samuel Mockbee calls “subversive leaders and teachers”.96 He states,
“I believe that architects are given a gift of second sight and when we see something that others can’t we should act, and we shouldn’t wait for decisions to be made by politicians or multinational corporations”.97
The examples discussed above show incremental ways that architects can be active actors in the community. Although it is incremental, these strategies provide real change in people’s lives. A modest project can have a larger impact on everyday life than a prestigious project can, which may look aesthetically pleasing but is deemed useless to the majority of the population. The neoliberal hegemonic system may seem so pervasive that it is hard to imagine any alternative. Rather than tackling the entire system as a whole, incremental counter-hegemonic practices that focuses on everyday life can reveal cracks in the system that challenge the commodification of architecture and create opportunities for everyone to have a right to their own centrality.
Footnotes
- Coleman, Lefebvre for Architects (New York & London: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group, 2015).
- Kipfer, Stefan. “Urbanization, Everyday Life and the Survival of Capitalism: Lefebvre, Gramsci and the Problematic of Hegemony”. CNS, 13, no. 2 (2002): 142.
- Coleman 2015, 34.
- Lefebvre, Henri. The Production of Space. Translated by Donald Nicholson-Smith. (MA: Blackwell
Publishing. 1991).
- Harvey, David. The Condition of Postmodernity. (Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers, 1989), 100.
- Harvey, David. Social Justice and the City. (Athens & London: The University of Georgia Press, 2009), 316.
- Harvey 2009, 318-319. Process of stabilizing capitalism after 1945.
- Harvey 2009, 319.
- Harvey 2009, 319.
- Harvey 2009, 319.
- Kipfer 2002, 128.
- Kipfer 2002.
- Harvey 2009, 320.
- Van der Steen, Ask Katzeef and Leendert van Hoogenhuijze. The City is Ours: Squatting and
Autonomous Movements in Europe from the 1970s to the Present. (PM Press, 2014). - Van der Steen et. al. 2014.
- Harvey, David. “Flexible Accumulation Through Urbanization Reflections on ‘Post-Modernism’ in the American City.” Perspecta 26 (1990): 255, Accessed October 20, 2020. https://wwwjstororg.ezproxy.lib.ryerson.ca/stable/1567167?pqorigsite=summon&seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents.
- Harvey 1990, 255.
- McLeod, Mary. “Architecture and Politics in the Reagan Era: From Postmodernism to Deconstructivism”, Assemblage, no. 9 (Feb. 1989): 25.
- 19 McLeod 1989, 25.
- Harvey 1989, 68.
- McLeod 1989, 26.
- McLeod 1989, 26.
- McLeod 1989.
- Coleman 2015, 35.
- McLeod 1989.
- McLeod 1989.
- Mcleod 1989.
- McLeod 1989.
- McLeod 1989.
- McLeod 1989, 37.
- Florida 2017.
- Florida, Richard. The Rise of the Creative Class, Revisited. (New York: Basic Books. 2002).
- Florida 2017, xiv.
- Florida 2017.
- Harvey 1990.
- Florida 2017, xv.
- Florida 2017, 6.
- Harvey, David. Rebel Cities: From the Right to the City to the Urban Revolution. (London & New
York: Verso, 2013), xvii.
- Adam Smith cited in Harvey 2009, 153.
- Adam Smith cited in Harvey 2009, 153.
- Harvey 2009, 155.
- Harvey 2009.
- Harvey 2009, 155.
- Harvey 2009, 155.
- Minton, Anna. “Who is the City For”. A Right to the City: A Verso Report. (London: Verso, 2017).
- Lefebvre cited in Coleman 2015, 71.
- Harvey 1989, 100.
- Chattopadhyay, Swati. “Architectural Representations, Changing Technologies, and Conceptual Extensions,” in Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, no. 3, no. 71 (September 2012): 271. accessed November 15, 2020. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/jsah.2012.71.3.270.
- Chattopadhyay 2012.
- Lefebvre 1991, 97.
- Coleman 2015, 58.
- Rosen, Gillad. “Toronto’s condo-builders: development approaches and spatial preferences”, in Urban Geography 38, no. 4 (2017): 606-625.
- Florida 2017.
- Rosen 2017.
- Rosen 2017.
- Counter, Rosemary. “Real estate photos are distorting reality, frustrating would-be home buyers”, Maclean’s. May 15, 2019.
- Hayes, David. “Inside Regent Park: Toronto’s test case for public-private gentrification”. The Guardian. December 8, 2016.
- August, Martine. “Social Mix and Canadian Public Housing Redevelopment: Experiences in
Toronto”. In Canadian Journal of Urban Research (2008): 82-100. Accessed October 18, 2020, https://search-proquest com.ezproxy.lib.ryerson.ca/docview/208735543?pq-origsite=summon. - August 2008. Also see August, Martine. “Challenging the Rhetoric of Stigmatization: the benefits of concentrated poverty in Toronto’s Regent Park”. Environment and Planning A, no. 46 (2014): 1317-1333. Accessed October 18. 2020, https://journals-sagepub-com.ezproxy.lib.ryerson.ca/doi/abs/10.1068/a45635.
-
August 2014, 1322.
-
August 2008, 94.
-
Regent Park Revitalization Plan, cited in August 2008, 94.
-
Coleman 2015, 24.
- Mockbee, Samuel. “Samuel Mockbee: The Rural Studio”. In Architectural Design Profile, Guest edited by Sarah Wigglesworth and Jeremy Till. no. 134 (1998): 77.
- Coleman 2015, 84.
-
Kipfer 2002, 138.
-
Coleman 2015, 10.
-
Coleman 2015, 58.
-
Coleman 2015, 58.
- Frearson, Amy. “We banned renders” from the design process says Tatiana Bilbao.” December 4, 2019 . Dezeen. accessed November 24, 2020. https://www.dezeen.com/2019/12/04/tatiana-bilbao-banned-renderings-architecture-interview/.
- Tatiana Bilbao. Hunter’s Point Masterplan. Collage, Tatiana Bilbao Estudio. accessed November 24, 2020. https://tatianabilbao.com/projects/hunters-point-masterplan.
-
Chattopadhyay 2018.
- Walker, S. Gordon Matta-Clark: Art, Architecture and the Attack on Modernism (London: I.B. Tauris & Co Ltd. 2009, 138.
- Awan, Nishat, Tatjana Schneider and Jeremy Till. Spatial Agency: Other Ways of Doing Architecture. (New York & London: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group, 2011), 94.
-
Gordon Matta Clark, Reality Properties: Fake Estates (Maspeth Onions’), 1973. In Walker 2009, 136.
-
Walker 2009.
-
Walker 2009, 138.
-
Gates, Theaster. “Stoney Island Arts Bank.” accessed November 20, 2020. https://www.theastergates.com/project-items/stony-island-arts-bank?view=slider.
- Tom Harris. Stony Island Arts Bank. Hedrick Blessing. Courtesy of Rebuild Foundation. Accessed November 26, 2020. https://www.theastergates.com/project-items/stony-island-arts-bank?view=slider.
- Wigglesworth, Sarah and Jeremy Till. “The Everyday and Architecture”. Guest edited by Sarah Wigglesworth and Jeremy Till. In Architectural Design Profile, no. 134 (1998): 7-9.
-
Wigglesworth and Till 1998, 7.
-
Awan et. al. 2011.
-
Awan et. al. 2011, 29.
-
Awan et. al. 2011.
-
USINA_ctah. accessed November 20, 2020. http://www.usina-ctah.org.br/.
- Umolu, Yesomi, Sepake Angiama and Paulo Tavares. …And Other Such Stories. Columbia Books on Architecture and the City (2019).
- Merrifield, Andy. “Fifty Years On: The Right to the City”. A Right to the City: A Verso Report. London: Verso (2017).
-
USINA_ctah.
- USINA_ctah. “TALARA”, accessed November 20, 2020. http://www.usinactah.org.br/talara.html. https://2019.chicagoarchitecturebiennial.org/current/contributors/usina_ctah
-
USINA_ctah.
-
USINA_ctah. Talara Building Section. Accessed November 26, 2020. http://www.usina-ctah.org.br/talara.html target="_blank">http://www.usina-ctah.org.br/talara.html
-
USINA_ctah. Talara Site Plan. Accessed November 26, 2020. http://www.usina-ctah.org.br/talara.html
-
USINA_ctah. Construction of Talara. Accessed November 26, 2020. http://www.usina-ctah.org.br/talara.html
- Mcleod 1989, 25.
-
Mockbee 1998, 73.
- Mockbee 1998, 73.
References
August, Martine. “Social Mix and Canadian Public Housing Redevelopment: Experiences in Toronto”. In Canadian Journal of Urban Research (2008):
82-100. Accessed October 18, 2020, https://search-proquest com.ezproxy.lib.ryerson.ca/docview/208735543?pq-origsite=summon.
August, Martine. “Challenging the Rhetoric of Stigmatization: the benefits of concentrated poverty in Toronto’s Regent Park”. Environment and
Planning A, no. 46 (2014): 1317-1333. Accessed October 18. 2020, https://journals-sagepub-com.ezproxy.lib.ryerson.ca/doi/abs/10.1068/a45635.
Awan, Nishat, Tatjana Schneider and Jeremy Till. Spatial Agency: Other Ways of Doing Architecture. New York & London: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group, 2011.
Bilbao, Tatiana. Hunter’s Point Masterplan. Collage, Tatiana Bilbao Estudio. accessed November 24, 2020. https://tatianabilbao.com/projects/hunters-point-masterplan.
Chattopadhyay, Swati. “Architectural Representations, Changing Technologies, and Conceptual Extensions,” in Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, no. 3, no. 71. (September 2012): 270-272. accessed November 15, 2020 https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/jsah.2012.71.3.270.
Coleman, Nathaniel. Lefebvre for Architects. New York & London: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group, 2015.
Counter, Rosemary. “Real estate photos are distorting reality, frustrating would-be home buyers”, Maclean’s. May 15, 2019. Accessed November 20, 2020. https://www.macleans.ca/economy/realestateeconomy/real-estate-photos-are-distorting-reality-frustrating-would-be-home-buyers/.
Florida, Richard. The Rise of the Creative Class, Revisited. New York: Basic Books. 2002.
Florida, Richard. The New Urban Crisis: How Our Cities are Increasing Inequality, Deepening Segregation, and Failing the Middle Class – and What We Can Do About It. New York: Basic Books. 2017. 25
Frearson, Amy. “We banned renders” from the design process says Tatiana Bilbao.” December 4, 2019 . Dezeen. Accessed November 24, 2020. https://www.dezeen.com/2019/12/04/tatiana-bilbao-banned-renderings-architecture-interview/.
Gates, Theaster. “Stoney Island Arts Bank.” Accessed November 20, 2020.
https://www.theastergates.com/project-items/stony-island-arts-bank?view=slider.
Harris, Tom. Stony Island Arts Bank. Hedrick Blessing. Courtesy of Rebuild Foundation. Accessed November 26, 2020. https://www.theastergates.com/project-items/stony-island-artsbank?view=slider.
Hayes, David. “Inside Regent Park: Toronto’s test case for public-private gentrification”. The Guardian. December 8, 2016.
Harvey, David. The Condition of Postmodernity. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers, 1989.
August, Martine. “Social Mix and Canadian Public Housing Redevelopment: Experiences in Toronto”. In Canadian Journal of Urban Research (2008):
82-100. Accessed October 18, 2020, https://search-proquest com.ezproxy.lib.ryerson.ca/docview/208735543?pq-origsite=summon.
August, Martine. “Challenging the Rhetoric of Stigmatization: the benefits of concentrated poverty in Toronto’s Regent Park”. Environment and
Planning A, no. 46 (2014): 1317-1333. Accessed October 18. 2020, https://journals-sagepub-com.ezproxy.lib.ryerson.ca/doi/abs/10.1068/a45635.
Awan, Nishat, Tatjana Schneider and Jeremy Till. Spatial Agency: Other Ways of Doing Architecture. New York & London: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group, 2011.
Bilbao, Tatiana. Hunter’s Point Masterplan. Collage, Tatiana Bilbao Estudio. accessed November 24, 2020. https://tatianabilbao.com/projects/hunters-point-masterplan.
Chattopadhyay, Swati. “Architectural Representations, Changing Technologies, and Conceptual Extensions,” in Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, no. 3, no. 71. (September 2012): 270-272. accessed November 15, 2020 https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/jsah.2012.71.3.270.
Coleman, Nathaniel. Lefebvre for Architects. New York & London: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group, 2015.
Counter, Rosemary. “Real estate photos are distorting reality, frustrating would-be home buyers”, Maclean’s. May 15, 2019. Accessed November 20, 2020. https://www.macleans.ca/economy/realestateeconomy/real-estate-photos-are-distorting-reality-frustrating-would-be-home-buyers/.
Florida, Richard. The Rise of the Creative Class, Revisited. New York: Basic Books. 2002.
Florida, Richard. The New Urban Crisis: How Our Cities are Increasing Inequality, Deepening Segregation, and Failing the Middle Class – and What We Can Do About It. New York: Basic Books. 2017. 25
Frearson, Amy. “We banned renders” from the design process says Tatiana Bilbao.” December 4, 2019 . Dezeen. Accessed November 24, 2020. https://www.dezeen.com/2019/12/04/tatiana-bilbao-banned-renderings-architecture-interview/.
Gates, Theaster. “Stoney Island Arts Bank.” Accessed November 20, 2020.
https://www.theastergates.com/project-items/stony-island-arts-bank?view=slider.
Harris, Tom. Stony Island Arts Bank. Hedrick Blessing. Courtesy of Rebuild Foundation. Accessed November 26, 2020. https://www.theastergates.com/project-items/stony-island-artsbank?view=slider.
Hayes, David. “Inside Regent Park: Toronto’s test case for public-private gentrification”. The Guardian. December 8, 2016.
Harvey, David. The Condition of Postmodernity. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers, 1989.
Harvey, David. “Flexible Accumulation Through Urbanization Reflections on “Post-Modernism”
in the American City.” Perspecta 26 (1990): 251-272. Accessed October 20, 2020,
https://wwwjstororg.ezproxy.lib.ryerson.ca/stable/1567167?pqorigsite=summon&seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents.
Harvey, David. Social Justice and the City. Athens & London: The University of Georgia Press, 2009.
Harvey, David. Rebel Cities: From the Right to the City to the Urban Revolution. London & New York: Verso, 2013.
Kipfer, Stefan. “Urbanization, Everyday Life and the Survival of Capitalism: Lefebvre, Gramsci and the Problematic of Hegemony”. CNS, 13, no. 2 (2002).
Lefebvre, Henri. The Production of Space. Translated by Donald Nicholson-Smith. MA: Blackwell Publishing. 1991. Accessed November 15, 2020. https://books-scholarsportal
info.ezproxy.lib.ryerson.ca/en/read?id=/ebooks/ebooks1/ace_ia/2013-11-10/1/productionofspac00lefe&cdl=true#page=4.
McLeod, Mary. “Architecture and Politics in the Reagan Era: From Postmodernism to Deconstructivism”, Assemblage, no. 9 (Feb. 1989): 22-59. Accessed November 12, 2020. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3171013.
Merrifield, Andy. “Fifty Years On: The Right to the City”. A Right to the City: A Verso Report. London: Verso, 2017.
Minton, Anna. “Who is the City For”. A Right to the City: A Verso Report. London: Verso, 2017.
Mockbee, Samuel. “Samuel Mockbee: The Rural Studio”. In Architectural Design Profile, Guest edited by Sarah Wigglesworth and Jeremy Till. no. 134 (1998): 73-79.
Mockbee, Samuel. The Children of Eutaw Pose Before Their Ancient Cabins. Accessed November 6, 2020. http://samuelmockbee.net/work/art/eutaw/.
Rosen, Gillad. “Toronto’s condo-builders: development approaches and spatial preferences”, in Urban Geography 38, no. 4 (2017): 606-625. Accessed November 15, 2020, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02723638.2016.1179426.
Umolu, Yesomi, Sepake Angiama and Paulo Tavares. …And Other Such Stories. Columbia Books on Architecture and the City. 2019.
USINA_ctah. Accessed November 20, 2020. http://www.usina-ctah.org.br/.
USINA_ctah. “TALARA”, accessed November 20, 2020. http://www.usinactah.org.br/talara.html
USINA_ctah. “The Architecture of Land Struggles, 2019”. Chicago Architecture Biennial. accessed November 20, 2020. https://2019.chicagoarchitecturebiennial.org/current/contributors/usina_ctah
Van der Steen, Ask Katzeef and Leendert van Hoogenhuijze. The City is Ours: Squatting and Autonomous Movements in Europe from the 1970s to the Present. PM Press. 2014.
Walker, S. Gordon Matta-Clark: Art, Architecture and the Attack on Modernism, London: I.B. Tauris & Co Ltd. 2009.
Wigglesworth, Sarah and Jeremy Till. “The Everyday and Architecture”. Guest edited by Sarah Wigglesworth and Jeremy Till. In Architectural Design Profile, no. 134 (1998): 7-9.
Harvey, David. Social Justice and the City. Athens & London: The University of Georgia Press, 2009.
Harvey, David. Rebel Cities: From the Right to the City to the Urban Revolution. London & New York: Verso, 2013.
Kipfer, Stefan. “Urbanization, Everyday Life and the Survival of Capitalism: Lefebvre, Gramsci and the Problematic of Hegemony”. CNS, 13, no. 2 (2002).
Lefebvre, Henri. The Production of Space. Translated by Donald Nicholson-Smith. MA: Blackwell Publishing. 1991. Accessed November 15, 2020. https://books-scholarsportal
info.ezproxy.lib.ryerson.ca/en/read?id=/ebooks/ebooks1/ace_ia/2013-11-10/1/productionofspac00lefe&cdl=true#page=4.
McLeod, Mary. “Architecture and Politics in the Reagan Era: From Postmodernism to Deconstructivism”, Assemblage, no. 9 (Feb. 1989): 22-59. Accessed November 12, 2020. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3171013.
Merrifield, Andy. “Fifty Years On: The Right to the City”. A Right to the City: A Verso Report. London: Verso, 2017.
Minton, Anna. “Who is the City For”. A Right to the City: A Verso Report. London: Verso, 2017.
Mockbee, Samuel. “Samuel Mockbee: The Rural Studio”. In Architectural Design Profile, Guest edited by Sarah Wigglesworth and Jeremy Till. no. 134 (1998): 73-79.
Mockbee, Samuel. The Children of Eutaw Pose Before Their Ancient Cabins. Accessed November 6, 2020. http://samuelmockbee.net/work/art/eutaw/.
Rosen, Gillad. “Toronto’s condo-builders: development approaches and spatial preferences”, in Urban Geography 38, no. 4 (2017): 606-625. Accessed November 15, 2020, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02723638.2016.1179426.
Umolu, Yesomi, Sepake Angiama and Paulo Tavares. …And Other Such Stories. Columbia Books on Architecture and the City. 2019.
USINA_ctah. Accessed November 20, 2020. http://www.usina-ctah.org.br/.
USINA_ctah. “TALARA”, accessed November 20, 2020. http://www.usinactah.org.br/talara.html
USINA_ctah. “The Architecture of Land Struggles, 2019”. Chicago Architecture Biennial. accessed November 20, 2020. https://2019.chicagoarchitecturebiennial.org/current/contributors/usina_ctah
Van der Steen, Ask Katzeef and Leendert van Hoogenhuijze. The City is Ours: Squatting and Autonomous Movements in Europe from the 1970s to the Present. PM Press. 2014.
Walker, S. Gordon Matta-Clark: Art, Architecture and the Attack on Modernism, London: I.B. Tauris & Co Ltd. 2009.
Wigglesworth, Sarah and Jeremy Till. “The Everyday and Architecture”. Guest edited by Sarah Wigglesworth and Jeremy Till. In Architectural Design Profile, no. 134 (1998): 7-9.