I don’t think of architecture as an especially political discipline. Sure, there are the (typically quiet) politics of place-making, which are an important consideration with every project, even where they’re not self-evident. Every building embodies some point of view or other, often deriving from the economics of its development or the power-base of its owner. Consider the differences between, say, a corporate high-rise and an urban nonprofit SRO.
But architecture usually doesn’t play much of a role on the grand stages of legislation and diplomacy, other than as a dramatic backdrop or as the occasional political football, à la the Eisenhower Memorial...http://www.architectmagazine.com/architects/dialogue-ethics-geopolitics-and-architecture_o.aspx?dfpzone=home&utm_source=newsletter&utm_content=jump&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ANW_051614&day=2014-05-16
But architecture usually doesn’t play much of a role on the grand stages of legislation and diplomacy, other than as a dramatic backdrop or as the occasional political football, à la the Eisenhower Memorial...http://www.architectmagazine.com/architects/dialogue-ethics-geopolitics-and-architecture_o.aspx?dfpzone=home&utm_source=newsletter&utm_content=jump&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ANW_051614&day=2014-05-16
