12

The social production of

the built environment:
architects, architecture and
the post-Modern city
Paul L. Knox
[1987]

It has been clear for some time that processes of liberal/ecological values of the middle-class youth
urban development in the world’s core economies counterculture, the retrenchment of public expen-
have been responding to a new and distinctive set diture with the rise of the ‘New Right’, and the sys-
of economic, social, demographic and political forces. tem-shock precipitated by the OPEC oil embargo of
Some of the major influences on this new phase of 1973, for example. Gappert (1979), noting both
urbanization are the result of changes which have the uncertainty within major economic and political
been developing throughout the postwar period as institutions and the altered mood and disposition of
capitalism has entered a ‘late’ or ‘advanced’ stage America’s middle classes, has labelled the overall
(Mandel, 1975). These changes include a shift away condition as ‘postaffluent’. Lyotard (1984), writing
from manufacturing employment to service employ- in the wake of French ‘post-Marxism’, takes a still
ment, an increasing dominance of big conglomerate broader view of all these shifts and transformations.
corporations, and an internationalization of cor- The world’s core economies, he argues, now exhibit
porate activity. These developments have precipitated a ‘post-Modern’ condition, in which the economic
important social transformations: the creation of a rationality and cultural Modernism of industrial cap-
‘new’ petite bourgeoisie (Carchedi, 1975; Giddens, italism are widely rejected but have not been clearly
1973), for example. These social transformations, in displaced by a new aesthetics, a new economics, or
turn, are being reproduced in space through prop- new politics.
erty markets that are both reflected and condi- Theoretical orientations and labels notwithstand-
tioned by the built environment (Lefebvre, 1974; ing, it is clear that urban change must be seen in
Gottdiener, 1985). relation to these major transformations and shifts.
As these fundamental socioeconomic transform- This paper – reviews the recent literature on archi-
ations have been gathering momentum, other tects and architecture – agents and outcomes of
shifts – in technology, in demographic composition, change in the built environment that have received
and in cultural and political life – have been taking surprisingly little attention from geographers – in
place: the entry of the baby-boom generation into the context of these broader changes. Compared
housing and labour markets, the changing structure with other related fields, research on this topic has
and composition of private households, the devel- for a long time been impoverished, with an over-
opment of advanced telecommunications and new whelming emphasis on microscale interactions
high-technology industries, the articulation of the between architecture and human behaviour and an
TEAM LinG
 The social production of the built environment 115

equally overwhelming emphasis on the deterministic Architecture as culture

interpretation of people-environment relationships.
With a few important exceptions (see, for example, As King (1984) notes, one of the most common
King, 1980; Millon and Nochlin, 1978; Norberg- approaches to the built environment in the social
Schultz, 1975; Saint, 1983; Tafuri, 1976), the built sciences has been through comparative studies in
environment has automatically been assigned the which ‘culture’ is treated as an independent variable
role of an independent variable, ‘explaining’ every- to ‘explain’ various aspects of the built environment
thing from people’s perceptual acuity to their social (see, for example, Rapoport, 1982; Zelinsky, 1973).
networks and their propensity to indulge in deviant Such an approach can throw up interesting issues
behaviour (see, for example, Ankerl, 1981; Coleman, and provide informative vignettes, but too often it
1985; Curran, 1983; Zeisel, 1975). At its worst, the falls into the trap, as Duncan (1981) points out, of
literature falls away into the bourgeois high-art cat- reifying culture, mistakenly transforming a concep-
egory of coffee-table products. What has most often tual abstraction into an active force which relegates
been overlooked or discounted in studies of archi- people into passive agents of culture and which
tects and architecture is the relationship of both the obscures economic, social, psychological, ideo-
built environment and people’s behaviour to the logical and political factors. Moreover, in focusing on
broader context of economic and social organiza- particular settings and case studies, the ‘culturolog-
tion and, in particular, to the imperatives of prop- ical’ approach tends to neglect the flows – of capital,
erty capital. By focusing on individual behaviour, labour, ideas, etc. – which relate to the dynamics of
and taking the built environment as a product of economic, social and, indeed, cultural change.
‘design’, many studies have under-rated the broader But by no means all analyses of architecture as
context of social and economic forces (as modu- culture exhibit such shortcomings. Rowntree and
lated and amplified by institutions) and overplayed Conkey (1982), for example, provide a case study
the roles of architects. This clearly goes down well of historic preservation (in Saltzburg, Austria) which
with the profession itself, but the net result is that demonstrates how the promotion of certain elem-
theories about architecture remain weakly developed: ents of the built environment can alleviate cultural
a situation that has led several writers to urge the stress ‘through the creation of shared symbolic
pursuit of a new approach in which the built envi- structures that validate, if not actually define, social
ronment is regarded as a reflection of economic, claims to space and time’ (p. 459). Rowntree and
social and political relationships within society and as Conkey do not extend their analysis into the post-
a means through which these relationships are Modern period, but their approach would lend
reproduced, sustained, or modified (Appleton, 1979; itself well to an analysis of the ways in which those
Dickens, 1980; 1981; King, 1984; Korllos, 1980). As under stress as a result of the structural transition to
Darke and Darke (1981) have pointed out, such an an advanced, postaffluent capitalism are beginning
approach need not throw the baby out with the to affect the cultural landscape. In a very different
bathwater: the built environment does inhibit, facil- vein, Jakle (1983) has also brought a dynamic per-
itate, precipitate and modify both individual and spective to architecture as culture, analysing the
group behaviour. What is needed is an approach changing popularity of revival themes in American
which encompasses the reciprocal relationships domestic architecture, as reflected by illustrations of
between individuals, the built environment, and model houses in the American Builder. Jackle’s analy-
society at large (Knox, 1984). This paper represents sis links the first rise of Early and Colonial American
an attempt to review some of the ideas and empiri- styles, for example, with the desire among sections
cal evidence relevant to such an approach, looking of middle-class America, buffeted by the Depression
successively at interpretations of architecture as cul- and conditioned by isolationism, for ‘an elemental
ture and as politics, the role of architects and archi- return to American basics’ (p. 35).
tecture in relation to capital accumulation and Jackle’s analysis underlines the fact that revival
circulation, legitimation and social reproduction, styles were important long before the arrival of the
and the role of architects as ‘urban managers’. post-Modern period. This, in turn, raises the ques-
The following sections of this paper review tion of whether the reassertion of neovernacular styles
recent analyses of architecture and architectural prac- and regional specificities in post-Modern architec-
tice which are relevant to the interpretation of archi- ture amounts to anything more than a manifesta-
tecture in the context of the social production of tion of what the Frankfurt school called the ‘culture
urban space. industry’ (Frampton, 1982; Habermas, 1975). Could
TEAM LinG
116 Urban Design Reader

it, on the other hand, be part of a broader reevalu- points in the mayoral elections; he, in turn, can-
ation of the past, a dialectical recovery of certain celled the half-built green space and replaced it
values that represent a genuine move towards a with a pastiche of commercial and residential devel-
post-Modern culture (Knesl, 1984)? According to opments in the style of an amusement park.
Knesl, architecture represents an important catalyst Meanwhile, the burden of defining and monumen-
for cultural change because of its ability to connect talizing Mitterand’s socialism in the capital has
the ‘life-praxis’ of the world of everyday action to the fallen to the new ‘popular opera’, to be built, sym-
realm of ideas, ideology and aesthetics. The embryo bolically, at the Place de la Bastille (Trilling, 1985).
post-Modern condition, argues Knesl, is distracted, At a more general level, Knesl (1984) argues that
not yet fixed to a specific cultural framework and architecture has an important potential role to play
therefore open to the integration of life-praxis and in the politics of advanced capitalism. The emer-
ideas in a variety of ways. Among these, Knesl sug- gence of factionalized, grass-roots social movements,
gests, the emerging elements of post-Modern archi- he suggests, calls for an architectural syntax to fos-
tecture represent, collectively, an answer to the ter ‘innovative forms of life-praxis’ that would, in
distraction, ennui, hostility and powerlessness of con- turn, foster self-determination and ‘help to keep
temporary urban society. Thus, for example, the larger-scale political organs responsive to local situ-
revival of classicist spatial order offers ‘comforting ations’ (p.11). This seems a dangerously close paral-
formal stability’, contextualist architecture offers ‘a lel to the idealistic and determinist philosophy of
spatial cloak of identity and predictability’, and the the Modernists; perhaps it is no coincidence that
use of metaphor and ironic reference offers a flex- Knesl’s only example draws on the work of Van
ible, ‘multisuggestive’ imagery (Knesl, 1984, 16). Eyck, whose work is more functionalist than any-
thing else (Prak, 1984). Nevertheless, as Gutman
(1985) points out, the transition to an advanced
Architecture as politics capitalist society will inevitably affect architecture as
politics at the level of public policy ‘because there
Just as architecture can be seen as a product of cul- are so many issues of cultural, social and economic
ture, so it can be seen, in parallel, as the product of policy in advanced industrial societies that impinge
politics. What gets built is strongly conditioned by on architectural ideas and practice’ (p. 86). Gutman
the structure and dynamics of political power in cites issues such as whether there should be increased
society; how and where it gets built is subject to a funding for landmark preservation programmes;
host of laws, codes, standards and regulations that what government policy should be with respect to
reflect the interests of political powers and pressure allocating funds between ‘high culture’ and ‘popu-
groups (see, for example, Perin, 1977). Architecture lar culture’ projects; and the design requirements of
can also be seen as a product of politics in a more the increasing numbers of marginal and atypical
dramatic sense. Paris provides a good example, households.
the politics of the built environment being acted
out among the legacies of some celebrated examples
of the manipulation of public architecture for politi- Architecture as zeitgeist
cal purposes during the nineteenth century (Evenson,
1979; Harvey, 1979; 1985). In Gaullist Paris, forced The general idea of the built environment as a prod-
modernization took the form of forced Modernism, uct of the zeitgeist, or spirit of the age, has a long
reaching a climax with the urbanisme of the history in urban studies. Lewis Mumford’s funda-
grands ensembles of Sarcelles, Pompidou’s Musée mental argument was that:
Beaubourg, and the proposal to develop Les Halles
as the hub of a new regional Metro, dominated by in the state of building at any period one may
a world trade centre. In the new political and socioe- discover, in legible script, the complicated pro-
conomic climate of the mid-1970s, Giscard d’Estaing cesses and changes that are taking place within
was able to dramatize his commitment to the new civilization itself (1938, 403).
politics of environmental concern by cancelling the
Les Halles project and replacing it with a green Ruth Glass (1968, 48) described the city in terms of
space to be designed by the contextualist Ricardo ‘a mirror . . . of history, class structure and culture’;
Bofill. Before this could materialize, however, Jacques while Ray Pahl’s Weberian approach was set in the
Chirac had seized upon l’affaire des Halles to score context of a built environment that emerges as
TEAM LinG
 The social production of the built environment 117

the result of conflicts . . . between those with dif- first expressed in the Arts and Crafts movement. By
ferent degrees of power. . . . As the balance of 1900, the Art Nouveau style was firmly established
power changes and ideologies rise and fall, so as the snobbish style, consciously elitist, for all ‘high’
the built environment is affected (1975, 151). architecture. The Modern movement can be inter-
preted as a dialectic response to this elitism (Bloch,
One specific example of architecture as zeitgeist 1977), with post-Modernism being the latest,
which has been explored in the recent literature is incipient dialectical response to the transformation
the expression of the ‘metropolitan spirit’ of the of Modernism into the glib Esperanto of the
interwar period in the architecture of Otto Wagner, International style (Frampton, 1980; Tafuri, 1980).
Daniel Burnham, the Deutscher Werkbund and Despite the appealing symmetry of such inter-
Antonio Sant’Elia (Larsson, 1984). Another is the pretations, it must be recognized that, in detail,
expression of America’s changing political mood shifts in architectural styles do not always fit a neat
through the medium of federal architecture – from chain of cause and effect (Banham, 1975). The spa-
Jeffersonian classicism, through Beaux Arts grandeur tial and temporal fluidity of the social meaning of
to contemporary Modernism (Craig, 1978). In terms built form, combined with the idiosyncracies and
of the emerging zeitgeist of the post-Modern era, a impulses of architects, their clients, and the users of
good example is provided by the ‘signature’ struc- the built environment, means that the production
tures and decor of chains of fast food restaurants in of the built environment inevitably enjoys a degree
the United States (Langdon, 1985). The bold, mod- of relative autonomy from the dominant social
ernistic forms and brash interiors characteristic of order (Dickens, 1980). In short, architecture, like
America’s first restaurant chains, Langdon observes, other components of the social superstructure, is
did not sit well with the environmentalism and contingent rather than determined: a product of
increased consumer sophistication of the late 1960s complex interactions between structure and human
and early 1970s. Consequently, the big chains began agency (Gottdiener, 1985). Whitehand’s work
to embark on major refits, with new buildings, sur- (1983; 1984) on the architecture of commercial
rounded by landscaped lawns and shrubbery, fea- redevelopment in postwar Britain illustrates this
turing wood, brick, earth-tone carpeting, and contingent quality very well. Comparing two
up-market artwork with local themes, all capped by provincial centres – Northampton and Watford –
a mansard roof (in natural-looking tiles) to hide the Whitehand found that, whereas Modern styles rap-
heating, ventilating and air-conditioning equip- idly supplanted neo-Georgian and Art Deco styles in
ment while providing ‘human scale’. McDonald’s, Northampton after the second world war, neo-
who pioneered the mansard roof format for fast Georgian styles continued to dominate in Watford
food restaurants, have sought to exploit the post- until the property boom of the 1960s, when styles
Modern taste for neovernacular styles by develop- in both cities became predominantly Modern. More
ing a range of 16 stock facade alternatives – from recently, post-Modern styles have been featured in
Country French to Village Depot – that can be Northampton, whereas redevelopment in Watford
applied to the exterior of its standard building con- has continued to use Modern styles. Whitehand
figurations. traces these differences to variations between the
It takes only a short step from this kind of view of two cities in the involvement of local versus non-
architecture as zeitgeist to deploy a crude form of local finance, in the activity of national speculative
Marxist theory in which the built environment is property development companies, in the involve-
seen as part of the superstructure that is produced ment of owner-occupiers versus property specula-
by – and that helps to sustain – the dominant rela- tors, in the proportion of office as opposed to chain
tions of production. The history of architecture can store redevelopment, and in the use of local rather
thus be linked to a critical history of urban-industrial than outside architectural firms. This contingent
society, revealing a dialectic of intellectual and artis- nature of architecture means of course that it can-
tic responses to the zeitgeist of successive moments not be assumed to be straightforwardly functional
of capitalist development. Thus, for example, the for capitalism at any given moment of develop-
Art Nouveau and Jugendstil architecture of the late ment. Nevertheless, the idea that architecture, as
nineteenth century can be seen as the architectural part of the social superstructure, serves, at least in
expression of the romantic reaction to what general terms, to sustain, legitimize and reproduce
Mumford (1961, 470) called the ‘palaeotechnic’ era the relations of production seems to offer several
of the Industrial Revolution; a reaction which was themes relevant to the analysis of urban geography.
TEAM LinG
118 Urban Design Reader

Architecture and the accumulation pulse of fashion (see below) also serves to promote
and circulation of capital the circulation of capital. The upper middle classes,
in short, can be encouraged to move from their
Although very interesting relationships have been comfortable homes into new ones through the
proposed between architecture, the building cachet of fashionable or distinctive design, and part
industry and processes of capital circulation and of the architect’s role is to ‘manufacture’ new
accumulation (Harvey, 1975; 1981; Lefebvre, 1970), designs: style for style’s sake, the zeit for sore eyes.
their actual operation remains to be documented, In some US cities, new housing for upper income
and the proposed relations have, for the most part, groups is now promoted through annual exhib-
still to be operationalized and empirically validated. itions aimed at selling ‘this year’s’ designs, much like
The links between the building and construction the automobile industry’s carefully planned obso-
industry and overall postwar growth in consumption lescence in design. As one of the key arbiters of style
are widely acknowledged, as are the distinctive char- in contemporary capitalist society, the architect is in
acteristics of the building and construction industry. a powerful position to stimulate consumption by
For a variety of reasons, the organization and div- merchandising the up-market end of the built envir-
ision of labour in the industry seem not to have fol- onment. As Rubin observes:
lowed general trends. As Marco puts it: in the ideology of American aesthetics, it is
In contrast to goods like cars, electrical appli- understood that those who make taste make
ances or even furniture (products for houses, for money, and those who make money make taste
which there is a very close link between the (1979, 360).
extension of the market and the growth of prod- Mattson’s study (1982) of main street storefront
uctivity), the development of construction has remodelling in America provides a good example of
been subject to a logic ‘exogenous’ to the dom- a very direct link between architectural style and the
inant economic process. The extension of the circulation of capital in one particular context. His
market has been much more the result of gen- research shows how main street storefronts have
eral economic conditions than of gains in prod- been repeatedly remodelled in order to stimulate
uctivity implemented inside the sector. That is business. In the 1930s, an amendment to the
why it is possible to say that the action of the National Housing Act insured lenders up to 20 per
worker in construction has been rationalized cent of $50 000 for loans to up-date any kind of
and not industrialized (Marco, 1984, 31). income-producing property. ‘In line with the tenets
At the same time, the significance of land and land of Modern architecture’, writes, Mattson (1982,
ownership means that fixed capital which is invested 42), ‘the new store fronts displayed smooth, clean
in construction tends to remain subordinate to cir- functional surfaces. . . . By the end of the decade,
culating capital; and the overall productivity of the streamlined forms with sweeping, curvilinear lines
construction industry has been declining as a result had become the fashion’. The style became known
of compositional changes in the types of structures as ‘Depression Modern’. After the second world
that are being built (Bowlby and Schriver, 1986). In war, main street merchants were once again
this context, any means of adding exchange value, impelled to remodel store fronts in order to entice
stimulating consumption and fostering the process busy, automobile-riding customers back from the
of capital accumulation is critical. new commercial strips and shopping centres. New
The architect, by virtue of the prestige and mys- storefront designs now focused on merchandise visi-
tique socially accorded to creativity, adds exchange bility, with exuberant features such as vertical fins,
value to buildings through his or her decisions glass-encased display islands and cantilevered win-
about design, dow displays to attract passers-by; facings became
more like giant billboards advertising the names of
so that the label ‘architect designed’ confers a
businesses in huge, easy-to-read lettering. Later, in
presumption of quality even though, like the
response to the same social forces as the fast food
emperor’s clothes, this quality may not be
chains described by Langdon (1985), main street
apparent to the observer (Darke and Darke,
storefronts were remodelled again, with pastiche,
1981, 12).
neovernacular motifs, mansard roof ‘equipment
The professional ideology and career structure screens’, rusticated brick and stone veneers, and
which rewards innovation and the ability to feel the ersatz carriage lamps, imitation cedar shingles and
TEAM LinG
 The social production of the built environment 119

shakes, window frames and wagon wheels designed subject to ambivalence, contradiction and conflict –
to appeal to the values of the new locus of spending as many are – settings can help to establish clarity,
power: Venturi’s middle-middle classes. to suggest stability among flux and to create order
Finally, it is worth noting that architectural design amid uncertainty. In this sense, the built environ-
is playing an important role in the current decollec- ment serves to legitimize existing socioeconomic
tivization/recapitalization of housing in Britain and the distinctions in several ways. The settings created for
United States. Symes (1985) cites the example of government offices, for example, contain clear mes-
architects who were given the task, under an urban sages to the clients who come regularly to transact
development grant, of eradicating the public-housing business in them:
image of a vandalized local authority estate, so that
The businessmen, lawyers and interest group
the apartments would be more marketable when put
representatives who negotiate contracts,
up for sale. The result was the addition of a combina-
arrange for government subsidies or bargain
tion of ‘private’ elements (garages, entrance lobbies
about administrative rules and the disposition of
and driveways) and post-Modern elements (pitched,
administrative proceedings do so for the most
pantiled roofs, timber handrails and balconies, and
part in well-appointed, comfortable, sometimes
landscaping) to the structurally sound concrete-and-
lavish offices and conferences rooms. . . . The
steel ‘boxes’ of failed Modernism.
settings are major contributors to the defini-
tion of such proceedings as the responsible
implementation of the law by experts and
Architecture, legitimation and
professionals, though critics may see some of
social reproduction
these transactions as a problematic use of pub-
lic funds to subsidize those who already have
Because of the rich and powerful symbolism inher-
most of what there is to get in money, status
ent in urban design, architecture is readily inter-
and influence. . . .
preted in terms of sociopolitical legitimation. Tafuri’s
Another class of clients, exemplified by welfare
critical history of the architecture of industrial cap-
recipients, emotionally disturbed people, and
italism (1976; 1980), for example, takes as its central
public-school students, is explicitly defined as
theme the idea that architecture has repeatedly
being in need of ‘help’ and by comparison gets
veiled and obscured the realities of capitalist social
very little of it. The settings in which they deal
relations. Porphyrios, developing this theme, puts
with bureaucrats define the worth of the clients
the argument as follows:
as eloquently as do the bureaucratic offices dis-
Architecture as a discursive practice owes its cussed above, but in the opposite way. Waiting
coherency and respectability to a system of social rooms are typically crowded and often drab and
mythification. In other words, a given architec- uncomfortable. The dependency of the client
tural discourse is but a form of representation on the power and goodwill of the authority is
that naturalizes certain meanings and eternal- reflected in the physical arrangements (Edelman,
izes the present state of the world in the interests 1978, 2–3, emphases added).
of a hegemonical power (Porphyrios, 1985, 16).
Like these examples, much of the symbolism
Architecture, in this view, is transparent to ideology of the built environment has to do with power (or
(Dickens, 1980; 1981). As ideology, the social func- the lack of it), with some of the most obvious and
tion of architecture is to insert the agents of an aes- direct examples being associated with big business
thetic culture into activities that support or subvert (in and big government (Appleyard, 1979; Appleton,
varying degrees) the dominant relations of produc- 1979; Hughes, 1980; Millon and Nochlin, 1978;
tion. Architecture, in this sense, comprises not only Woodward, 1982). Nevertheless, as Eco (1980, 12)
elements of building knowledge and tenets of design, points out, ‘every usage is converted into a sign of
but also a whole process of symbolization. ‘Reality’, as itself’, so that most structures, even though their
Porphyrios puts it, ‘gives to architecture a set of rules symbolism may not be intended, have a ‘secondary
and productive techniques while, in its turn, architec- function’, individually or collectively, which is con-
ture gives back to reality an imaginary coherence that notative of something. It follows that the symbolism
makes reality appear natural and eternal’ (1985, 16). of the built environment is complex and often con-
At a less abstract level, it is clear that all social tradictory. The ‘signature of power’, according to
acts must take place in settings; when these acts are Lasswell (1979), is manifest in two ways: through a
TEAM LinG
120 Urban Design Reader

‘strategy of awe’, intimidating the audience with and mechanistic, deliberately and systematically
majestic displays of power; and through a ‘strategy abstracting symbols from their historical and social
of admiration’, aimed at diverting the audience context. This, as Dickens (1980) observes, fosters the
with spectacular and histrionic design effects. It will ‘fetishism’ of design, focusing attention on buildings
be recognized, however, that it may not always be and architects rather than on the sets of social rela-
desirable to display power. Symbolism may, there- tions that surround the production and meaning of
fore, involve ‘modest’ or ‘low profile’ architectural buildings. What is needed is a theory of signs and
motifs; or carry deliberately misleading messages symbols which directly confronts the fundamental
for the purposes of maintaining social harmony questions of communication by whom, to what audi-
(Hill, 1980). Neither is power the only kind of mes- ence, to what purpose and to what effect? There is a
sage to convey. Various elements of counter-ideology good deal of evidence of one kind or another to sup-
can create or take over their own symbolic struc- port Edelman’s conclusion that the built environment
tures and settings, as illustrated, for example, by the affirms
public housing projects of the Spaarndammerbuurt
established social roles by encouraging those
district of Amsterdam, the vacant lot in Berkeley,
who act and those who look on to respond to
CA, that became People’s Park, and the many build-
socially sanctioned cues and to ignore incompat-
ings that have been listed, preserved and conserved
ible empirical ones. Spaces reaffirm a dialectic of
as a result of the efforts of pressure groups of various
hierarchical distinctions (Edelman, 1984, 4).
kinds (Rowntree and Conkey, 1980). It must also be
recognized that there are important differences, But a great deal of work needs to be done before we
sometimes, between the intended meaning and the are close to being able to specify the role and signifi-
perceived meaning of architecture, that perceived cance of architecture in legitimation (Francis, 1983).
meanings can vary with the audience or users, that The same conclusion applies to architecture and
concepts of audience held by architects and their social reproduction, although again there are suffi-
clients will help to determine the kinds of messages cient examples and pieces of evidence to point
that are sent, and that the social meaning of archi- fairly convincingly to the overall role of workplace
tecture is not static (Agrest, 1977; Baudrillard, 1971; and residential settings in reproducing and ‘struc-
Cable, 1982; Knox, 1984). turating’ class relations (Giddens, 1984; Parkin,
Gutman (1972) observes that the literature on 1981; Cullen and Knox, 1981). Perhaps the most
architectural symbolism conventionally distinguishes compelling example to be documented in any
three levels of symbolic meaning: detail is that of the way in which socially-created
gender roles have been defined and sustained
syntactical meaning, or the meaning that an
through housing design and urban planning
element of form or style acquires by virtue of its
(Duncan, 1981; Hayden, 1984; Wright, 1981).
location in a chain of form or style elements;
semantic meaning, or the meaning it acquires
because of the norm, idea or attitude that it
Architects as urban managers
represents or designates; and pragmatic mean-
ing, or the meaning that is understood in rela-
Architects, like other exchange professionals and
tion to the architect, the client or the social group
design professionals involved in the production of
that invents or interprets the building’s form or
the built environment, can be regarded as urban
style (Gutman, 1972, 299, emphases added).
managers, ‘middle dogs’ who exercise, in a neo-
The first of these has involved the pursuit of Barthes’s Weberian sense, a certain degree of autonomy and
(1967; 1973) concept of the city as a language writ- control over patterns of urban development in ways
ten through the built environment and read by that reflect their distinctive professional ideologies
inhabitants through use and cognitive imagery. This and career structure (Leonard, 1982). What, then, is
has channelled a great deal of effort towards devel- known about the relative importance and auton-
oping a theory of signs—semiotics or semiology— omy of architects in the production of the built
(Blonsky, 1985; Broadbent et al., 1980; and Jencks, environment, about the values and world views of
1980; Cable, 1981; Gottdiener, 1983; Gwin and architects, about the influence of their professional
Gwin, 1985; Hillier et al., 1976; Hillier and Hanson, organization and career structure on urban out-
1984; Krampen, 1979; Minai, 1984; Preziosi, 1979a; comes; and about the implications of the postafflu-
1979b); but most of this work is highly codified ent, post-Modern period for all of these?
TEAM LinG
 The social production of the built environment 121

Architecture, like other professions, has been American architects, for example, have repeatedly
engaged in a century-long struggle for professional ceded the technical side of the building process to
turf, social status, financial rewards and control over specialists – from engineers to interior designers
the labour process through legal monopoly powers (Ventre, 1982); yet, in order to maintain their self-
(Kostof, 1977). Although the professionalization of appointed role as leaders of the building team, they
architecture was achieved largely among the new have had to acquire a wide range of technical skills:
technical developments, new ideas about business in order to coordinate artistic design with code
organization and new opportunities brought by the requirements and structural engineering constraints,
Industrial Revolution, it was the architect’s pre- for example. These skills have come to be reflected
tensions to art and aesthetics that clinched the pro- in the division of labour within larger architectural
fession’s individuality, status and legitimacy (Larson, practices; but architectural educators and the pro-
1983). Architects’ emphasis on the artistic aspects fessional press have persisted with the aesthetics of
of their work was partly a defensive strategy in the design to the virtual exclusion of the pragmatic and
struggle for turf with engineers and other building policy-related issues of building – a trend which
specialists, but it was also because of the status Gutman (1985) suggests is linked to the rise of
associated with creativity, the lure of immortality post-Modernism.
attached to the authorship of important works of Meanwhile, the rise of big business and big gov-
art, and the appeal of establishing an inspirational ernment brought further dilemmas. The size of pri-
role directed, ostensibly, at social good rather than vate practices and government departments that
personal enrichment. Consequently, the lumpen- came to serve the big corporate and public clients
intelligentsia of architecture has always rated its fostered the division of architectural labour (and so
members on their artistic achievements, the authori- effectively restricted opportunities for artistic expres-
tative trade magazines – Architectural Design, sion) while drawing more and more architects into
Progressive Architecture, Architectural Review, Domus, managerial and bureaucratic roles (Cullen, 1983).
Werk – have always stressed the aesthetic over the These trends were accentuated both by the prop-
practical, and schools of architecture have consist- erty boom of the 1960s and by the political conser-
ently instilled an ethic of aesthetic avant-gardism vatism that accompanied the economic slump of
(Gutman, 1985a; Prak, 1984). the late 1970s (Saint, 1983). One outcome of the
It did not take long, in the cloisters of Modernist trend towards architect/managers and architect/
idealism, for this orientation to narrow into a vain entrepreneurs, according to Saint, has been a reac-
arrogance. Clients, other professionals and users tion against the influence of the ‘prima donna art-
were systematically excluded, and often patronized. architect’. The erosion of this influence, in turn, has
Corbusier, for example, suggested that people made it easier for the eclecticism of post-Modernism
would have to be ‘reeducated’ to appreciate his to flourish.
urban vision, while Walter Gropius felt that it would Nevertheless, it was the spell of art that success-
be useless to consult the beneficiaries of his utopian fully legitimized the profession, and aesthetics
designs for workers’ housing because they were remain a major element of architects’ education
‘intellectually undeveloped’. Mies van der Rohe, and professional socialization. It is not surprising,
asked if he ever submitted alternative schemes to a therefore, to find that architects have a distinctive
client, replied: set of values that are dominated by a blend of artis-
tic design and environmental determinism (Blau,
Only one. Always. And the best one that we can
1984; Lipman, 1969; Prak, 1984; Salaman, 1974;
give. That is where you can fight for what you
Valadez, 1984). Blau’s survey of New York architects
believe in. He doesn’t have to choose. How can
(1984) reveals some interesting detail to this gener-
he choose? He hasn’t the capacity to choose . . .
alization, however. One particularly striking aspect
(quoted in Prak, 1984, 95),
of her findings relates to the differences which exist
Armed with these attitudes, architects were able to between the values and orientations of principals
maintain a resolute hold on the wrong end of the and those of rank-and-file architects. Principals, it
determinist stick, with consequences that became seems, are much more business-minded, with aes-
written into the social as well as the physical fabric thetic values that weaken rapidly in the face of eco-
of the city (Jacobs, 1961). nomic austerity. Rank-and-file architects, on the
But advances in technology and engineering other hand, are strongly committed to liberal,
posed dilemmas for an artistically-oriented profession. humanist and socially responsible values, as well as
TEAM LinG
122 Urban Design Reader

being favourably disposed (somewhat ambigu- new turf conflict with planners and landscape archi-
ously) towards both artistic approaches and tech- tects (Knack, 1984).
nical solutions. The outcome of such trends is important not
This cleavage is reflected in the relative auton- only for the profession itself but also for the form
omy of architects. Many rank-and-file architects, and dynamics of the post-Modern city. As
according to Blau (1984), feel that they have little Gottdiener (1985) emphasizes, the design of the
or no ‘voice’ because of their specialization in rou- built environment is an important element of the
tine tasks outside the realm of decisions about productive forces of society, not just a reflection of
design. The voice of principals and senior architects, them. ‘The question of control over spatial relations
meanwhile, is often closely circumscribed by the and design’, he asserts, ‘represents the same revolu-
conservatism of other urban managers (Halper, tionary importance to society as the struggle over
1967; Prak, 1984). Goodman (1972) wrote that the control of the other means of production,
because both ownership relations and relations of
our economic system has reduced the architect
material externalization – that is, the production of
to the role of providing culturally acceptable
space – are united in the property relations which
rationalizations for projects whose form and use
form the core of the capitalist mode of production’
have already been determined by real-estate
(1985, 124–25). The economic and social oper-
speculation.
ation, as well as the aesthetics, of the post-Modern
Yet the relative autonomy of design itself, noted city will thus depend in part on the interactions
above, leaves architects with a significant influence between the profession and the opportunities and
on urban outcomes. Moreover, architects effectively constraints, stimuli and deterrents, of the postafflu-
act as arbiters, in many circumstances, between ent phase of advanced capitalism.
developers and builders (Dickens, 1979); and those –
like Richard Siefert, John Portman and the notorious
John Poulson – who have been able to make the References
transition to architect/entrepreneurs have been able
to act as master coordinators of urban change and Agrest, D. 1977: Architectural anagrams: the symbolic
redevelopment, with profound implications in terms performance of skyscrapers. Oppositions 11, 26–51.
of ‘who gets what, when and where’. Allen, J.A. 1983: The romance of commerce and culture.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
With the crisis of Modernist architecture, the role Allsopp, B. A modern theory of architecture. London:
of architects as urban managers is in flux: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Ankerl, G. 1981: Experimental sociology of architecture.
As the forces of late capitalism make themselves New Babylon: De Gruyter.
increasingly felt, profit for the professions Appleton, I. 1979: The urban political context of architec-
becomes a motive more compelling than status ture. Edinburgh Architecture Research 6, 98–98.
or class, and the interest of architects falls into Appleyard, D. 1979: The environment as social symbol.
Ekistics 46, 272–81.
line with that of the construction industry Banham, R. 1975: The age of the masters. London:
(Saint, 1983, 160). Architectural Press.
1982: The architect as gentleman and the architect as
At the same time, of course, competition from engi- hustler. RIBA Transactions 1, 33–38.
neers, building programmers, construction man- Barthes, R. 1967: Elements of semiology. London: Cape.
agers, facilities managers, interior designers, 1973: Seminology and urbanism. Via 2, 155–57.
Baudrillard, J. 1981: For a political economy of the sign.
home-builders and package dealers has become
St Louis, Missouri: Telos Press.
more intense, fostering the transition of the archi- Blau, J. 1984: Architects and firms. Cambridge,
tect from a principled professional into a hustler Massachusetts: MIT Press.
(Banham, 1982). The internationalization of the 1987: Where architects work: a change analysis,
economy under advanced capitalism, meanwhile, 1970–1980. In Knox, P.L., editor, The design professions
and the built environment, Beckenham: Croom Helm.
appears to have become as much a threat as an Bloch, E. 1977: Der geist der utopie. Frankfurt a/M:
opportunity for architects: between 1980 and 1983, Suhrkamp.
design services imports to the US grew by 300 per Blonsky, H. 1985: On signs. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
cent (Ventre, 1986). Some architects, in response to University Press.
Bontinck, I. 1978: Cultural dimensions of architecture and
these pressures, have sought to capitalize on the
town planning in Europe: town planning, architecture
‘contextual’ emphasis of post-Modernism to stake a and the quality of life. International Social Science
claim on urban design, only to find themselves in a Journal 30, 560–90.
TEAM LinG
 The social production of the built environment 123

Bowlby, R.L. and Schriver, W.R. 1986: Observations on Frampton, K. 1980: Modern architecture: a critical history.
productivity and composition of building construction London: Thames and Hudson.
output in the United States, 1972–1982. Construction 1982: Place, production and architecture. Architectural
Management and Economics 4, 1–18. Design 52, 28–45.
Broadbent, G. 1975: The road to Xanadu and beyond. Francis, R. 1983: Symbols, images and social organization
Progressive Architecture September, 68–83. in urban sociology. In Pons, V. and Francis, R., editors,
1980: Architects and their symbols. Built Environment 6, Urban social research: problems and prospects. London:
10–28. Routledge and Kegan Paul, 115–45.
Broadbent, G., Bunt, R. and Jencks, C. 1980: Signs, sym- Fusch, R. and Ford, L.R. 1983: Architecture and the geog-
bols and architecture. Chichester: John Wiley. raphy of the American city. Geographical Review 73,
Brolin, B.C. The failure of modern architecture. London: 324–40.
Studio Vista. Gans, H.J. 1983: Toward a human architecture: a sociolo-
Cable, C. 1981: Semiotics and architecture. Monticello, gist’s view of the profession. In Pipkin, J., La Gory, M.
Illinois: Vance Bibliographies #P565. and Blau, J., editors, Professionals and urban form,
1982: Symbolism in architecture. Monticello, Illinois: Albany: SUNY Press, 303–19.
Vance Bibliographies #A596. Gappert, G. 1979: Post-affluent America. New York: New
Carchedi, G. 1975: On the economic identification of the Viewpoints.
new middle class. Economy and Society 4, 1–86. Giddens, A. 1973: The class structure of advanced societies.
Carter, E. Politics and architecture: an observer looks New York: Harper.
back at the 1930s. Architectural Review, November, 1984: The construction of society: outline of the theory of
325–28. structuration. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Coleman, A. 1985: Utopia on trial: vision and reality in Glass, R. 1968: Urban sociology in Great Britain. In Pahl, R.
planned housing. London: Hilary Shipman. E., editor, Readings in urban sociology, Oxford:
Corbusier, Le 1927: Toward a new architecture. Translated Pergamon, 21–46.
by F. Etchells. London: Architectural Press. Gold, J.R. 1984: The death of the urban vision? Futures 16,
Craig, L.A. 1978: The federal presence: architecture, politics 372–81.
and symbols in US government building. Cambridge, Goodman, R. 1972: After the planners. Harmondsworth:
Massachusetts: MIT Press. Penguin.
Cullen, J. 1983: Structural aspects of the architectural pro- Gottdiener, M. 1983: Urban semiotics. In Pipkin, J.,
fession. In Pipkin, J., La Gory, M. and Blau, J., editors, La Gory, M. and Blau, J., editors, Remaking the city.
Professional and urban form. Albany: SUNY Press, Albany: SUNY Press, 101–14.
280–98. 1985: The social production of urban space. Austin:
Cullen, J.D. and Knox, P.L. 1981: ‘The triumph of the University of Texas Press.
eunuch’: Planners, urban managers and the suppres- Groat, L. and Canter, D. 1979: Does post-Modernism com-
sion of political opposition. Urban Affairs Quarterly 17, municate? Progressive Architecture, December, 84–87.
149–72. Gutman, R. 1972: People and buildings. New York: Basic
Curran, R.J. 1983: Architecture and the urban experience. Books.
New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. 1983: Architects in the home-building industry. In Pipkin,
Darke, R. and Darke, J. 1981: Towards a sociology of the J., La Gory, M., and Blau, J., editors, Professionals and
built environment. Architectural Psychology Newsletter urban form. Albany: SUNY Press, 208–33.
11, 1–2. 1985a: Educating architects: pedagogy and the pendu-
Dear, M. 1986: Post-Modernism and planning. Environ- lum. The public interest 80, 67–91.
ment and Planning D: Space and Society 4, 367–84. 1985b: The design of American housing. Washington DC:
Dickens, P. 1979: Marxism and architectural theory: cri- Publishing Center for Cultural Resources.
tique of recent work. Environment and Planning B 6, Gwin, W. and Gwin, M. 1985: Semiology, symbolism and
105–17. architecture. Monticello, Illinois: Vance Bibliography
1980: Social science and design theory. Environment and #A1346.
Planning B 7, 353–60. Habermas, J. 1975: Legitimation crisis. Boston: Beacon
1981: The hut and the machine: towards a social theory Press.
of architecture. Architectural Design 51, 111–23. Halper, J.B. 1967: The influence of mortgage lenders on
Duncan, J. 1981: From container of women to status sym- building design. Law and Contemporary Problems 32,
bol: the impact of social structure on the meaning of 269.
the house. In Duncan, J., editor, Housing and identity, Harvey, D. 1975: Class-monopoly rent, finance capital and
Beckenham: Croom Helm. the urban revolution. In Gale, S. and Moore, E., edi-
Eco, U. 1980: Function and sign: the semiotics of architec- tors, The manipulated city, Chicago: Maaroufa Press.
ture. In Broadbent, G., Bunt, R. and Jencks, C., editors, 1979: Monument and myth. Annals, Association of
Signs, symbols and architecture, Chichester: John Wiley, American Geographers 69, 362–81.
11–69. 1981: The urban process under capitalism: a framework
Edelman, M. 1978: Space and the social order. Journal of for analysis. In Dear, M. and Scott, A.J., editors,
Architectural Education 32, 2–7. Urbanization and urban planning in a capitalist society,
Evenson, N. 1979: Paris: A century of change. New Haven: New York: Methuen, 91–122.
Yale University Press. 1985: Consciousness and the urban experience. Oxford:
Forty, A. and Moss, H. 1980: A housing style for troubled Basil Blackwell.
consumers: the success of neovernacular. Architectural Hayden, D. 1984: Redesigning the American dream. New
Review 996, 73–78. York: W.W. Norton.
TEAM LinG
124 Urban Design Reader

Hill, R. 1980: Architecture: the past fights back. Marxism Larson, M.S., Leon, G. and Bollick, J. 1983: The profes-
Today 24, 21–25. sional supply of design: a descriptive study of architec-
Hillier, B. and Hanson, J. 1984: The social logic of space. tural firms. In Pipkin, J., La Gory, M. and Blau, J.,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. editors, Professionals and urban form. Albany: SUNY
Hillier, B. et al. 1976: Space syntax. Environment and Press, 251–79.
Planning B, 3, 147–85. Larsson, L.O. 1984: Metropolis architecture. In Sutcliffe,
Horowitz, M. 1985a: Artist employment in 1984. Research A., editor, Metropolis 1890–1940, Chicago: University
Division Note 11. Washington DC: National of Chicago Press.
Endowment for the Arts. Lasswell, H. 1979: The signature of power. New York:
1985b: Artists’ real earnings decline 37 per cent in the Transaction Books.
1970s. Research Division Note 13. Washington DC: Lefebvre, H. 1970: La revolution urbaine. Paris: Gallimard.
National Endownment for the Arts. 1974: La production de l’espace. Paris: Anthropos.
Hughes, J. 1980: The shock of the new. New York: Knopf. Leonard, S. 1982: Urban managerialism: a period of tran-
Jacobs, J. 1961: The death and life of American cities. New sition? Progress in Human Geography 6, 190–15.
York: Vintage. Lipman, A. 1969: The architectural belief system and social
Jackson, B. 1970: The politics of architecture: A history of behaviour. British Journal of Sociology, 20, 190–204.
modern architecture in Britain. London: Architectural Lyotard, J.F. 1984: The post-Modern condition.
Press. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Jakle, J.A. 1983: Twentieth-century revival architecture and MacEwan, M. 1974: Crisis in architecture. London: RIBA
the gentry. Journal of Cultural Geography 4, 28–43. Publications.
Jameson, F. 1985: Architecture and the critique of ideol- McKean, C. 1984: Society and architecture: the control-
ogy. In Ockman, J., editor, Architecture, criticism, ideol- ling of both. The Planner 70, 18–21.
ogy, Princeton: Princeton Architectural Press, 51–87. McLeod, M. 1985: Introduction. In Ockman, J. editor,
Jencks, C. 1977: The language of post-Modern architecture. Architecture, criticism, ideology, Princeton: Princeton
London: Academy Editions. Architectural Press, 7–11.
1983: Post-Modern architecture: the true inheritor of McQuade, W. 1979: Why all those buildings are collaps-
Modernism. RIBA Transactions 2, 26–41. ing. Fortune, November 19, 58–66.
King, A.D. editor, 1980: Buildings and society: essays on the Mandel, E. 1975: Late capitalism. New York: Velos.
social development of the built environment. London: Marco, D. 1984: The role of intellectuals as agents in the
Routledge and Kegan Paul. transformation of processes of work and production. In
1983a: Culture and the political economy of building The production of the built environment. Proceedings of
form. Habitat International 6, 237–48. the 5th Bartlett International Summer School, Geneva.
1983b: The world economy is everywhere: urban history London: Bartlett School of Architecture.
in the world system. Urban History Yearbook 1983 Mattson, R. 1983: Storefront remodelling on Main Street.
7–18. Journal of Cultural Geography 3, 41–55.
1984: The social production of building form: theory and Millon, H.A. and Nochlin, L. editors, 1978: Art and archi-
research. Environment and Planning D 2, 429–46. tecture in the service of politics. Cambridge,
Knack, R.E. 1984: Staking a claim on urban design. Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Planning 50, 4–11. Minai, A.T. 1984: Architecture as environmental communi-
Knesl, J.A. 1984: The powers of architecture. Environment cation. New York: Walter de Gruyter.
and Planning D 2, 3–22. Montgomery, R. 1985: The rapid recent expansion of
Knox, P.L. 1984: Symbolism, styles and settings: the built American architecture employment. Architecture
environment and the imperatives of urbanized capital- Employment Working Paper 85–1. Berkeley: Department
ism. Architecture et Comportement 2, 107–22. of City and Regional Planning.
Korllos, T.S. 1980: Sociology of architecture: an emerging 1961: The city in history. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
perspective. Ekistics 47, 470–75. Mumford, L. 1983: The culture of cities. New York:
Kostof, S. editor, 1977: The architect: chapters in the history Harcourt, Brace and World.
of the profession. New York: Oxford University Press. Norberg-Schulz, C. 1975: Meaning in western architecture.
1985: A history of architecture: settings and rituals. New New York: Praeger.
York: Oxford University Press. Pahl, R. 1975: Whose city? Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Krampen, M. 1979: Meaning in the urban environment. Parkin, F. 1971: Class, inequality and political order.
London: Pion. London: New Left Books.
Krier, L. and Culot, M. 1978: The only path for architec- Pawley, M. 1983: The defence of Modern architecture.
ture. Oppositions 14, 39–43. RIBA Transactions 2, 50–5.
Krier, L. and Vidler, A. 1978: Rational architecture: the Perin, C. 1977: Everything in its place. Princeton: Princeton
reconstruction of the European city. Brussels: Archives University Press.
d’architecture moderne. Porphyrios, D. 1985: On critical history. In Ockman, J., edi-
Langdon, P. 1985: Burgers! Shakes! Atlantic Monthly, tor, Architecture, criticism, ideology, Princeton, Princeton
December, 75–89. Architectural Press, 16–21.
Larson, M.S. 1983: Emblem and exception: the historical Portoghesi, P. 1982: After Modern architecture. New York:
definition of the architect’s professional role. In Pipkin, Rizzoli.
J., La Gory, M. and Blau, J., editors, Professionals and Prak, N.L. 1984: Architects: the noted and the ignored.
urban form, Albany: SUNY Press, 49–86. Chichester: John Wiley.

TEAM LinG
 The social production of the built environment 125

Preziosi, D. 1979a: Architecture, language and meaning: the Triennial Congress of the International Council for
origins of the built world and its semiotic organization. Building Research Studies and Documentation,
The Hague: Mouton. Washington, DC.
1979b: The semiotics of the built environment: an introduc- Venturi, R., Brown, D.S. and Izenour, S. 1972: Learning
tion to architectonic analysis. Bloomington: Indiana from Las Vegas: the forgotten symbolism of architectural
University Press. form. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Rapoport, A. 1982: The meaning of the built environment. Venturi, R. and Rauch, J. 1976: Signs of life: symbols in the
Beverly Hills: Sage. American city. Aperture 77, 49–78.
Ravetz, A. 1980: Remaking cities. Beckenham: Croom Whitehand, J. 1983: Architecture of commercial redevelop-
Helm. ment in postwar Britain. Journal of Cultural Geography 4,
Rowntree, L.B. and Conkey, M.W. 1980: Symbolism and 41–55.
the cultural landscape. Annals, Association of American 1984: Rebuilding town centres: developers, architects and
Geographers, 70, 459–74. styles. Occasional Paper #19. Birmingham: Department
Rubin, B. 1979: Aesthetic ideology and urban design. of Geography, University of Birmingham.
Annals, Association of American Geographers 69, Wolfe, T. 1981: From Bauhaus to our house. New York:
339–61. Farar, Straus, Giroux.
Saint, A. 1983: The image of the architect. New Haven: Yale Woodward, R. 1982: Urban symbolism. Ekistics 295,
University Press. 285–91.
Salaman, G. 1974: Community and occupation. Cambridge: Wright, G. 1981: Building the American dream: a social his-
Cambridge University Press. tory of housing in America. New York: Pantheon.
Sternlieb, G. and Hughes, J.W. 1986: Demographics and Zelinsky, W. 1973: Cultural geography of the United States.
housing in America. Population Bulletin 41, 1, 1–35. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
Symes, M. 1985: Urban development and the education Ziesel, J. 1975: Sociology and architectural design. Russell
of designers. Journal of Architectural and Planning Sage Social Science Frontiers Occasional Series #6.
Research 2, 23–38. New York: Russell Sage.
Tafuri, M. 1976: Architecture and utopia: design and capital-
ist development. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
1980: Theories and history of architecture. New York:
Harper and Row.
Trilling, J. 1985: Architecture as politics. Atlantic Monthly,
Source and copyright
February, 26–35.
Valadez, J. 1984: Diverging meanings of development This chapter was published in its original form as:
among architects and three other professional groups. Knox, P. (1987), ‘The social production of the built envir-
Journal of Environmental Psychology 4, 223–28. onment: architects, architecture and the post-Modern
Ventre, F. 1982: Building in eclipse, architecture in seces- city’, Progress in Human Geography, 11, 354–78.
sion. Progressive Architecture, December, 58–61.
1986: Competition conditions affecting export of design Reprinted with permission of Edward Arnold (Publishers)
and construction services. Paper presented to 10th Ltd (www.hodderarnoldjournals.com).

TEAM LinG