Architects have participated in decisions about cities that have lingering negative effects (L’Heureux, 2015), and, since architectural theory is so “amorphous and impalpable” it has been incapable of adequately critiquing itself (De Carlo, 2005, p.4). To avoid past mistakes, we need interdisciplinary theories to guide us in evaluating design decisions. We should begin by engaging theories that reconnect the production of space to culture because the “who and why” of spatial production has serious implications. When the users of space are also the producers, the space serves the users. When the powerful produce space, the space serves the powerful. The first is the “social production of space,” which evolves from a congruence between the built environment and culture. The opposite of this is space produced to validate nationalism, segregate society, maximize exchange value, allow surveillance, or otherwise act upon the user: spaces that produce and maintain power structures. The latter is the dominate mode of spatial production and the one architects are engaged in (De Carlo, 2005, p.6). Understanding the political implications of spatial production will allow us to understand how the producers of informal settlements transgress the dominant modes of spatial production (Dovey, 2013, p.83), which will lead to a more socially responsive architectural profession.
32
R E S E A R C H r e c o n n e c t i n g c u l t u r e
