Architects challenged by the neoliberal city.
Parenthesis| N° d'inventaire | 22803 |
| Format | 15 x 23 |
| Détails | 288 p., paperback. |
| Publication | Marseille, 2020 |
| Etat | Nine |
| ISBN | 9782863646847 |
Until recently, large-scale public commissions were the benchmark system, and the state played a leading role in designating architectural politicians and elites. In different forms throughout history, architects have worked closely with political power. Before 1968, the system that originated in the 17th century, centered around the Royal Academy of Architecture, the École des Beaux-Arts, and the Prix de Rome, survived for a long time. After 1968 and until the turn of the 2000s, a state policy promoting architectural quality gave rise to a star system of architects for major public buildings. All of this began to fade around twenty years ago, as public investment in urban and architectural policies declined. Other production methods have emerged, such as the "public-private partnership (PPP)" from the British neoliberal movement, which places designers in front of systems strongly driven by the technical and economic logic of the major construction operators, far from the prestigious status given to architect-designers by their collusion with political power. By analyzing the daily life of their activity in diverse commissioning contexts, we can see in particular how the model of the "singular colloquium - the architect and his client - which structures the imagination of this profession is out of step with the fundamentally inter-organizational register currently being established. What becomes of architects, what becomes of architecture in a world where the making of the city is structured around large client organizations and powerful companies positioned across the entire chain of economic activities from planning, urban services to real estate management, including construction?
Until recently, large-scale public commissions were the benchmark system, and the state played a leading role in designating architectural politicians and elites. In different forms throughout history, architects have worked closely with political power. Before 1968, the system that originated in the 17th century, centered around the Royal Academy of Architecture, the École des Beaux-Arts, and the Prix de Rome, survived for a long time. After 1968 and until the turn of the 2000s, a state policy promoting architectural quality gave rise to a star system of architects for major public buildings. All of this began to fade around twenty years ago, as public investment in urban and architectural policies declined. Other production methods have emerged, such as the "public-private partnership (PPP)" from the British neoliberal movement, which places designers in front of systems strongly driven by the technical and economic logic of the major construction operators, far from the prestigious status given to architect-designers by their collusion with political power. By analyzing the daily life of their activity in diverse commissioning contexts, we can see in particular how the model of the "singular colloquium - the architect and his client - which structures the imagination of this profession is out of step with the fundamentally inter-organizational register currently being established. What becomes of architects, what becomes of architecture in a world where the making of the city is structured around large client organizations and powerful companies positioned across the entire chain of economic activities from planning, urban services to real estate management, including construction?