Broadening our Architectural

Practice
Page 1 ........ Giancarlo De Carlo: Introduction
Page 3 ........ Architectures Public?
Page 5 ........ Sole Author
Page 7 ........ The Nature of Participation
Page 19 ........ Role of the Creative?
Page 10 ........ Case Study: Nathen Coley
 “By distancing itself from the real context of society
and its most concrete environmental needs, the elite
attitude of the Modern Movement just accentuated
the superfluity of architecture.”1
Giancarlo De Carlo
1  Peter Blundell-Jones, Doina Petrescu and Jeremy Till. Architecture and Participation,
Spon, London. [2004] p7

Giancarlo De Carlo
The above quotation is a transcript from a Lecture given by
De Carlo in Liege 1969. As De Carlo gives his lecture he is
concerned with the restrictions set in place through the
modern movement; due to it’s disassociation from social and
cultural terms, not shared throughout the structure of power.
Born in 1919, he trained as an architect between 1942 and
1949. De Carlo’s philosophy was heavily influenced by the
politics of the time. As a member of Team 10 he promoted
participation through consensus activity, while reacting against
the individualistic attitude of social anarchism.

Procedures of Architectural Practice

Calling for a ‘subversion of concepts and methods’ associated
with architectural practice, De Carlo placed emphasis on
a ‘user’ engaged planning process. He urged architects
and urban planners to practice their disciplines alongside
the user, rather than in isolation. This new approach would
subvert traditional values held throughout the modern
movement of urban design. De Carlo believed that this would
unleash energies that had ‘not yet been explored.’1 It was his
philosophy that the act of participation could bring around a
real change to the way we engage with our built environments,
recovering architecture’s ‘historic legitimacy, or indeed, restore
its credibility.’2

Giancarlo de Carlo

1  Peter Blundell-Jones, Doina Petrescu and Jeremy Till. Architecture and Participation,
Spon, London. [2004] p18
2  Peter Blundell-Jones, Doina Petrescu and Jeremy Till. Architecture and Participation,
Spon, London. [2004] p14

1 2
 The church is not a building. . . It is a people
Architectures Public?
This question of ‘credibility’ challenged the ability of
architecture to be socially engaged, or to have a public. De
Carlo posed the question of what an architectures public is?
‘The clients who commission the buildings? The people – all
the people who use architecture?’1 The modern movement,
through its disassociation with the reality of society, would
lead us to believe that it was perhaps the clients or indeed
the architects themselves that were presumed to hold the
role of an architectures public. The only rational answer to
De Carlo’s question would be the people as a whole, due to
the all encompassing nature of a ‘public’. It is this distancing
from society and misleading definition of architecture’s ‘use’
that De Carlo opposes. He argued that architecture was only
reasonable when engaged with society, ‘An architectural
work has no sense if dissociated from use... it’s purpose
lies in its “fullness”.’ Patrick Geddes, throughout his diverse
career, constantly sought the participatory role of the citizen
as the key component for civic regeneration. Reacting against
conventional politics, Geddes sought co-operation at every
social level. De Carlo too envisaged the creative potential
of citizen participation, where institutionalized culture was
subverted, allowing the discipline of architecture to deal with
the macro complexities of ones belonging to place.
1  Peter Blundell-Jones, Doina Petrescu and Jeremy Till. Architecture and Participation,
Spon, London. [2004] p6
3 4
De Carlo introduced the concept of an authoritarian planning
process as one that is not able to question it’s product. De
Carl describes the product of such a process as ‘already
pre-decided by higher authority.’2 Rather than planning
imposing final proposals from the outset, he explained its
function as a ‘dialectical process’ opening up a ‘sequence
of hypotheses’. This explanation was referred to as Process
Planning, with the role of creative participation at the centre
of its operation. Broadening the preconceived boundaries of
current architectural practice, Process Planning offered a new
framework for dialectical activity. Just as Geddes promoted
the actions of the individual within a community as he worked
in Edinburgh, De Carlo promoted his interest in direct action
(public participation) as a new method for City regeneration.
The themes of social engagement and participation were
common threads running throughout the work of both Patrick
Geddes and De Carlo. Both engaged in a political struggle,
working against the grain of current methods of urban practice.
Patrick Geddes | An Unfinished Work
A Career of Engagement
P4
2  Peter Blundell-Jones, Doina Petrescu and Jeremy Till. Architecture and Participation,
Spon, London. [2004] p19
 Sole Author
Jonathan Hill in his text ‘Actions of Architecture’ challenged
the authority through which the architect operates, raising
‘use’ as a creative activity. Influenced by Roland Barthes’ text
‘The Death of the Author’, Hill suggests that the importance
of the author has been over rated. Hill draws attention to the
process by which the reader would engage with the text, as an
important part of the creative process. Hill does not suggest
the death of writing, as if it were not for the author, the text
would not be there to be read, but rather the death of the
author’s authoritarian nature. Barthes stated that ‘the birth of
the reader must be at the cost of the death of the Author’1. This
highlights the reconstruction of the text as a creative act and
not a direct process. Barthes suggested both a new author
and reader; both possessing creative roles in the production
of a text. Hill did not suggest a direct parallel between text and
building He commended the ‘writer-text-reader relations as a
whole to be analogous to architect-building-user relations.’2
Iain Borden in his paper ‘The value of arts and humanities
research to life in the UK’ stated that what matters much more
than the identity and presence of an architect is ‘the quality of
actual buildings that are produced, and how these buildings
impact on all of us.’3 Through this argument, the authoritarian
nature of the architect was somewhat diminished, placing
utmost importance on the engagement of people with the built
environment.
De Carlo suggested throughout process planning,
the user should be treated as a leading character. A subversion
of the architect as an authoritarian ruler takes place; the
architects role transformed from sole author, to collaborator.
1  Barthes, ‘The death of the Author’ p 148
2  Jonathan Hill, Actions of Architecture: Architects and creative users, London
: Routledge, 2003 P72
3  Iain Borden, The value of arts and humanities research to life in the UK. ARQ . Vol 12 . no
3/4 . 2008. p216
5 6
It is through this relationship that architectural procedures can
be transformed from the preconceptions of an architectural
object to that of a dialectical process of participation. De Carlo
realized the new potentials of working through a framework
of participation. He believed that architectural growth and
flexibility would be made possible through the users interaction
with the planning process from its conception.
It was inevitable that the changing circumstances in our
cities today require the creative reconfiguration of buildings.
A reinvention is required in order to avoid these instances
falling into a state of redundancy or disuse. De Carlo stated
that through authoritarian planning, ‘these devices are
immediately blocked,’4 due to their contradiction of a pre-
established formal order. ‘Process planning’ on the other hand
offered a new creative potential through collaboration and user
participation, open to manipulation, free from the shackles of
a preconceived authoritarian outcome. Written in 1998, Bruce
Mau’s ‘Incomplete Manifesto for Growth’ was a collective set of
strategies taken in approach to any project. His third statement
reflected De Carlos distancing from an authoritarian process
of operation, ‘when outcome drives the process we will only
ever go to where we’ve already been.’ Mau placed primary
importance on the process itself as a design procedure, and
as with de Carlos process planning, ‘we may not know where
we’re going, but we will know we want to be there.’5
4  Peter Blundell-Jones, Doina Petrescu and Jeremy Till. Architecture and Participation,
Spon, London. [2004] p21
5  INCOMPLETE MANIFESTO FOR GROWTH: http://www.brucemaudesign.com/112942/
 The Nature of Participation User Threat
All to often we see a shift of participation from a user-engaged “I think architecture is a form of art; one that is deeply and
process to a tick the box exercise. Institutions such as problematically involved in pragmatism...the threat posed by
local authority initiatives have established ‘percent for art other realities is what makes architecture so specific...You
programmes’ which stipulate that funding is set aside to can either see this as a problem or as potential. I see it as a
incorporate art into a building. Backing from these institutions potential.”2
has led to the integration of art as nothing more than an Nicolaus Hirsch
exercise of bolting on. Such initiatives restrict the creative
process of collaboration and participation, placing focus on Today throughout our many media channels we face the
output rather than on process. prevail of user removal from our built environment, commonly
failing to acknowledge the everyday use of buildings. De Carlos
Walking Blind questioning of an architecture without a public as end user is
Participation opens up a new architectural process, raised once more as we see the removal of the everyday user
unconventional due to its non-prescriptive itinerary. Patrick from the built environment. As a result, architecture is further
Geddes’ work between 1889 and 1904, brought people and removed from its real context. It could be argued that this
place together. He was in pursuit of people taking responsibility hesitance to acknowledge the user could result from a certain
for their current and future environment. This pursuit led him threat posed by the user. It is this threat that participation takes
towards a new kind of museum movement. Throughout this up by the horns, seeing it as potential for real change.
process, Geddes never failing to recognize his endeavours
as experiments in the social evolution of the city. The most
significant expression of Geddes’s thought can be seen in his
Outlook Tower, where the user acted as a participant in the
museums evolution. By nature this evolutionary work could not
be predetermined, evolving throughout the macro complexities
of a participatory process. As a result, Geddes never new what
the next move would be. De Carlo reflected this consequence
from engaging in a process of participation, whereby we have
to engage in walking blind as part of the process, ‘Collective
participation introduced a plurality of objectives and actions
whose outcomes could not be foreseen.’1

1  Peter Blundell-Jones, Doina Petrescu and Jeremy Till. Architecture and Participation,
Spon, London. [2004] p15 2  Nikolaus Hirsh, On Boundaries Sternberg Press Berlin and New York [2005/06] p44

7 8
 ‘Architecture also, however, has another role to play, this
time in a more dispersed yet equally pervasive manner. This
is architecture as it engages with the wider context of other
creative arts, design practices and cultural activities’1
Iain Borden
1  Iain Borden, The value of arts and humanities research to life in the UK. ARQ . Vol 12 . no
3/4 . 2008. p219

Lamp of Sacrifice. Nathen Coley. [There will be no miracles here. Edinburgh : The Fruitmarket Gallery, 2004.]

Role of the Creative? Case Study: Nathen Coley

In approaching the nature of participation we must consider the Coley posed a challenge to the architectural profession, as his
role of the creative throughout the process. Lewis Mumford (a work explored the urban environment in search of interactions
disciple of Patrick Geddes) through his text ‘Art and Technics’, between architecture and society. Primarily concerned with the
contrasts man the artist to man the technical, envisaging user, he was interested with architecture’s reflection of the users
renewal through personal initiative. Through his lecture ‘Art, needs and aspirations, a direct challenge to sole authorship,
Technics, and Cultural Integration’, Mumford promoted the “How does public space add meaning to the cultural identity
development of arts and technics as ‘a means of throwing of a cities inhabitants?”. As Coley approaches his work, he
some light upon the major problems of our all too interesting sets about engaging with people and place, using research
age.’1 It was through this approach that we may begin to methods such as site visit, photography, interview and archival
consider the role of the creative throughout a participatory research. Coley entered into collaboration with Neil Gillespie
process. Mumford emphasized a link between the work of of Reiach and Hall Architects in 1996, through the invitation
the artist and the participator, where through engagement, to make an artwork relating to the redevelopment of the
‘the work of art springs out of the artist’s original experience, Stills Gallery in Edinburgh. Using this opportunity, he became
becomes a new experience, both for him and the participator.’2 interested in the architectural process, commenting that the
Mumford’s philosophy was not that the artists within society complicated concerns of architecture leaves ‘little space for
would operate through linear rational towards a preconceived ideas and making.’3 Redirecting the original commission to
end goal, but rather to operate through a constant dialectical make a permanent work for the gallery, Coley formulated a
cycle of engagement with society. It was through this process public sculpture in the form of a book titled ‘Urban Sanctuary’.
that Mumford saw the creative bringing something new to the His actions were the start a process of engagement, whereby
table in order to engage the consciousness of the general he displayed public planning notices communicating that an
public. A further consequence of this process would have urban sanctuary would be built in that area. The reaction to this
been that man was encouraged to respond through further notice allowed the public to consider the subject of what an
creative practice, and this would ignite the personal initiative urban sanctuary might be, and what form it might take in the
that Mumford believed would bring renewal. given context. Throughout this process as well as giving out
copies of the book, Coley considered the users in location, not
in search of an immediate outcome but a process whereby the
public would begin to consider how they relate to the urban
environment surrounding them.

1  Lewis Mumford: Art and Technics London : Oxford University Press; Geoffrey
Cumberlege, 1952. P136
2  Lewis Mumford: Art and Technics London : Oxford University Press; Geoffrey 3  Jes Fernie. Two Minds: Atrists and Architects in collaboration. Black Dog Publishing.
Cumberlege, 1952. P139-140 London, 2006. p74

9 10
Stephen McCullough Material 2010 | 2011 Dundee School of Architecture

www.stephenmccullough.co.uk 11