Democratic Architecture is an ongoing and evolving project that strives to establish the theoretical grounding for a new ethical discourse informing decision-making in the built environment, and develop a new form of practice. It raises important…[Read More]
“If the city is the world which man created, it is the world in which he is henceforth condemned to live. Thus, indirectly, and without any clear sense of the nature of his task, in making the city man has remade himself.” (Park, 1967)
The condition to which Park points is illustrative of how the city directly shapes the…[Read More]
The Right to the City may only exist where input from the citizenry is actively sought since, even where mechanisms for democratic influence do exist, many feel suitably disenfranchised not to act. As such, this right is not something that can be merely allowed by others passively, but something that must include active efforts to…[Read More]
Democratic Architecture asserts that the architectural processes which form the built environment should ideally be within the control of those who are to live within these environments. Such architecture is ‘democratic’ because it is literally ruled by the people. But what form…[Read More]
Given the centrality of the built environment as a site where contemporary economic, social, political and ecological crises are played out, one might think that Architecture, as a practice and a theoretical discipline, would be an integral part of the solution to these problems. Yet there is a clear argument that Architecture faces its…[Read More]
Commoditisation of the city can drive an unhelpful relationship between citizen and city, since legal/financial ownership does not necessarily imply a feeling of ownership. Without this feeling, people are unable to experience the three satisfactions Porteous expresses as deriving from true ownership: “control over space…[Read More]
When discussing Democratic Architecture, this question often stands as one of the most prominent. Really, the answer is twofold. On a normative level, the question regards whether the public (particularly those more deprived) would make ethical decisions. On a practical level, the question is whether the public at large hold enough technical knowledge to…[Read More]
In 2006 Jeremy Till posted an article on Open Democracy the themes of which are very consonant with Democratic Architecture. These themes remain as pertinent today as they were then.
Like Democratic Architecture, Till is sceptical of much talk of ‘participation’ in the political and architectural spheres. This is not to say that participation…[Read More]
The specific relationship of specialists to the citizenry is something that is being trialled and tested through a series of workshops carried out by Democratic Architecture. This research is ongoing and strives to establish first-hand experience with group processes and how a specialist may relate…[Read More]
Democratic Architecture is concerned with design and research through collaboration so as to harness the collective energies of citizens and create more meaningful paths to the future.
This is a platform for the sharing of ideas, discussion and debate; bringing together the knowledge of diverse groups and individuals to move us toward a 21st century service that is genuinely in the public interest.
Democratic Architecture believes:
The exclusivity of architectural services can be removed through collaborating with communities in the collective shaping of environments. By facilitating the creation of environments genuinely in the public interest, architects become specialists in nurturing potential, and as such are turned to in times of crisis as well as prosperity.
Normative means of architectural production reflect only the views and visions of an over-empowered minority. In order to build resilient paths to the future, people must be given confidence, motivation and opportunity to make real change.
Decision-making should involve those implicated in the outcome. The urban environment must speak of consensus views, reflect the culture it contains and allow for meaningful change in line with the needs and desires of its citizens.
Our environment is an expression of the relationship between space, time and society, and as such, architecture must diversify its toolbox – reaching out to other disciplines and finding new ways of engaging the public.
Empowering citizens gives them heightened feelings of ownership over the environment, allowing them to seek representative change and help their built expressions remain current. This will lessen the theme of needless destruction and renewal and allow for continued relevance through refinement.
The myriad of unpredictable challenges of the future may only be addressed in a multi-disciplinary way. Diversity is something to be embraced, as it is the only means by which the diversifying needs of the future may be met.
Architecture must be allowed to ‘grow roots’ – allowing for relationships with existing activities and existing communities to develop. It must not be imagined in isolation and grafted to the streets.
Architects have the correct skill sets to allow the flourishing of potential, not through prescriptions from the top, but through interaction at community level.
Democratic Architecture is written by Lawrence Sherwood - Director at Sherwood Knight Architecture, with contributions by philosopher David Moss - currently reading for a PhD at the University of Leicester, co-supervised in Media and Politics
