Read on Twitter
Well since I’ve been writing about Chicago architecture for ~7 years now, I guess it’s time to call it: there’s no longer any local outlet for criticism in the city. This is why that is bad:
There is a cognitive disconnect between political, social, problems and architecture; architects should be seeing themselves as political/social actors but they sometimes don’t. Maybe some forget the culture wars or some just don’t have time
but we’ve seen what can happen when building places is considered a political act, and the impact can be big. We’re not talking about huge sweeping movements but small gestures of solidarity and community cohesion in places that have been over-exploited and disinvested.
Criticism isn’t high on journalism’s “Maslow’s hierarchy of need” but to have a voice that can make clear how policies/institutions of past AND present shape spaces is important to understanding how we got to where we are. In chicago, that is necessary because of our racist past.
We are about to see big moves from the city to reinvest in those exploited neighborhoods, while probably also seeing enormous investment in downtown. Those should be discussed openly and critically.
If we are serious about tackling climate change on a local level, an architecture critic will have a major role in keeping political actors and building owners accountable to measurable goals and equitable policies that get polluters out of our Black and brown neighborhoods
I could go on and on. Literally. Criticism of the future has the capacity to move toward generosity and justice. We need more of it, not less.
