This essay in the following way. The essay will

This study provided an important opportunity to advance the
understanding of how
space can be political. According to Oxford English dictionary (2015), space
can be defined as follows: “a continuous area or expanse which is free,
available, or unoccupied. The dimensions of height, depth, and width within all
things exist and move. An interval of time (often used to suggest that the time
is short considering what has happened or been achieved in it). The freedom to
live, think, and develop in a way that suits one.” Throughout this essay, the
term space will be used to refer to an area that it has been occupied by
residents or it is an area for public access, in short, a private or public
space that it is been use for residential or governmental purposes. Also,
according to Oxford English dictionary (2015), political can be defined as
follows: “relating to the government or public affairs of a country. Done or
acting in the interests of status or power within an organization rather than
as a matter of principle.” This essay will attempt to demonstrate that space
has political connotation. This will be explained in this essay in the
following way. The essay will first address why architectural symbols have
political connotations. It will then analyse the government’s politics, the
political aspect of architecture, whether architecture is or is not
repressible, residential space, The concepts of social, cultural and political
goods, public space, power (control) of the space and ethical dilemmas on a
political perspective of the space. A combination of quantitative and
qualitative approaches was used in the data analysis. Also, it was used to
support the understanding of the topic examples of architectural buildings and
diagrams. At the end, this essay will provide a conclusion and will enhance our
understanding of the extent to which space can be political.

There is a growing body of literature that recognises
the importance of architectural symbols. The concepts of architectural symbols
and social and cultural conditions are central to the understanding of political
space (Nas, 2011: 8). An example of this is the study carried out on the
Colosseum, an amphitheatre in the centre of the city of Rome, Italy, which
represents a symbol of power, culture, life and society. The observed
correlation between architectural symbols and political space might be
explained in this way: the colosseum was a source of entertainment, but also a
tool to control the people and raise the political status of the politicians in
the Senate of Ancient Rome (Coarelli and Gabucci, 2001). This shows that the
Colosseum (as show in Figure 1), as a space, was used for political purposes. The
building is a cultural and social symbol (as show in Figure 2) and the
conditions and beliefs at that time caused the space to be used, to a certain
extent, for political manipulation. Another important finding was that over
time the main use of the Colosseum has changed, however, the space still being
used today as a political symbol of power. Taken together, these findings
suggest a role for architectural symbolism in promoting political space.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

Architecture can play an important role in addressing the issue of
government’s politics. Architecture revealed a correlation between power and
large interests, whether political or financial (Tschumi, 1990). An example of
this would be the recently constructed buildings for the Olympic Games held by
China in 2016. The new architectural buildings constructed by China draws our
attention to the distinctive political agenda behind the Olympic events. The
buildings evidence a source of national pride which is comparable in complexity
to the architectural symbols previously discussed in this essay. In the same
way, One World Trade Center also known as the “Freedom Tower” in Lower Manhattan,
New York, is the tallest building in the Westerrn Hemisphere and it is within
the top ten tallest buildings in the world. These buildings are good examples
of powerful and symbolic buildings (Wallace, 2011). Bernard Tschumi uses
examples of these various powerful buildings as evidence that when a building
is built, it is not only for the client, but for the city as well. He also
points out that “there is a moment
when the buildings are conceived as an expression of a political regime”. In
his important analysis of government’s politics and architecture Tschumi (1990)
showed that when architects are designing buildings, there is a diplomacy
required. This study has demonstrated that architecture contributes to a government’s
political agenda. See figure 3.

Political is an important aspect of architecture. There is a growing body
of literature that recognises the importance of the relationship between people
and housing. This view is supported by Lebbeus Woods (1992) and Peter Eisenman
(2007) that architecture is a political act. A relationship exists between a
person and their space. Taken together, these studies support the notion that
when someone wants changes on the conditions of the space, the architecture
become an instrument to achieve these changes. Another important finding was
that the architect needs to consider the existing environment and how to build
this space for people to live in. These results confirm the association between
politics and space. The observed correlation between political and architecture
might be explained in this way: when people want to improve their living
conditions it might be driven by both political and economic reasons. Overall,
this study strengthens the idea that a space can be political. See Figure 4.A heavily debated question is whether architecture is or is not
repressible. According to Fredric Jameson (Leach, 1997: 245) architecture when
compared to the other arts is the most repressible because it demands more
effort to understand the message or the intention of the artist. However, there
is an inconsistency with this argument. Jameson makes no attempt to offer an
adequate explanation for how architecture is repressible. Such expositions are
unsatisfactory because his explanation suffer from some serious weaknesses. He
argues that architecture is repressible because compared to the other arts like
painting, “architecture can be lived in, be moved around in, and simultaneously
ignored” (Leach 1997: 245). Hence, this observation may support the hypothesis
that architecture is not repressible. It can therefore be assumed that
architecture is irrepressible because you extend, you move around, you can ignore
or live it. On the other hand, a possible explanation for his finding might be
that the various limitations that architects need to consider; such as building
regulations, the site, clients, and the weather when receiving a design
proposal can potentially be very repressible. This would be an excellent area
for further work. Further research needs to examine the link more closely
between architecture and repressible. Residential space is a fundamental aspect of politics. Surveys such as those
conducted by Friedrich Engels (1872) have shown that the difficulties that
people have surrounding property, such as purchasing a property or keeping
possession of the property, were generally related to the structure of social
class. According to Friedrich Engels the solution would be a social revolution
which can be defined as changes in the structure and nature of the society.
These social revolutions would result in social and cultural transformation to the
societal infrastructure. In conclusion, housing movement is a determining
factor of politics (Engels and Marx, 1919). The correlation between residential
and politics is interesting because it is both a political and economic
problem. This result may be explained by the fact that homeless and rental
problems can affect the economy of the city or any kind of similar infrastructure.
The most obvious finding to emerge from the analysis is that housing issues
have class structure and power relationships it can thus be suggested that the
space have a political implication on the social infrastructure. In general,
therefore, it seems that housing is a tool for politics. Overall, this study
strengthens the idea that residential space is political (Madden and Marcuse,
2016).The concepts of social, cultural and political goods are central to the
house as a space. Thus far, previous studies highlighted factors that are
associated with the relation between people and who resides in that space.
Madden and Marcuse (2016) suggests an explanatory for each type of social,
cultural and political goods. They point out that house can have different
meaning for each person. Some important examples of social and cultural goods
are source of status, wealth, shelter, site of reproduction and home. Another
well-known example of political goods are economic burden, key structure and
function of cities, speculation for who wants to sell or buy, income for financing,
tax and work for the developer of the house. It is important to bear in mind
the possible bias in these examples. It could be argued that work for the
developer has a social and political good which furthers both social and
political agendas. Perhaps the serious disadvantage of this subject is that
approaches of this kind carry them various common and unusual reasons for each
good. It is not a homogenous area. This research extends our knowledge of house
as a political good.

Politics has a pivotal role in public space. Public
spaces are policed and outlawed. The use of public spaces has rules and can
have limitation of access. This is exemplified in the work undertaken by Low
and Smith (2006) in their book. A reasonable approach to tackle this report
could be exemplified by spaces such as public streets, parks and shopping
malls. These examples confirm the association between space and politics
because public spaces are outlawed which means it has a public behaviour. For
example, The São
Paulo Museum of Art (MASP) designed by Lina Bo Bardi is located on Paulista
Avenue in the city of São Paulo, Brazil. It is a rectangular block supported
by two lateral beams as show in Figure 5. An interesting political aspect of
this structure is that the public space under the concrete block is used for a
variety of politically driven activities as show in Figure 6. Among these are political
movements, protests, daily activities and exhibitions. Through this, it can be
seen that political bodies further their agendas through the use of public
spaces such as these, which enhances our understanding of how space can be
political. An issue that was not addressed in this study was to what extent
public spaces are public. Further studies regarding the role of the public
aspect of public space. 

Power has been instrumental in our understanding of space. It is now well
established from a variety of studies that effective control of space allows
the infrastructure of the city to operate efficiently. A lack of proper control
of space would adversely affect the daily lives of the citizens. Examples of the
effective control of space include managing the basic aspects of infrastructure
such as transport, education, health care, food, clean air and recreational
facilities. These are some examples of crucial amenities that, where they did not
work properly, people would demand immediate changes. Should these issues not
be resolved, this can lead to social revolution which could lead to complete
political shifts within a nation. A significant analysis and discussion on the
subject was presented by Staub (2016: 3). In her book, there is a clear
definition of public space. In short, public space are places that are
controlled by the government and offer activities. She also explored the
relationship between public and private space that are open for the public for
example, shopping mall, restaurant, etc. What stands out in this subject is
that there are two means to shape public spaces according to Staub (2016:13).
They are the legislation and building programs. These examples support previous
research into this area which links space and political. These recent findings
highlight the importance of control (power) of the space.

Ethical dilemmas are an important component in the political system and
plays a key role in architecture. Ethical dilemmas have been a question of
great interest in a wide range of fields. Thus far, a number of studies have
attempted to evaluate the impact of ethics linked to the construction area. In
a study conducted by Spector (2001), it was showed that the larger the construction,
the larger the moral and ethical consequences of your work. The correlation
between architecture and ethics is interesting because if something unexpected
happens on the site, it can result in political consequences. These views
surfaced mainly in relation to accidents, air and soil pollution and other environmental
issues. For example, hundreds of migrant workers have died in the construction
of the Al Wakrah stadium in Qatar for the 2022 FIFA World Cup. The stadium was
designed by Zaha Hadid as show in Figure 7. At the time, she defended herself
claiming that “as an architect, she has no control over the construction site”.
Opinions differed as to for whom architects are working for. However, she
cannot be directly blamed for the deaths. The most obvious finding to emerge
from the analysis is that where an architect works on a particular project, the
architect should consider the safety and well-being of those who would need to
construct the building when designing it (Hadid and Betsky, 2013). There are a
number of important changes which need to be made. A key political priority
should therefore be a plan for long-term care of the workers on the site. This
information can be used to develop targeted interventions aimed at building
regulations. It would be interesting to compare experiences of individuals within
the participation in different projects structures. Although this study focuses
on ethical dilemmas, the finding may well have a bearing on political
application for the spaces in which projects would be built.

This essay has discussed the reasons of how
space can be political. The main goal of the current study was to determine how
highly political space can be. This was illustrated by the analysis of the
relationship between people and their housing, of which one of the more
significant findings to emerge from this study is that people are the strongest factor for the political agenda
of residential and public space. Overall, this study strengthens the idea that space
is political. The present study should prove to be particularly valuable to
provide an understanding of the political agenda of the infrastructure of the
space. Public spaces are majority owned by the government or companies. And the
effective control of space allows the infrastructure of the city to
operate efficiently. Another key
strength of the present study was the architectural symbols. An example
used was the Colosseum, the building is a cultural and social symbol and it is
used as a tool for political manipulation. Even though over time the main use
of the Colosseum had changed, the space is still being used today as a
political symbol of power which is another point that supports the political
aspect of space. Nevertheless,
it can be seen in this essay that the repressible aspect of space, such as the
various limitations that architects need to consider; such as building
regulations, the site, clients, and the weather when receiving a design
proposal can potentially be very repressible. Also, the analysis of ethical
dilemmas showed that the larger the construction, the larger the moral and
ethical consequences of an architect’s work. This correlation between
architecture and ethics is particularly interesting because if something
unexpected happens on the site, it can result in political consequences which has
extended our knowledge of ethical dilemmas in architecture. This would be an
excellent area for further work. The present study should prove to be
particularly valuable to provide a base on future knowledge for architecture
and urban planning.