Bombing Detroit:
Activist Architecture as a Pedagogical Model
INTRODUCTION
It is common to see when driving throughout the city of Detroit a bumper sticker
that reads: “I Lift Detroit in Prayer.” Well intentioned, the driver passes each
intersecting street with their mind at ease - they have done their part. In addition to
the sparse gesture, non-profit organizers, in and around the Detroit area, have
strategy sessions, following which they apply for federal, state and local funding and
do their best to push forward with their mission(s). Politicians and capitalists
create “spin” in hopes of generating interest in the city and, in turn, try to grow the
population and rising real estate values. Artists seduced by the decay of the city,
create imagery which gets displayed in galleries and is funneled to the marketing
phenomenon known as “hip-hop culture.” The church, the non-profit, the politician,
the capitalist and the artist are all actively reacting to the unprecedented decline of
one of the United States’ greatest cities – Detroit.
Once a vibrant machine, Detroit brought hope and refuge to thousands. In the
aftermaths of the great depression, Detroit lead the nation in economic triumph.i
The rapid expansion of wartime production drastically reduced unemployment in
the city. Between 1940 and 1943, the number of unemployed workers in Detroit fell
from 135,000 to 4,000.ii The efficiency driven by automation and the assembly line
lifted the city in a time of defeat. Fast-forward sixty years, and in 2002, Detroit has
nearly lost half of its population since 1950.iii Today, an estimated 40 square miles
of the city's 139 square miles of land are now vacant, an amount of land roughly the
size of San Francisco or Boston.iv
Detroit has journeyed from an urban
heyday to an urban crisis. The fate of
the city is the consequence of the
unequal distribution of power and
resources. v It is our ethical
responsibility, as architects, to
distribute the wealth of knowledge
we have possessed and destroy
accepted hierarchies of architecture
through unsolicited means.
The need to move away from
designing for the market and
progressing toward solving the
immense problems that Detroit faces, gives leverage to unsolicited architecture and
its instillation within our fiduciary responsibilities. Architects must start to use a
systems-based approach rather than object-based to design public-interest spaces
Abandoned house and “For Rent” sign on a pile of concrete. Photo: Eric Seals. Detroit
Free Press, 2009.
that generate excitement and community involvement on a much larger scale,
leaving no room for complacency infestation.
1. Post-industrial fiducial responsibility
All architects agree to participate in ethical thought and action on many different
levels. Professional Licensure, membership in the American Institute of Architects
(AIA) or the National Council of Architectural Registration Boards (NCARB) are
common ways the profession impresses upon its members a set of rules based on
ethical behavior. These deontological forms of ethics attempt to promote good
character and behavior. Neglected in each one of the organizations listed above is
the proactive, ethical behavior expected from professionals in a time of crisis. This is
not to imply that law, or professional organizations should obligate architects to fix
societal issues, rather a suggestion to re-examine the ethical behavior of
complacency. The current state of Detroit exposes how unacceptable it is for such
an empowering and encompassing profession to let its standards fall short of
success.
Many well-intentioned architects have become involved in a contagious reaction to
Detroit’s destruction. Countless conceptual projects have been completed on how to
“re-build” the city of Detroit, on a professional and academic level. Regional
architecture schools of Detroit have a hard time getting through a semester without
having a studio get involved with a Detroit related “issue.” Innovative new models of
practice have evolved which focus on displaying the untapped talent of the city.
Outside of these new models and other valuable examples, the majority of local and
national architects keep a safe distance due to the lack of funding and development.
It is fair to say that design alone cannot fix Detroit. It is also important to note that
architects should be cautious not to operate within the idea of a design utopia.
Despite the economic, professional and philosophical challenges, architects cannot
negate their responsibility to Detroit. A new model of architectural practice must be
sought to allow further fulfillment of a post-industrial fiducial responsibility. The
current ethics that we operate under need to be expanded to address the context of
practice in Detroit.
Post-industrial fiducial responsibility requires:
1. Pro-active community engagement
2. Design solutions regardless of economic return
3. Complacency is an act of malpractice
To accept this expansion of ethical behavior is to stand for a subversive architecture
of our time. A deconstructive thought, in regards to creating spaces, facilitates
infinite subjectivity and fulfillment. The installation of a client[less] architecture,
proactive and unsolicited, is crucial to the survival of Detroit (and many other
perishing cities, alike). Deconstruction, rather than a negative process of
dismantling, is affirmative because it frees concepts from their historical
foundations and opens up new possibility. Architect and author Mark Wigley says
it’s simply, “the ability to disturb our thinking about form” that makes a project
deconstructive.vi
2. Bombing and Getting Up
In the study of alternative models of practice we must look outside of the profession.
The success and bravado of the graffiti or street art movement grew out of
America’s ghettos. “Tagging” possesses a systematic model of practice that cannot
go unnoticed, in relation to architectural practice. The “writers” and their art have
proven to be one of the most successful campaigns to modify the urban landscape.
Unfunded and unsolicited, tagging began as an activist response to the flaws of
modernism. Modernism became the force that drove the development of our
postwar cities giving leverage to writers to use bombing as a tool to change shared
expectations of how, where and why we communicate. There was a growing rift
between rich and poor and urban and suburban.vii Angry youth of the 1970’s
reacted with the most common weapon – words and language. Unwittingly, the
writers (as they like to be called) visually deconstructed modernism and the
technological utopia that promised better living for all.
It is simple for the academic, political and societal community to dismiss these
artists as vandals; pariahs on society that destroy, not build communities. Graffiti is
only dangerous in the mind of three types of people; politicians, advertising
executives and graffiti writers.viii There are valid reasons for the antagonists’
argument, but deeper analysis of bombing is being sought. Why do the writers
write? What are the systems at work that will provide valuable insight for architects
working in an economy with little to no financial or governmental support?
Taki 183 was a teenage foot messenger in New York City in the early 1970’s. Taki
183 spread his infamous “tag” or street name throughout the city.ix This practice of
tagging repeatedly or “bombing” was copied repeatedly throughout New York and
the world. The system of gaining notoriety or “getting up” became a badge of honor
and rank within the community. The system was set in-place primarily as a
campaign or protest of teenage angst. Street artists
were reacting to what they felt were unacceptable
conditions.
Many years later in the early 1990’s a curious
sticker started appearing on the east coast of the
United States. Stating simply, “Andre the Giant has a
Posse.” Using the face of the iconic oversized
wrestler, the artist Shepard Fairey, then an art
student at the Rhode Island School of Design,
created a street art project rooted in
phenomenology.x The ambiguous sticker and its
persistence in the environment jolted the public’s curiosity and forced them to
consider both the sticker’s message and its relationship to the environment.
Taki 183, Photo: Don Hogan Charles, New York Times. 1971.
Shepard Fairey’s sticker campaign has evolved into a simplified version of Andre
with the words OBEY; Fairey’s public comment on
our tendency to follow the herd.
Both Taki 183 and Fairey’s work is subversive and
at times destructive. However, the success of
these “campaigns” and their ability to use their art
and designs as a tool for activism is relevant to
community architects practicing in Detroit.
Bombing has established itself as an independent
discipline that understands how to manage and
employ meaning within a cultural context by way
of systems based thought.xi Obtaining a noncomplacent and activist stance, large amounts of tagging and bombing may just
prove to obtain a high level of city pride. A city’s lack in the activist communication,
to me, is just complacent. The activist and in-your-face tactic associated with graffiti
has allowed the system-based approach to be heard loud and clear and followed
across the world.
Sticker, Shepard Fairey. 1989.
As Klaus Krippendorff describes in The Semantic Turn, aesthetic, and market
considerations that justified products of design in the past have been replaced or
overshadowed by more social, political cultural and ecological concerns.xii The ideal
of single-genius and single-solution architecture must remain in the past for
community architecture to succeed. Striving to be the single genius with “the
answer” is hindering the insurmountable possibilities of society-based architecture.
J. M Carroll notes that a preferred mode of design is an approach ‘predicated on the
concept that people who ultimately use a designed artifact are entitled to have a
voice in determining how that artifact is designed’. xiii As unsolicited architects, we
can learn by way of precedent graffiti artists to create an unambiguous model for
actively pursuant, public-interest and Client[less] architecture leading the pack
subversively, instead of following the herd ineffectively. By doing so, Detroit may
have the opportunity to “get up” and earn its badge of honor that has been long lost.
3. Client[less] Praxis
The architectural profession has become inseparable with the client. The “client”
has evolved to the singularity of the individual or institution that seeks our advice
and is willing to pay the market rate. This model of practice limits architectural
impact on our society and in particular to the city of Detroit. The people we serve,
as a profession is limited to architects only creating 2 to 5 percent of our built
environment.xiv As architects, we allow clients to determine our agenda. xv
Architecture has become a form of oppression by only allowing those with adequate
funding to prosper from professional design. Our own standard model of practice,
and the economic returns we expect, is in direct conflict with our fiduciary
responsibility to the health and welfare of our community. It is the architect’s
responsibility to invent new ways of working in the post-industrial landscape and to
stop wondering where we can find clients and start asking where we are needed.xvi
Action is required in Detroit. The obvious answer is to be involved in a community
architecture firm that focuses on projects that are in favor of the public-interest.
The organizational structure of most community architecture firms is a modification
of the standard model of practice. Most community architecture firms are still
organized to address the four pillars of architecture: client, site, budget and
program. Even if a public-interest firm is successful by utilizing the standard model
of practice their impact will be minimized due to limited funding, clientele and time.
Currently, a designer willing to be involved will find few financial resources to
implement ideas and designs. To stand idle for a top-down solution to arrive only
extends the architect’s failures. A bottom-up approach must be explored to free our
concepts from historic foundations and open up new possibilities.xvii
Ole Bouman of the Office of Unsolicited Architecture (OUA) suggests dismantling the
four pillars of architecture thereby creating a new autonomy for architecture.xviii
Bouman’s assertion provides a possible roadmap for architects dealing with what, at
times, seems insurmountable. In particular, one strategy found in this proposal is
the removal of a client or providing unsolicited architectural services. This
client[less] mode of practice should not be seen as self serving, although it can be,
rather unrestricted. The removal of the singular-client, single-solution role, changes
the focus of our profession to the community and away from the elite few and away
from the single aesthetic solution to an integrated systems based approach. The
client becomes the community, the community does not commission, but receives
solutions; solutions that otherwise would not be funded by private developers.
Operating client[less] allows the Detroit architect to provide inventive design
solutions to an unlimited number of people. Yes, client[less] solutions are modest,
but the intent and proactive nature in which it is carried out is significant.
Bouman’s guidelines for adaptation of architectural praxis instruct practitioners to
take a multi-step process to insure they are making “unsolicited architecture”. A
checklist including: defining new territory, transgression of the 4 pillars of
architecture, design, reflection and action outline the primary elements of his
process. Although the process is proactive and unsolicited it is important to note
that the guidelines do not insure outcomes or motivations or that the project will be
in the public interest. “Courage demands leaving the safe and trusted logic of the
assignment behind in order to tread the field of venture development,” (Arjen
Oosterman, Volume 14).
It is our fiduciary responsibility as architects to stop acting like proprietary
investors and start building the existing model with a systems-based, moving
forward approach. Like the writers of graffiti, leave your inhibitions at the door and
actively participate independently in a subversive, persistent and contagious
phenomenon. Instill your own permission to design non-mediocre and
uncontrollable systems for the betterment of a community in dire need of smart,
architectural space re-configuration. There are always two outcomes: either the
community will react (positive outcome) or the community will sit still (negative
outcome). Either way, the notion of empowerment will be instilled and the system
you create will set a standard for future expansion.
4. Activist Design and Sustainability
Embedded in both clientless and unsolicited modes of design is an underlying
thread of activism, in which the designer – with or without a specific user in mind –
undertakes a critical assessment of a given condition, and attempts to enact change
toward a more equitable and acceptable paradigm. Alastair Fuad-Luke provides the
following definition:
Design activism is design thinking, imagination, and practice applied
knowingly or unknowingly to create a counter-narrative aimed at
generating and balancing positive social, institutional, environmental
and/or economic change. xix
Activist architecture necessitates an entirely new skill set. Whereas schools of
architecture pride themselves on educating their students to be ‘problem solvers’,
designers educated through a pedagogy of activism and seek to be ‘problem
seekers’. In addition, activist architecture prohibits neutrality, as the designer must
fully embrace societal needs and advocate for change.
Precedents for activist architecture abound, and often have grown out of ‘guerrilla
design’ activities. One such example is the work of Mad Housers, founded by
Georgia Tech graduate students Michael Connor and Brian Finkle in 1987. In an
attempt to address the issue of homelessness in Atlanta, the strategy of the Mad
Housers was to construct make-shift shelters, and deliver them by night to
underutilized properties, where they were ‘claimed’ by members of the homeless
populace. Today, the Mad Housers are a registered non-profit organization, which
builds ‘huts’ for specific clients, many of whom participate in construction. The
transition from ‘guerilla activists’ to ‘legitimate’ service providers underscores the
opportunities for architects to fulfill their fiduciary responsibility within a matrix of
social and professional sanction. Numerous prominent activism-based design
initiatives have come to flower, including Samuel Mockbee’s Rural Studio at Auburn
University, Public Architecture, and Architecture for Humanity.
The connection between activist architecture and sustainability may not seem
apparent to those who narrowly define sustainability as the integration of living
roofs and alternative energy sources into works of architecture, but becomes readily
apparent on two points when one is inclined to look below the surface. On the first
point, the humanist core of activist engagement addresses one of the legs of the
‘triple bottom line’ (ecology, economy, equity) often left out of traditional pedagogy.
While it is a relatively simple matter to educated architecture students on the
environmental impact of their designs, and the resulting economic impacts of
certain design decisions, defining and promoting the architect’s role as an advocate
of social equity remains more elusive. In many cases, focus upon equity has become
the province of design for the ‘have not’s’. Explained simply, the concept of
‘environmental justice’ can be viewed as follows: using innovative design solutions
to save a software CEO ten dollars a month on his utility bill is an insignificant
exercise, whereas a ten dollar monthly savings to the resident of subsidized housing
may make the difference in the decision to keep the lights on or buy food.
Secondly, the very act of sustainable design implies advocacy on behalf of a client
who remains (aside from floods and landslides) a primarily silent one: the
environment itself. The architect who dedicates herself to sustainable paradigms
must stand firm in advocating design decisions in which immediate financial profit
may not be her highest priority. Even within the sometimes-accepted paradigm of
‘climates before primates’, environmentally-conscious design efforts yield the
(occasionally unintended) result of relieving some of the industrialized damage
inflicted upon low-income communities.
5. Activist Pedagogy
In an effort to engage students with the community as activist architects, two
graduate levelcourses are offered in the sustainability concentration at Lawrence
Techonlogical University.
The Graduate Design Studio: Massive Change, challenges students to view their
community with critical eye, and to propose design solutions to enact change within
their local contexts. Students are first given an assignment entitled ‘Picture the
Problem’ (taken from educational materials provided by the Institute Without
Boundaries) in which they are charged with identifying unsatisfactory conditions
within the current context. The students are then required to engage
representatives of the community, and propose design solutions. The design
solutions are aimed to help mitigate the sometimes-oppressive conditions from
which the stated problem has sprung. Resulting studio projects have vary in scale
and complexity from street-vending carts to small-scale urban plans.
The seminar titled “Architecture as Activism” is centered on a client[less] project in
Detroit. The project was predicated on the idea that architecture can be an act of
intervention; to intervene or mediate a dispute is a powerful act of design. Each
student is engaged within the city of Detroit, and identifies a situation that is
continually ignored; one that incites protest and activism. The students “protests”
manifested through design solutions are then built and implemented on-site.
Design considerations are given to the size and scope of each project insuring
completion within the time allotted. The students are encouraged to be subversive
and independent but instructed not to be vandalistic.
The projects outlined in these courses prove to be a formable challenge. The
students have to independently identify Bouman’s “new territory.” To do so, time
and contemplation is required within the community. The “client” for many of the
projects are the community itself, which is disorienting to the students since the
normal practice within studios labels an individual or company as a client. A
systems-based approach must affect a community entirely instead of an individual
and help facilitate the health, safety and welfare of everyone.
For Bouman’s system to work in Detroit and to insure that it worked in the public’s
interest the Client[less] checklist has been modified to the following:
Client[less] in Detroit Checklist
1. Identify an urban condition that incites protest and activism (new
territory).
2. Insure the issue is unnoticed, neglected or client[less].
3. State the outcome of the project and the social impact(s) it will
have on the community. Insure that the project is socially
important and not simply a self-validating embellishment of the
city.
4. Provide a full scope of architectural services. Although the project
is client[less] it does not negate professionalism.
5. Reflect on the selected territory the design solutions and the
potential outcomes. Operating client[less] requires architects to
become their own best critics.
6. Implement independently and subversively.
6. The Barbara Rennie House
Already a seasoned activist in the city of Detroit, student Jason Fligger had
previously participated in urban farm initiatives, and supervised a barn-raising by
the students of Detroit’s Catherine Ferguson Academy. When he undertook this
project, he began by uncovering some disturbing truths about the plight of unwed
teenage mothers in the city. Jason’s research uncovered that only one Metro Detroit
shelter provided emergency services to teen mothers. Typically, a young woman
who found herself temporarily homeless became engaged in a maddening merry-goround with Social Services, which usually resulted in the separation of mother and
child to separate foster facilities. Furthermore, Jason identified the fact that many of
these women found themselves in an endless cycle of poverty, as the burdens of
motherhood often forced them to abandon their dreams of completing their
education and provide better lives for themselves and their children.
Engaging six students from Catherine Ferguson Academy (all teenage mothers),
Jason embarked on a two-pronged project, treating these women as his clients, his
partners, and his students. In structured sessions, Jason worked in partnership with
these women to develop the program, select the site, and develop design ideas for
the Barbara Rennie House. The proposed project would provide emergency shelter
for homeless teenage mothers, including space for a resident ‘house mother’
(thereby providing an onsite foster authority for mothers and their children), on site
security, children’s activity areas, and study space to promote harmony between
mothering and education. The proposed building featured a number of sustainable
features, including brownfield redevelopment, SIPS construction, daylighting,
natural ventilation, stormwater management, solar hot water, and a hydronic
heating system.
The major efforts regarding sustainability, however, were not focused upon the
design of the building, but rather upon the growth of the students themselves.
Acting in a mentoring role, Jason took the students on tours throughout the city,
introducing them to the rich architectural history of Detroit. In addition, through
working sessions developing the Barbara Rennie House proposal, students were
engaged as active participants, identifying needs and co-generating concepts. The
end result was to activate an interest in design as a potential career, and to promote
self-awareness that their ideas and concerns were indeed formidable. By exercising
their ‘voice’ in the design process, Jason’s intent was to encourage them to believe
more strongly in their intellectual and creative abilities, and to shift their focus from
consumptive to productive activities. In this project, Jason embodied true
sustainability through one of Fuad-Luke’s tenants of participatory design: ‘building
capacity, not dependency – by not only shaping a solution but leaving behind the
tools, skills and capacity for ongoing change’.xx
7. Seed Detroit
The students needed to look beyond the urban decay for the less obvious, the
potential of place and the dynamic social variables. One of the activist projects
manifested as Seed Detroit - a significant virtual and physical system in the
devastated Brush Park neighborhood of Detroit. Seed Detroit became the project
but also the tag of student Emilie Naismith. Remaining anonymous, the student
developed www.seeddetroit.blogspot.com thereby withholding identity to keep the
focus on the seed bombing campaign. For the intent of the design to be valid the
designer had to be rigorous to insure that this was not simple voyeuristic
aestheticism. xxi Designers gawking and providing clever instillations that are not
in the public interest is nothing new in Detroit.
Inspiration for Seed Detroit came from the notion that beauty can come from decay.
From 1950 to 2000 the population of Detroit deflated from 1.8 million to just over
951 thousand. The construction industry followed suite and from 1978 to 1998
only 9,000 building permits were issued while 108,000 demolition permits were
issued.xxii The result was the development of an urban prairie that creates a quiltlike pattern divided by Detroit’s nonindulgent grid. The prairie grass grows tall,
overtaking the remnants of the buildings that once stood. On the quiet streets of
Detroit, one can walk among these reconstituted prairies and experience a unique
un-urban environment. The question that arose during Emilie’s project became,
how can we as community architects make the remaining residents realize this
beauty, how can we subversively assist in success?
First, Seed Detroit built awareness and notoriety through a sticker and web
campaign - getting up. The bright yellow graphic with opposing flowers and Detroit
skyline resonated with the residents of Brush Park. Followers of the blog began to
make a connection between the sticker and the seditious, yet pastoral sign of the
same graphic that was erected on a central Brush Park lot. The design called for
seed containers to be propagated throughout the neighborhood. Each container (or
envelope) contained native wildflower seeds to be spread in the prairie by one
person totalling 19 square feet. The containers were located on metal municipal
signposts surrounding the grids of prairie land. A passerby would take the
container, spread the seeds, and return the container (or not). As a reward for
participating, the spreader or “agent” received a Seed Detroit sticker and an “agent
number.” The “agent” was instructed to report back to Seed Detroit with the spread
location for mapping studies, determining future seed bomb locations.
Seed Detroit Sticker, Seed Detroit, 2009.
Seed Detroit Flyer 1, Seed Detroit, 2009.
The result was the propagation of wildflowers over the Brush Park Neighborhood.
The design is significant because it was implemented without a client and without
any significant funding. The design is a system, not a building; providing agents
(citizens) to interact with the built environment and to make independent modest
improvements that evoke a sense of advancement. The project not only engaged
students into Detroit it also put in place a positive, client[less] system that carried
on beyond the classroom. The designer did not set out to create a single built
solution but phenomenological system to enable and improve Brush Park,
unsolicited.
Seed Detroit Flyer 2, Seed Detroit, 2009.
Seed Detroit Installation, Seed Detroit, 2009.
Seed Detroit Blog Post, Seed Detroit, 2009.
CONCLUSION
A revival of the architect’s attributed role is in order. We must start to organize
space as we have always done, but now, more than ever, we need to organize
systems intelligently, unsolicited, and clientless. A new subjective approach to
design, rather than an objective approach, will expand public-interest architecture
and exercise the possibilities of our fiduciary responsibility. An object-based
approach is hindering with regard to the types and amounts of architecture and
available funding. A systems-based approach, not unlike the systems utilized
throughout the graffiti nation need to be adapted to advance the profession in the
declining and deprived city of Detroit. Architecture as art, science, innovation, ideal,
adventure, aid and rescue always relies on self-motivation, curiosity, a sense of
urgency and an antenna for opportunities.xxiii To solely practice complacent
architecture is a waste of an education and certification. The industry must explore
the design possibilities of unsolicited architecture to fulfill our ethical role within
the community.
The city of Detroit is perishing and has been for some time. Now is the time to
deconstruct the accepted hierarchies of architecture and build expectations of the
profession from the bottom-up. A societal gathering of ideas and inspiration will
produce further advancement in the re-creation of Detroit. Proactive solutions to
neglected spaces will reap larger benefits than any funded building. Complacency
ends with activist architecture. The intended result of the courses discussed above
is to empower a new generation of architects to respect their post-industrial
fiduciary responsibility and question the traditional paradigms of practice – to share
in Cameron Sinclair’s vision that ‘for every “celebrity architect”, there are hundreds
of designers around the world, working under the ideal that it is not just how we
build but what we build that truly matters.xxiv
To say that architecture, like graffiti, has a limit to its effectiveness should alone be
enough to draw an up-rise in the profession to deconstruct the notion of clientpractice, push boundaries and create social-architecture that has no limit. A
systems-based approach will spark an architecture intervention with decisive
concepts and powerful scenarios that will shift Detroit’s deadlocked discourse into
a, once again, thriving, protagonist city.xxv
Sugrue, Thomas J. Origins of the urban crisis race and inequality in postwar Detroit :
with a new preface by the author. (Princeton: Princeton UP, 2005) Print, 19.
ii Sugrue, 19.
iii Sugrue, XVI.
iv Gallagher, John, “Detroit’s fight against vacant land gets tougher,” Detroit Free
Press, September 29, 2009, Real Estate section.
v Sugrue, pg 14.
vi Amos Klausner, “Bombing Modernism: Graffiti and its relationship to the (built)
Environment,”
vii Klausner, 8.
viii Banksy. Wall and Piece. (New York: Random House UK, 2007) Print, 8.
ix 'Taki 183' Spawns Pen Pals, New York Times (1857-Current file); Jul 21, 1971;
ProQuest Historical Newspapers, The New York Times
x Fairey, Shepard. OBEY, Supply and Demand, The Art of Shepard Fairey. (Gingko
Press, 2009). Print.
xi Klausner, 8.
xii Adhya, Anirban, Philip Plowright and Jim Stevens. “ Rethinking models of
architectural research: we don’t do objects.” Paper presented at the ARCC 2009
Leadership in Architectural Research Conference, San Antonio, TX, April 15-18
2009.
xiii Carroll, J.M (2006) ‘Dimensions of Participation in Simon’s Design’, Design Issues,
vol 22, no 2, pp 3-18.
i
Bell, Bryan and Katie Wakeford. Expanding Architecture, Design as Activism, 2008,
Metropolis Books, 9.
xiv
OUA. Volume 14-Unsolicited Architecture. Vol. 14. (The Netherlands: Stitchting
Archis, 2007). Print, 31.
xvi Volume 14, 28.
xvii Klausner, 8.
xviii Volume 14, 31
xix
Fuad-Luke, Alastair (2009) Design Activism: Beautiful Strangeness for a
Sustainable World Earthscan London p. 26
xv
xx
d. Fuad-Luke, p 150.
Daskalakis, Georgia. Waldheim, Charles. Young, Jason: Stalking Detroit. (ACTAR,
2001), 33
xxii Stalking Detroit, 33
xxiii Volume 14, 28.
xxiv Sinclair, Cameron (2006) Design Like You Give a Damn: Architectural Responses
to Humanitarian Crises. Metropolis Books, New York. P. 31.
xxv Volume 14, 28.
xxi