Lack of flexibility and individual spaces, no possibility of having impact on the architecture, decisions made behind clerical desks, pride and arrogance of great modernist projects and, finally, condescending attitude towards citizens – all these were reasons for criticism of modernism, which was led by libertarian groups. Voice of anarchists was one and not the strongest one out of extensive trends critical of modernism, alongside architects and architecture critics, neighborhood associations, sociologists and activists associated with the emerging concept of sustainable development. But it was mainly the voice critical of urban development model, which was the modernist planning tool and expression of modern architecture. Anarchist criticism did not create a positive architectural theory, it was often immersed in the here and now, in experiments or fighting with the city bureaucracy. Anarchist criticism touches rather the issues of urban politics, sociology and the nature of ownership than the problem of architecture (Ward 2002).
The variety of research is consequent reaction to general trend of modernism: unifying, simplified and sterilized. Of course, the similarity of buildings is only apparent because there existed many local modifications of modernism. However, some specific architect-expert’s attitude or philosophy of the design seems to be quite common.
In its search, architecture rich in detail, diverse and individualistic, associated with alternative trends, seems consistent with postmodern mainstream in architecture. However, postmodern architecture, declaring use of archetype, rooted in culture and forms understandable to everyone, in fact allowed itself to be read only by the elites who loved Renaissance architecture of Venice. Ways to restore architecture to wider social groups were shallow and speculative. They lacked both technological research and organisation. They lacked a more flexible structure and participation. Therefore, it was an attempt to return to elite architecture, elite role of architect and rejecting egalitarian forces of modernism. Postmodern architecture did not seek to fulfill dreams of modernism, it rather called on to forget them (Krier 2011). Strategy of mastering architectural language was the return to normal or natural path of development. Actually, more to sleek imagination rather than historical facts .
Criticism of the politics and architecture/ urbanism plexus from the anarchist point of view was born parallelly to postmodernism, however it came from a totally different position. First of all, the issue of architectural form was of little importance, since it was supposed to be the result of social relations, and it was them, manifested in the design and construction, that was the most important (Ward 1996). This was connected with a broader critique of both economic systems socio-politically (Debord 2006) and ecologically (Bookchin 2009) dominant in the 50s and 60s. Strategies and problems of anarchist criticism would be rather located close to some of the participants of the last CIAM congress who remained in the sphere of influence and ideas of modernism, as Oskar Hansen and John Habraken.
The moment dividing triumphant modernism contesters to participative stream of architecture and postmodernism is then a wish of fulfilling the promises of modernism (despite of the criticism) and the hopes connected with the social awareness of meaning of the architecture. This architecture stream, not connected with style but with rules, with designing method, resisted postmodern formalism, elitism, commercialization and a certain regression of the idea of form, function and design interdependance.
The point at which some architects felt that in many areas of how they live in their houses and with their neighbors residents know better, was the moment of emergence of the architect-activist.
a tu, skoro wydawnictwo pozwala, całość (dostęp dla pierwszych 50 osób): http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.3846/20297955.2014.893629#.U0GfEVddAS0