Democracy and architecture

Fruitful should be considered to refer to the origin of these notions. The notion of “ democracy” refers to the shape of a system of government. The word is a compound which stems from the word “demos” (=people) and “cratos” (= state). Its context it states the power which comes from the majority, the power in the hands of the civiliants.
The term “ architecture” refers to art, as well as to the science, in the notion of designing. Not only does it applies to graphic designing but also to creating blocks of buildings. Its contexct comes from the composition of the words “ arche” ( = beginning) and “tecture”. This second part of the compound refers to the notions of making, and creation.

Hard and suspicious may this inspection seems. This mixture of two completely different definitions. This sounds reasonable because the first one belongs to the area of politics, and the second belongs to the area of science. But, we should not forget that politics is also part of science.
If we do a flashback , based on historic events we can easily follow the constitutional transformations in different countries. Through this view, we can easily understand that the fact of development of arts and culture in times of democracy, doesn’t lie on pure luck.
The most striking example is ancient Greece. It looks natural to refer to ancient Greece as an example since in the democracy era Parthenon, one of the seven wonders of the world was built. A tangible example of style and a progressed sculptured technical analysis which demonstrates the maturity of the spirit. This maturity can be achieved only in a society free from prejudices and govermentically structured in a way which this point of view should be formed. This is the point where we can combine democracy with architecture. This is a section with common starts and values. This sculpturing of the spirit with the use of free thinking and creativity shows science and art in our case at its best, from designing to making and completing.
Of course, at this point anyone could highlight and ask if any great architectonical monuments were ever made in democracy period, referring to the Pyramids. We can answer that there were such cases.
If we take for example the Pyramids, which at first were made for Pharaoh Tombs we can conclude that this religious thinking was the cause for their creation. They were supposed to be tombs for people self called or characterized as gods. As a result, there are different points of creation beginning between those two system of governments and constitutional fields. But, unquestionably there was a creation in off- democracy eras but it cannot be compared in its principles, in its quantities and in its qualities after what had happened in democracy periods.

 In our attempt to check throughout the historical times we can find a lot of architectonical masterpieces. But, it is good for us to transfer ourselves to the today’s time and to pose a serious question which we should deal with it.

Is there a new arena of motives in the social democracy that we unquestionably live for the architecture science?

We can initially say that classicisim was beaten by illumination, and modernism was beaten by post – modernism. The need for creation buildings which demonstrate a strong State and raising of the Spirit, was rehabilitated in the today’s time by the need of raising a new powerful economic power of an enterprise against another. Different areas, but all the same need:  To consolidate. Of course, the motives and the aiming are different. In the today’s democracy, the old need of forming a political speech for raising and consolidation of the State, is replaced by the economical installment of the enterprises which give financial power to the State, in order for them to control, promote and guide what is called social state. As a result, the need of financial enforcing in the architectonical field looks like a bright oppurtunity. New trends in architecture in the modern social model are appeared in an attempt from the architects to win the market race and to mark the original, stylish, and easy to use idea. That’s the new  tendency which is at stake. From designing a football ground roof which will give a diferent kind of aesthetics but also being innovative at the same time, which will be a topic of discussion amongst the new scientists of architecture, up to desiging a mall.

Anyone could ask where this new arena of motives is developed and inspected. The answer which can be given is by styding the financial trends and following a country’s developing rates.

A personal think to consider is that the market is focused on what we called universal cities. These are cities which give the initial motive for new investments and everyone can understand that financial investments involces a lot of areas, architecture as well, for a reformation of an underdeveopment field.

A good example of this is the city of Shanghai which tends to become a universal city. To achieve this, a reformation of the traffic system must be done, and there must be a series of constructions which will cause a continuous growth of the capital investments through trading and other means of financial reformation. For all these to be done, public and private funds and works are required. This is the point where architecture gets in.
But, anyone could remark that Shanghai is a city of China, which is not a democratic country. We will not disagree but we will not stake our hands up. We will highlight the fact that these changes are part of a liberal economy. Liberalism is a constituent of democracy. This doesn’t mean that China is a democratic country, but this state of government includes such characteristics, which are completely different from the current political situation there.
We mention at random a universal city to be, not only to mention its constitutional structure but to pinpoint the architectonical character which a similar city shows. So, if the question of a new motive arena existence still remains in the  modern social – economic democracy through the scientific section of our field we can say yes, since markets will be always opened and our demands will be bigger and bigger. What we have to do is to be as original and unique as our generation promises. We have to be the new trend in town.

Anastasia Mina & Maria Spiraki