ARTICLE REVIEW
find the diagram in the link in the source magazine. The full political compass diagram (Version 0.1) produced by Alejandro Zaera-Polo and Guillermo Fernandez Abascal. Image © Alejandro Zaera-Polo & Guillermo Fernandez Abascal
The article “Architecture’s ‘Political Compass’: A Taxonomy of Emerging Architecture in One Diagram” offers a fascinating look at how the architectural landscape has shifted in response to the political and economic challenges of the post-2008 world. The authors set out to categorize the emerging architectural practices by political inclination, developing a “political compass” that attempts to map these practices within a broader ideological context.
It breaks down seven broad political positions within architecture that have gained prominence in the years following the financial crisis:
- Activists – Architects who reject the market-driven approach, focusing on community building, direct construction engagement, and alternative funding strategies.
- Populists – Those who aim to reconnect with the public through diagrammatic forms that are media-friendly and easy to digest.
- New Historicists – Responding to the neoliberal “end of history” narrative, these practitioners embrace historically-informed design.
- Skeptics – A return to postmodernism, with a focus on contingency, playfulness, and the use of artificial materials.
- Material Fundamentalists – A reaction to the spectacle of pre-crash architecture, these architects emphasize a tactile, material-driven approach.
- Austerity Chic – Architects who focus on the production process and the resulting performance of architecture, emphasizing simplicity and functionalism.
- Techno-Critical – These architects use advanced technologies like parametrics but critically engage with these tools, offering speculative architectural forms.
Some practices embraced the categories, while others offered alternative political stances like “Utopian” or “Pragmatic. While the exercise was clearly ambitious, the authors highlight that the reluctance of some practices to accept fixed political stances indicates the fluidity and complexity of contemporary architecture. Many practices, particularly those categorized as “Activists” and “Populists,” expressed dissatisfaction with their placement, suggesting that their work is more nuanced and doesn’t fit neatly into these predefined labels.
What stands out from this experiment is the growing interest in the political dimensions of architectural practice and the desire for more ideological engagement within the field. Interestingly, many practices indicated a preference for positioning themselves in the center of the diagram, suggesting that hybrid, less rigid stances are becoming more common in contemporary architectural discourse. There was also a notable reluctance from Asian practices to engage, possibly signaling a disconnect between Western-centric political categories and global architectural trends.
This experiment provides a valuable lens through which to view the evolving political and ideological dimensions of architectural practice. However, it also reveals the difficulty of neatly categorizing these practices, as architecture today seems more fluid and open to new forms of engagement than ever before.
How would this diagram look like today?
meliciaplanchart.com 
