Search

The role of the sociological component in the analysis of decorative elements (sculptural and metal-plastic) in the architecture of Lviv of the late 19th - early 20th centuries, which contain musical themes, is distinguished. In order to carry out this research, first of all, productive tools were involved to achieve the tracing objectives. The scientific perspective "past-present" is chosen to expand the understanding of the relationship of architecture and its decoration with the historical period in which it arose, as well as with other factors of human existence that can explain certain phenomena in culture. Thus, the study integrates the concepts of virtualization and visualization that specify and update the use of the selected scientific perspective. In the context of scientific research in this direction, architectural objects are perceived as "witnesses" of history, in particular music, and their decoration — as a result of society in a particular period. Scientific research is directed in an interdisciplinary direction and realized within culturology as a science that has an organic nature of knowledge. Musical iconography is considered in terms of the embodiment of cultural trends of the time. The article involves relevant conclusions of prominent thinkers in the context of the sociology of architecture, as well as modern works on the architectural environment and its impact on human life. These installations are specified by examples of real found architectural artifacts. Own observations in the context of the topic of both the researcher and the participant of society were highlighted in order to update the selected scientific vector in a modern way. The prospect for the development of coexistence of society and the space in which it exists were outlined. It was indicated the necessity of scientific research of this type in the context of culturological science, such it can have competence in work with similar material, and also can integrate in research of a wide range of facts of interdisciplinary character.

The article highlights relationships between sociology and architecture as spheres of academic knowledge. The scientometric analysis of the publications, addressed by these two spheres to each other in the National Russian Research Electronic library, tries to answer the following questions. How this boundary field is developed against the background of the two disciplinary "metropolis" and the nearby interdisciplinary areas (such as urban sociology, sociology of space, sociology of design, sociology of planning etc.)? What branches of knowledge, in addition to architecture and sociology, and what specialists cultivate it? Who these persons are by their affiliation? In what organizational forms do architects - sociologists cooperate? It is shown that architecture and sociology have a stable mutual interest, forming the field of sociology of architecture as an array of academic publications. Judging by the number of published works, it is less developed than the urban or spatial sociology, but it is quite comparable to the sociology of design, urban planning or urbanism. The paper outlines the geographical (cities) and institutional (universities, research institutes) framework for the concentration and production of modern architectural and sociological knowledge, including its main centers. As a result of the study, ranked lists of the most productive and influential Russian "sociological architects" and "architectural sociologists" were compiled. The basic forms of social interaction of architects and sociologists - "alliances", "tandems" and "partnerships" are revealed. The higher educational and research institutions, where the most productive of these forms exist are specified. The phenomenon of "centaurs" is unveiled - rather unique persons, integrating experience, vision, understanding and knowledge of architects and sociologists, due to their personal characteristics, professional and academic biographies. Finally, in the recent history of national academic knowledge and professional architectural practice several organizational structures were designated, which served as focuses of architectural and sociological interdisciplinarity, and as a generating factor for synthetic, borderline competences. The conclusion about the potential of interdisciplinary associations for further development of social knowledge in architecture has been made.

A multi-storey residential house is viewed as a product of urbanization of modern society and is an object of research of such specific branches of sociological knowledge, as sociology of city, sociology of architecture, and sociology of housing. Currently, urbanization processes have captured the majority of developed and developing countries worldwide; the portion of urban population residing in multi-storey buildings (including condominiums, apartments, etc.) is constantly growing. For the sociology of housing, of special interest ate the social prerequisites, patterns and trends of development of multi-storey residential construction, which became the object of this research. The article provides a historical-sociological analysis of evolution of multi-storey residential construction since the ancient times until the modern stage. The theoretical framework contains works of the authors in the field of sociology of city, as well as 12 volumes of the “General History of Architecture”. The empirical base contains the data of the Russian Federal State Statistics Service, data of the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat allocated on the digital resource the Skyscraper Center. The conclusion is made that urbanization process, reflected in the development of multi-storey residential construction, began way before modern stage of social development – in the Ancient World. The author determines the social factors (overpopulation of cities, development of capitalist relations, etc.), and current trends (high-rise construction, “smart” homes, etc.) in evolution of multi-storey residential construction.

Despite their differences, sociologists of architecture agree on one fundamental premise: buildings - and architecture more broadly - play a role in shaping social life. The importance of the "agency" of architecture has been equally highlighted in debates in cultural theory. The authors of the publications under discussion here approached this issue through empirical research. We suggest that, in doing so, they make visible the methodological challenges and potentials that confront sociologists of architecture. We aim to offer a comparative overview of some of the newer publications in the German-speaking sociology of architecture which adapt established methods of qualitative sociology to the field of architecture. We review these works through the lens of how well they empirically address the issue of the ways in which architecture can be shown to have agency in society. Trotz aller Unterschiede sind sich Architektursoziolog*innen in einem einig: Gebäude - und Architektur im Allgemeinen - formen die Gesellschaft mit. Auch im Rahmen kulturtheoretischer Debatten wurde die Bedeutung der "Handlungsmacht" der Architektur anerkannt. Die in diesem Beitrag diskutierten Autor*innen widmeten sich diesem Thema empirisch. Auf diese Weise machen sie methodologische Herausforderungen und Potenziale für die empirische Forschung in der Architektursoziologie sichtbar. Wir bieten einen vergleichenden Überblick über eine Auswahl neuerer Publikationen in der deutschsprachigen Architektursoziologie, in denen die Anwendung etablierter Methoden der qualitativen Soziologie im Feld der Architektur gezeigt wird. Besonders hat uns interessiert, wie die Frage architektonischer Handlungsmacht in der Gesellschaft empirisch beobachtbar gemacht wurde.

Inwiefern kann die Wirksamkeit von Architektur in sozialen Praktiken bestimmt werden? Im Beitrag wird die methodische Herausforderung, praktisches Wissen im Umgang mit der gebauten Umgebung im Alltag zu analysieren, zentral gestellt und mit der Verbindung von praxistheoretischen und pragmatistischen Ansätzen ein Vorschlag gemacht, diese theoretisch zu fassen. Basierend auf einer ethnografischen Studie zur Architekturerfahrung im Arbeitsalltag wird die Erfahrung architektonischer Widerständigkeit systematisiert. Dabei zeigen sich zwei Dimensionen von Erfahrung als wesentliche Grundlage eines praktischen Wissens von Architektur: Zum einen ist es die situative Dynamisierung von Arbeitsabläufen durch Irritationen oder Störungen (der verbauten Sicht, der übertönenden Akustik), die eine Anpassung eingeübter Handlungsabfolgen erfordert, zum anderen sind es die gleichförmigen und routinierten Affekte alltäglicher Praktiken, die in der Form des beiläufig Angenehmen oder beiläufig Unangenehmen im Arbeitsalltag auftreten. Es handelt sich um einen empirischen Beitrag für eine praxistheoretische Diskussion von Architektur am Arbeitsplatz., Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, Vol 21, No 2 (2020): Challenging Times— Qualitative Methods and Methodological Approaches to Research on Time

This article proposes a cross-cultural, comparative architectural sociology as a means of sociological analysis. It also emphasizes the social positivity of architecture. After a short overview of architectural sociology and its history, the article outlines a sociological theory which sees architecture and related practices as a constitutive ‘mode of collective existence’. The article argues that architecture (in a broad sense) is not a mere ‘reflection’ or ‘mirror’ of society, but rather a constitutive and transformative medium of the imaginary institution of society (Castoriadis), its assemblages (Deleuze), as well as its subjects (Foucault). In other words, it claims that architecture is a material and symbolic ‘mode’ through which societies and individuals are constituted and transformed. As architecture is a cultural technique, which is primarily enacted in relation to bodies, perceptions and affects (rather than in a discursive, reflective way), the social effects of architecture can best be understood and analysed through a comparative lens. Finally, therefore, the article unfolds a tableau of diverse architectural modes of collective existence, thus providing an overview of different socio-architectural constellations. Such a comparative and synchronical view of different societies allows for a sociology of architecture which analyses architectural transformations – both historical and contemporary.

The final chapter is composed as a dialogue between a sociologist of architecture and a science studies scholar as they discuss the opportunities and limitations of enriching the sociology of architecture with concepts, approaches and terms from science and technology studies (STS). The dialogue comprises two alternate parts: one is scientific in tone and elaborates at length the arguments that are the basis for our theses on the actions of architecture. Here, we trace how material objects are conceptualized in STS and focus on the question of how we can fruitfully integrate STS insights into a new sociology of architecture. The other part of the dialogue, formally emphasized by italics, is held in a more colloquial tone and connects the single elements of the scientific parts by summarizing and emphasizing their central conclusions.

The chapter analyses the invention and the form of the discourse on building conversion as one particular instance of redefining what a technology is and how it operates. I describe a shift from expert defined closure to lay based openness and tinkering as a shift from prototyping to allotyping: Since the early 1970s, change of use and building conversion have become a central and fashionable discourse among architects and architectural theorists. Before the 1970s, buildings were understood as technologies, as ‘society made durable’. The notion of building type was central to link a building to a given use. A bank was a bank because architects applied existing templates, prototypes, to turn a building into a bank. In the 1970s, suddenly buildings became flexible – discursively, since building conversion always existed: ‘Building type’ no longer was a meaningful link between a building and its use. A bank should not stay a bank, but become a hotel, a theatre or a flat, in short: an allotype. The chapter elucidate this central shift in thinking about buildings and reflects on the special case of allotyping buildings and how it continues to vex thinking about buildings.

In a living state organism, people are always trying to reinterpret political symbolism. Wolfgang Braunfels, Urban Design in Western Europe: Regime and Architecture, 900–1900 (1988), 321. Introduction It has been argued in previous chapters that states’ strategies to foster belonging among their citizens have led to the built environment being mobilized in a variety of ways in differing political contexts. The focus of this chapter is on two distinct but related developments in contemporary Europe: first, the European Union's attempts to embed their political project in cultural forms from architecture and the built environment (discussed with reference to the Brussels Capital of Europe project), and second, coexistent projects in member nation states to reposition and ‘Europeanize’ existing national architectural symbols (illustrated with reference to Norman Foster's reconstruction of the Reichstag in Berlin). An overarching concern of the chapter is to develop an understanding of the role of architects in the cultural construction of what can broadly be understood as ‘transnational’ European political projects. As such, the focal point is not so much the emergence or otherwise of a distinctly European style of architecture, but rather the extent to which the ongoing work of high-profile architects to embed the ‘imagined community’ (Anderson 1983) of Europe into socially meaningful forms reveals something about the wider politics of architecture in the contemporary European context. After a brief contextualization of EU cultural politics, the first substantive discussion in the chapter addresses the EU's Brussels, Capital of Europe project, which drew together a number of high-profile European cultural commentators – including the leading architects Rem Koolhaas and Jean Nouvel – to suggest a range of interventions both in Brussels’ built environment and in the EU's ‘branding’ more generally in order better to reflect the institution's ‘European’ values. The spatial and architectural projects that emerged from the project meetings and the subsequently published report (European Commission 2001) are explicit engagements with the cultural form that political Europeanization, a highly contested project in search of democratic legitimacy and popular support, should take. As a result, the Brussels Capital of Europe project reveals a number of the tensions associated with both the political mobilization of architects and, more broadly, the ambiguous relationship between architectural form and social meaning.

Put me on the map, give my industrial city a second chance, make me the centrefold of the Sunday supplements, the cover of in-flight magazines, the backdrop for fashion shoots, give me an iconic landmark, give me – architectural – shock and awe. Charles Jencks, Iconic Buildings: The Power of Enigma (2004), 18. Introduction Political agencies' recent embrace of what has come to be known as ‘iconic’ architecture can be understood as a continuation of longstanding attempts to mobilize major building projects, first, to materialize wider discourses of major social change, and second, to generate surplus value from urban space. The desire to commission sufficiently persuasive and socially resonant architectural forms with which to attract various forms of mobile capital – especially from the private sector and tourism – while at the same time symbolizing an upward trajectory for a place, has seen iconic architecture incorporated enthusiastically into UK cultural policy strategies. The ‘visually consumable’ (Urry 2002) nature of such attention- grabbing buildings, allied to a hope that iconic forms will help create instantly recognizable ‘brand images’ for places, has led Charles Jencks to claim a renewed function for statement architecture. He has observed that in ‘the last ten years a new type of architecture has emerged. Driven by social forces, the demand for instant fame and economic growth, the expressive landmark has challenged the previous tradition of the architectural monument’ (2004: 7).

"Finanzbauten prägen signifikant das Erscheinungsbild von Weltstädten. In ihren in die Höhe strebenden, bisweilen monumentalen, manchmal spektakulären Architekturen symbolisieren sie die Potenz der Finanzwirtschaft und schreiben sich mit materialer und visueller Wucht in die Skyline eines Ortes ein. Im Ensemble als Finanzdistrikt werden sie wichtige Bestandteile des Images einer bestimmten Stadt und als Ausweis für Modernität und Globalität im internationalen Städtewettbewerb und -marketing herangezogen. Die Deklassierung anderer zentraler Gebäude wie Munizipal- oder Sakralbauten in ihrer Wirkung und Bedeutung durch Geschäfts- und besonders Finanzarchitekturen erfolgt - seit der Errichtung der ersten Wolkenkratzer in nordamerikanischem Großstädten - in allen urbanen Gebieten der Welt rapide. Die Analyse von Finanzbauten und generell Architektur ist ein genuin soziologisches Forschungsfeld: Architektur ist eine (ge)wichtige Oberfläche für Symbolisierung und Repräsentation; einzelne Bauten fungieren als Ikonen mit Superzeichen-Charakter, die ganze Bedeutungsfelder strukturieren. Dennoch sind ausführliche Betrachtungen und Theoretisierungen konkreter Stadtformen und deren materialer Architektur bislang auffällige Leerstellen in der Soziologie und sogar in der Stadt- und Raumforschung geblieben. Sensibilität für visuelle und materiale Phänomene und eine entsprechende methodische Fassung entwickelt sich hier gerade erst. Architekturtheorie und Kunstgeschichte verfügen zwar über Instrumentarien für die Architekturanalyse, jedoch mangelt es meist an soziologischem Problembewusstsein. Dieser Beitrag forciert soziologische Perspektiven der Architekturanalyse in der exemplarischen Untersuchung von Finanzbauten auf ihren Selbstdarstellungsgehalt. Aufgrund des ausgeprägten Spannungsfeldes zwischen der inhaltlichen Abstraktion und Virtualiät der Finanzökonomie und ihren schweren, relativ permanenten Artefakten, lässt sich gerade anhand von Finanzgebäuden ein Verständnis von Architektur als Versichtbarung des Unsichtbaren und Materialisierung des Immateriellen - jenseits funktionaler Notwendigkeit - besonders überzeugend elaborieren. Mit Akzent auf den skulpturalen und visuellen Aspekten der Architektur, wird die Verfasserin darlegen, dass und wie die Szenografie von Finanzlandschaften Stadt- und Weltbilder impliziert und Finanzgebäude als katalytische Objekte für ganze Stadtentwicklungen und Rezeptionen von Lokalität fungieren." (Autorenreferat)