Discussing Alternativeness To Incorporate Contradictions.

Framing Research On Architect’s Collectives And Groups

Abstract

Often, in coincidence with major socio-economic crisis, architecture and planning start questioning the legitimacy of the professionals’ work and their role. The concept of alternativeness in the way cities are produced has recently pervaded a part of the disciplinary debate, in an attempt to build new commitments and new basis for the discipline in open contrast with the way representative systems work and to the commodification of urban spaces and architecture.  Architects’ collectives and groups have often been labelled as producers of alternatives in the professional practice. Their main activity is the collective practice of architecture and urban design, integrating users not only in the design phase but also in the construction, their projects are usually characterised by self-construction, temporary structures, opportunistic occupation of spaces, and the practice of residence. Discussing their alternativeness contradictions emerge, encouraging the refusal of any bipolar categorization that the concept of alternative could suggest.