While I’ve long agreed with the idea espoused by writers such as Jeremy Till, that architecture is political, defined and dependent on the political structures and actors involved in it, I haven’t much considered the opposite, how politics might be spatial. One of the most obvious example of this is the “round table discussion” as opposed to a lecture-type discussion , whereby lack of clear spatial hierarchy allows for a more open and equal conversation. Below is a sketch plan showing lines of conversation from a local political meeting I attended. From the plan, the different agents are not immediately clear; the councillors, the residents, the chair could be anywhere.
The idea of politics on a local scale, is something that is growing increasingly important to my way of thinking as opposed to the top-down and less directly democratic national scales. Something that the EU has shown can never, however good its intentions, be seen as democratic or accountable on such a scale, while remaining functional. The idea of localised politics is something that may begin to filter into my working scenario.