I sometimes ask myself if there is a “libertarian architecture” when thinking about what a purely libertarian culture — one that has been free from government intervention long enough to flourish — would look like. Not something I can answer in several hundred words, but let me begin.
By “libertarian architecture” I don’t mean a particular style. In the absence of government intervention, however, I do think certain kinds of projects would be unlikely to emerge, and so it may be possible to rule out styles associated with such projects, from those of the Roman Forum to the Palm Islands of Dubai.
My question may not seem so far-fetched to those who have read The Fountainhead, Ayn Rand’s influential novel about an uncompromising individualist architect, Howard Roark, who battles and defeats the forces of collectivism and conformity. For Roark/Rand individualist integrity means the radical rejection of traditional Palladian forms, the classical orders, and the aesthetics of the École des Beaux-Arts.
Rand has Roark adopting a Frank Lloyd Wrightian, form-follows-function principle the product of which actually sounds like the hyper-modernism of le Corbusier, the architect whose (Euclidean) geometrical designs for entire cities, ironically, appeal more to the Cartesian rationality of collectivism than real human reason, which Michael Polanyi explains must actually rely tacitly on often inarticulable rules. But I don’t see why a libertarian architecture would necessarily reject traditional design.
The Market Test Versus Liberating Wealth
It seems that there are two somewhat contending forces to consider here. The first is the market test; the second the artistic freedom enabled by the wealth that markets create.
Howard Roark’s survival depends on finding the right clients for his highly personal work, and at first there aren’t many of them. Tyler Cowen explains in In Praise of Commercial Culture that the reemergence of extensive trade in the late middle ages and the Italian Renaissance gradually transformed the artisan, beholden to a rich prince or bishop, into an artist, who could select clients from a growing number of wealthy churchmen, royals, and especially merchants. This not only changed the nature of art (with cheaper materials, novel techniques, and new subject-matter), but it also unleashed the creativity of men like Michelangelo, Donatello, and Raphael. In this way the market enables creativity and innovation to flourish.
But it also constrains. It requires compromises in order to sell, which is the burden that the Howard Roarks of the world have always struggled against. In a (libertarian) commercial society, however, I believe that precisely because of growing demand the burden would be lighter and the ways of getting around it more plentiful than in earlier, more authoritarian eras. On net then, the opportunities that wealth creates offsets the market test. Creativity overcomes conformity over time.
With respect to authoritarian architecture, the issue is also subtle. Today, buildings, from the porticos of townhouses to the facades of banks, are still festooned with ionic columns and Greek friezes. Why do we still build and honor these? The nobility they lend to a structure is undeniable. Do they tap into some need for awe buried deep in our psyches? While the origins of this style were probably modest post-and-beam structures of early Mediterranean civilization, what has come down to us today in the form of the Parthenon and the Coliseum (in Rome and in Los Angeles) is the result for the most part of massive government spending. That is significant.
State subsidies and protection would enable a Howard Roark “starchitect” much greater creative expression because he wouldn’t have to meet the market test, though there would be political constraints. (As it happens, Roark’s big chance to scale the heights of creativity is a government-funded, low-cost housing project called Cortlandt Homes – which he ultimately blows up.) So perhaps in the short term, with respect to a given project, interventionism might permit an architect greater artistic freedom, but I believe this would stunt the evolution of architectural expression in the long term.
I should mention that John Silber, the former president of Boston University, disagrees that architects should aspire to be artists. Architects should be — and he argues they too often are not — grounded in reality. He claims there is a tradeoff between artistic fancy and roofs that don’t leak. He has a point.
The Holdout: Problem or Solution?
An important obstacle in constructing big projects is the “hold out” who refuses to sell. A developer in a libertarian society would have to try to solve that problem without using coercion such as eminent domain. Without eminent domain the developer’s cost is much higher and so the size of purely private construction would certainly be much more limited than in today’s world of so-called private-public megaprojects. Although a network of private neighborhoods (which Peter Gordon and I have written about) might occasionally allow developments on the scale of, say, the former World Trade Center in lower Manhattan, these would be rare. In a libertarian world the gigantism that inspired much classical and Renaissance architecture would be mostly absent.
So without all that massive church and state funding, would the Palladian classical orders exist? I think not. Their replacements would doubtless have had their own wonder, yet to me losing that grandeur would be a real pity. And just what would have taken their place no one, not even Rand, can say.
You can find a Portugese translation of this article here
Sandy Ikeda
Sandy Ikeda is a professor of economics at Purchase College, SUNY, and the author of The Dynamics of the Mixed Economy: Toward a Theory of Interventionism. He is a member of the FEE Faculty Network.
This article was originally published on FEE.org. Read the original article.
My city has a design review process, which is pretty strict in downtown area. However, almost all of our new buildings are modern in style. We really don’t see any buildings constructed with much in the way of classical design, because we don’t require that through the design review process. We do require certain basic elements that add to the aesthetics and interest of the City. Our design review team has had to battle with many developers who would rather construct cheaper looking, boxy buildings that add no aesthetic value to the city. That is not the case with all developers, but it is with many of them. Really if you want to see true “Libertarian” architecture just visit our suburban areas with the cookie-cutter houses and strip-malls. Architecture is essentially driven by what the developer wants to spend on a building, and in many cases the resulting product is less than desirable. There is a balance to be had in this process that allows freedom of creativity in design without compromising the values of the community. The community is afterall stuck with these building for 50 years or so.
“…though there would be political constraints.”
That’s the key. Architectural style cannot be understood without understanding Foucault, and this conversation won’t amount to much without synthesizing Foucault, Lefebvre and Hayak. And there is a libertarian architecture. Look at squatter slums that have grown into middle class neighborhoods. The best example I’ve seen Gultepe in Istanbul. Free from government constraints, patronage, or manipulation. Their a product of negotiation in real-time.
As far as the architectural style; libertarian architecture would not be a top-down aesthetic that grows out of elitist ivory towers (produced explicitly for the powerful). As Lefebvre demonstrates, architects are pawns in a process they’ve never been critical enough of. It would develop as a social production in time and space. For example; the buildings would all look very similar as people would explicitly and implicitly share models.
The suburbs are not a result of libertarian production but government policy mixing with big developers. It goes back to Garden City theory and eugenics. Governments, for the sake of big corporate lobbyists, under the guise of a utopian program, through the FHA, zoning, design review, etc. produced the suburbs. It’s funny that big-government created the suburbs and are now blaming libertarianism for it.
Read this.
web.mit.edu/ebj/www/doc/JAPAv61n1.pdf
That is true with the way the suburban areas were originally or traditionally developed. However, our suburban areas have a lot of new construction with sprawling subdivisions and new commercial developments. Most of it, like I mentioned above, with little in the way of inspired design. We have a design review process for these areas, but it is weak and there is little political will to enforce, unlike the downtown. Our state is conservative and heavy on the property rights side of things, so when push comes to shove developers usually win. Additionally, our neighboring jurisdictions either have no design review process or a weak process, and as a result their cities have little in the way of identity or character. Again, I’m not a saying top down heavy approach is appropriate, but neither is a purely developer driven approach. And again, developers drive this process, not architects.
Yes. Architects have always been tools for powers they haven’t bothered to understand. Individuals have, but their theories never were operationalized. Most of the architects who have explored power and spatial production are calling for more government and wealth redistribution to counter it: more spatial production by the powerful.
I think the best way to see how big developers work is still Death and Life of Great American Cities: zoning and planning makes it necessary for huge, all-at-once developments. It’s not capitalism, or libertarianism but cronyism that’s still producing suburban sprawl. All of the mechanism and government created incentives for it are still in place. The government led mechanism to stop it (New Urbanism, subsidized housing, TODs, etc) create new avenues for cronyism, gentrification, and inequality.
My overall point is, we can’t know what a libertarian city is until we see libertarian principles in the production of space. I’ve studied squatter slums enough that I believe they’re the closest thing. I also believe they prove, at least qualitatively, that libertarian theory is correct.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/f79880f8626830b6f46b4c2ae2775dc02de662e340f7dc5728d7f02dbde3771f.jpg
This is from Sapphire Tower in Istanbul’s Levent district. On the left is the “legal” model with big corporations who are wedded to the ruling party. On the right is Gultepe which grew from shanties planted “illegally” on government owned land into a middle class neighborhood. It’s still not formalized, taxed, or regulated, but it works for its inhabitants. Really, it serves all of Istanbul. Because of Gultepe, Istanbul has very low unemployment and homelessness. Architects would call everything on the left good design,* and everything on the right slums.
*The triangle-ish building is by I.M. Pei.
Photo source: Me, 2016.
“State subsidies and protection would enable a Howard Roark “starchitect” much greater creative expression because he wouldn’t have to meet the market test”
I think of Apple’s new campus. There’s a starchitect megaproject for you. Does it meet the market test? Not really– it’s the result of one man’s vision– Steve Jobs. What’s the difference between the US government building the Pentagon and Apple building its spaceship? The rich prince has been replaced by the tech company founder, the state by the corporation.