What do you think?
Rate this book
Against Architecture
With insight into the human side of architecture, this critical assessment displays the shortcomings of modern urban planning as an acclaimed architect issues a passionate charge against the celebrities of the current architectural world: the “archistars.” He argues that architecture has lost its way and its true function, as the archistars mold cityscapes to build their brand with no regard for the public good. More than a diatribe against the trade, La Cecla makes a call to rethink urban space and take the cities back from “casino capitalism” that has left a string of failed urban projects, such as the Sagrera of Barcelona and the expansion of Columbia University in New York City. Recounting his travels across the globe, La Cecla provides insights to aid in resisting the planners and to find the spirit of a place. These commentaries on the works of past and present masters of urban and landscape will take an important place in continued public discourse for years to come.
144 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2008
29 people are currently reading
406 people want to read
About the author
Franco La Cecla
74 books15 followersFranco La Cecla (Palermo, 1950), antropologo e architetto, insegna Antropologia visuale alla NABA e Arte e Antropologia allo IULM di Milano. Ha insegnato Antropologia culturale presso l’Università Vita e Salute San Raffaele di Milano, allo IUAV di Venezia e al DAMS di Bologna. Ha insegnato inoltre all’Università di Berkeley, all’EHESS di Parigi e all’UPC di Barcellona. Il suo documentario In altro mare ha vinto il “San Francisco International Film Festival” nel 2011. Autore di numerosi saggi sulla contemporaneità, ha intrecciato la riflessione antropologica con temi quali lo spazio, l’architettura, l’urbanistica, il genere maschile, i media. Tra i suoi libri ricordiamo: Contro l’urbanistica (Einaudi, 2015) e Ivan Illich e l’arte di vivere (Elèuthera, 2018). Con Stefano Savona ha curato l’installazione Praytime e, con Lucetta Scaraffia, la mostra Pregare, un’esperienza umana, alla Reggia di Venaria (2016). Sempre per Einaudi ha pubblicato Essere amici (2019), il suo ultimo libro è Mente locale (Elèuthera, 2021). Per Einaudi è in uscita il suo Tradire i sentimenti.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews
March 25, 2021
This little book packs a big punch. The author doesn’t hold back from telling it how it is – or more realistically, how he sees it. I admire the ferocity with which he presents his ideas, and the conviction with which he holds them. There are however, some problems with this loud-n-proud mode of writing. When a writer starts their book with the heading “why I didn’t become an architect,” you need to tell that story, not digress immediately into the tales of others who likewise chose not to be an architect (and wrote an essay of the same name (Orhan Pamuk)). It seems a strange way to introduce yourself (by introducing someone else and using their title) and challenging the credibility of what is an essentially subjective and personal perspective of architecture. Moreover, pontificating that ‘powerful architects are worse than powerful philosophers’ because they lose themselves in their heavenly kingdoms may well be true, but it loses some of its potency, and takes on the potential tang of subliminal bitter grapes, when you know LaCelca is a self-professed non-architect for some, not entirely clear, reason.
There are moments when you wonder if the author has a good lawyer on retainer. He notes that when the public’s interest in architecture is high, so should be the standard of work they’re offering. He believes that instead, architects are “adolescent hobbyists who are selling themselves as public artists,” the “designers of monumental objects or of porcelain for collectors.” When La Cecla places the words ‘shady professional motives’ only two sentences away from Koolhaas’ name the two issues stick together. Similarly, when he quotes Frampton or Sorkin and their unkind words for Koolhaas it feels as if he is both validating his agenda but also avoiding slandering the architect outright; I didn’t say you were bad / I said others thought you were bad. Likewise, his concerns for our future bungled by magazine-culture feels a tad disingenuous when he himself seems himself to revel in throw-away ‘juicy journalism’ such as quoting Frank Ghery screeching ‘Screw that!’
Whilst the pervading tone of the book isn’t so much anti-architect as it is anti-Starchitect, and pro-the-people, his comments like “everyone knows architects don’t read, they riffle,” carry a sting of truth to it, but also a frustrating stereotype that risks painting all architects with the airy-fairy-brush, and himself with laziness, sensationalism or hyperbole. It also feels a bit absurd telling architects that “instead of seeking out random projects” they must become planners of quality cities and lives. I’m sure every architect would agree… except that those random projects pay the bills.
Sometimes his antagonism towards architects seems to cloud his judgement and a hint of almost conspiracy-theory tarnishes his words. Clearly he’s not a fan of over-development, big business, fancy designs, fancy designers, capitalism, shopping, casinos, institutions, many governmental decisions, bureaucracy, magazines, television, and plenty more aspects of modern life, and as such, it seems simplistic that with all of these downsides, the one he solely targets is the designers. Designers have clients and users who request look at me fame and superficial enjoyment. Cities have urban planners, and councils, and legislators that all set the confines of those designs. It’s not that I don’t agree with a lot of what he says, I do, it’s just that once it feels like he has starchitects in the cross-hairs, it’s hard not to feel like he’s missing the motion in the bushes all around him, because his intense focus has blurred his peripheral vision to a wider situation. [As an aside, Renzo Piano is the only starchitect La Cecla likes, and, coincidentally the only one he appears to have worked with.]
I was a bit surprised when he was talking about “Archistars” as useful “for establishing “trends,” to amaze and draw the public’s attention with “gimmicks” that are not even buildings but stage sets, like enormous billboards,” that he didn’t mention the postmodernists and Venturi’s literal billboard-buildings. Similarly, when he talks of the riots in Paris and the ‘storage’ housing styles there, he doesn’t mention the Frenchman Barthes’ book Mythologies on that exact topic. For La Cecla, the riots in Paris 2006 are the fault of the city planners pushing money into monuments and ‘storing’ migrants in sub-standard suburbs. I don’t know Paris well enough to know if that is true, but I assume the situation is more complicated than that, and that the volatility of the ‘burbs isn’t the result of house-design alone. His standalone comments and examples, stripped of ideological historicity or built precedents, feel like a bit of a cheat. I can point to any dump in my home town and wag my finger, but it would be fairer to explain how it ended up that way, what political, economic, social, and planning decisions, or lack of, over the preceding decades had made it that way, and present the designers who tried to help as well as those who failed.
One of the things that feels right to me is the notion that La Cecla raises, that ancient Athens was once a role model to other countries in terms of beauty and meaning, but that the modern equivalent; America and Europe, are not so exalted today, and are missing the opportunity to do better, to be better, to lead the way. Instead, he says America is stale and wasted, nothing of what it once was, and Europe is too busy playing games with the media and ‘living as a logo’. Meanwhile, Asia, Africa and Latin America are building all the same failed building types (giant office towers, high rise homes and oversized shopping malls destined to be left vacant or demolished in a decade or two) – things that have already proved failures in their country of origin. He refers to poor urban design as ‘a disease’ that is being eliminated at home, but has crept out to ‘infect’ the rest of the world. It seems simultaneously an idealistic and apocalyptic view of both history and the world today, but it also has a whiff of truth about it.
One of the quotes in the book validates my inter-disciplinary approach to architectural metaphor research; “…architecture, even among its most cultured personalities, is a world that reads only what is strictly defined by the discipline of architecture, rather like art critics.” In other words, architecture tends to be self-referential; someone ‘important’ advocates a book or a film or a building, and everyone else follows suit. [See Bonta for an interesting description of how canonical writing works in the industry.] By looking at metaphor in linguistics, literature and philosophy as well as architecture, it allows you to get outside the industry and look back in. It’s a periscopic rather than microscopic or telescopic view – the two kinks in the view-finder make all the difference, shifting the perspective not once, but twice, between the architectural academic and the architecture itself.
Lastly, I’m not sure that I remember reading if he acknowledged where he got the title from, but I do know that he refers to Rykwert’s ‘Dancing Column’ book which I was also in the process of reading, and within that there is a quote by Bataille, part of which goes: “…The fall of Bastille symbolises this state of affairs: it is difficult to explain this crowd action by anything other than the hostility of a people to the monuments that are its true masters…” to which Rykwert makes the comment (his italics) “Bataille’s mind was impatient: for Bataille the very condition of modernity was established against architecture…” (p123). Perhaps it’s a coincidence, a needle in a haystack coincidence, but reading the two books concurrently makes me feel that the revolutionary-rage and anti-monument sentiment makes the coincidence too close to ignore.
Overall a good read to get you fired up – for or against modern architecture – if La Cecla does anything, he makes you feel the splintery, pointy tops of the fence you’ve been sitting on.
There are moments when you wonder if the author has a good lawyer on retainer. He notes that when the public’s interest in architecture is high, so should be the standard of work they’re offering. He believes that instead, architects are “adolescent hobbyists who are selling themselves as public artists,” the “designers of monumental objects or of porcelain for collectors.” When La Cecla places the words ‘shady professional motives’ only two sentences away from Koolhaas’ name the two issues stick together. Similarly, when he quotes Frampton or Sorkin and their unkind words for Koolhaas it feels as if he is both validating his agenda but also avoiding slandering the architect outright; I didn’t say you were bad / I said others thought you were bad. Likewise, his concerns for our future bungled by magazine-culture feels a tad disingenuous when he himself seems himself to revel in throw-away ‘juicy journalism’ such as quoting Frank Ghery screeching ‘Screw that!’
Whilst the pervading tone of the book isn’t so much anti-architect as it is anti-Starchitect, and pro-the-people, his comments like “everyone knows architects don’t read, they riffle,” carry a sting of truth to it, but also a frustrating stereotype that risks painting all architects with the airy-fairy-brush, and himself with laziness, sensationalism or hyperbole. It also feels a bit absurd telling architects that “instead of seeking out random projects” they must become planners of quality cities and lives. I’m sure every architect would agree… except that those random projects pay the bills.
Sometimes his antagonism towards architects seems to cloud his judgement and a hint of almost conspiracy-theory tarnishes his words. Clearly he’s not a fan of over-development, big business, fancy designs, fancy designers, capitalism, shopping, casinos, institutions, many governmental decisions, bureaucracy, magazines, television, and plenty more aspects of modern life, and as such, it seems simplistic that with all of these downsides, the one he solely targets is the designers. Designers have clients and users who request look at me fame and superficial enjoyment. Cities have urban planners, and councils, and legislators that all set the confines of those designs. It’s not that I don’t agree with a lot of what he says, I do, it’s just that once it feels like he has starchitects in the cross-hairs, it’s hard not to feel like he’s missing the motion in the bushes all around him, because his intense focus has blurred his peripheral vision to a wider situation. [As an aside, Renzo Piano is the only starchitect La Cecla likes, and, coincidentally the only one he appears to have worked with.]
I was a bit surprised when he was talking about “Archistars” as useful “for establishing “trends,” to amaze and draw the public’s attention with “gimmicks” that are not even buildings but stage sets, like enormous billboards,” that he didn’t mention the postmodernists and Venturi’s literal billboard-buildings. Similarly, when he talks of the riots in Paris and the ‘storage’ housing styles there, he doesn’t mention the Frenchman Barthes’ book Mythologies on that exact topic. For La Cecla, the riots in Paris 2006 are the fault of the city planners pushing money into monuments and ‘storing’ migrants in sub-standard suburbs. I don’t know Paris well enough to know if that is true, but I assume the situation is more complicated than that, and that the volatility of the ‘burbs isn’t the result of house-design alone. His standalone comments and examples, stripped of ideological historicity or built precedents, feel like a bit of a cheat. I can point to any dump in my home town and wag my finger, but it would be fairer to explain how it ended up that way, what political, economic, social, and planning decisions, or lack of, over the preceding decades had made it that way, and present the designers who tried to help as well as those who failed.
One of the things that feels right to me is the notion that La Cecla raises, that ancient Athens was once a role model to other countries in terms of beauty and meaning, but that the modern equivalent; America and Europe, are not so exalted today, and are missing the opportunity to do better, to be better, to lead the way. Instead, he says America is stale and wasted, nothing of what it once was, and Europe is too busy playing games with the media and ‘living as a logo’. Meanwhile, Asia, Africa and Latin America are building all the same failed building types (giant office towers, high rise homes and oversized shopping malls destined to be left vacant or demolished in a decade or two) – things that have already proved failures in their country of origin. He refers to poor urban design as ‘a disease’ that is being eliminated at home, but has crept out to ‘infect’ the rest of the world. It seems simultaneously an idealistic and apocalyptic view of both history and the world today, but it also has a whiff of truth about it.
One of the quotes in the book validates my inter-disciplinary approach to architectural metaphor research; “…architecture, even among its most cultured personalities, is a world that reads only what is strictly defined by the discipline of architecture, rather like art critics.” In other words, architecture tends to be self-referential; someone ‘important’ advocates a book or a film or a building, and everyone else follows suit. [See Bonta for an interesting description of how canonical writing works in the industry.] By looking at metaphor in linguistics, literature and philosophy as well as architecture, it allows you to get outside the industry and look back in. It’s a periscopic rather than microscopic or telescopic view – the two kinks in the view-finder make all the difference, shifting the perspective not once, but twice, between the architectural academic and the architecture itself.
Lastly, I’m not sure that I remember reading if he acknowledged where he got the title from, but I do know that he refers to Rykwert’s ‘Dancing Column’ book which I was also in the process of reading, and within that there is a quote by Bataille, part of which goes: “…The fall of Bastille symbolises this state of affairs: it is difficult to explain this crowd action by anything other than the hostility of a people to the monuments that are its true masters…” to which Rykwert makes the comment (his italics) “Bataille’s mind was impatient: for Bataille the very condition of modernity was established against architecture…” (p123). Perhaps it’s a coincidence, a needle in a haystack coincidence, but reading the two books concurrently makes me feel that the revolutionary-rage and anti-monument sentiment makes the coincidence too close to ignore.
Overall a good read to get you fired up – for or against modern architecture – if La Cecla does anything, he makes you feel the splintery, pointy tops of the fence you’ve been sitting on.
January 16, 2021
I grew up around architects and thought about becoming one. I didn't, but every time I see what promises to be a thoughtful book on architecture and built environments, especially one in translation, I pick it up. I found Franco La Cecla's booklength essay at a PM Press stand at a book festival. Knowing PM's excellent reputation, I could not resist, and was not disappointed.
Mairin O'Mahony's translation is fluid, emotional, and expert; the book is a pleasure to read.
The arguments Mr. La Cecla advances are not exactly against the practice of architecture per se, but rather against the cult of "spectacular structures" produced in a manner that is disconnected from the sites and communities they enter. "Archistars," he writes, are "useful... for establishing "trends," to amaze and draw the public's attention with "gimmicks" that are not even buildings but stage sets, like enormous billboards." As an antidote to the infatuation with "archistars" and the plight of housing (a separate, and chilling case study), La Cecla offers the elegant and tantalizing vision of an urban environment in which "to the sense of security afforded by the possibility of meeting one's own friends... one adds the advantage of circulating among other people... A neighborhood functions when the presence of its residents on the streets allows for the arrival of passers-by and unknown people without causing a feeling of anonymity."
A passionate and articulate book, Against Architecture invites and rewards an attentive and critical reader. Keep your pencil handy: you'll be arguing -- and agreeing -- with La Cecla in the margins.
Mairin O'Mahony's translation is fluid, emotional, and expert; the book is a pleasure to read.
The arguments Mr. La Cecla advances are not exactly against the practice of architecture per se, but rather against the cult of "spectacular structures" produced in a manner that is disconnected from the sites and communities they enter. "Archistars," he writes, are "useful... for establishing "trends," to amaze and draw the public's attention with "gimmicks" that are not even buildings but stage sets, like enormous billboards." As an antidote to the infatuation with "archistars" and the plight of housing (a separate, and chilling case study), La Cecla offers the elegant and tantalizing vision of an urban environment in which "to the sense of security afforded by the possibility of meeting one's own friends... one adds the advantage of circulating among other people... A neighborhood functions when the presence of its residents on the streets allows for the arrival of passers-by and unknown people without causing a feeling of anonymity."
A passionate and articulate book, Against Architecture invites and rewards an attentive and critical reader. Keep your pencil handy: you'll be arguing -- and agreeing -- with La Cecla in the margins.
Read
November 6, 2012"Franco La Cecla’s Against Architecture joins in this conversation, offering, in his words, 'an indictment against the laziness of a profession that used to promise a lot and that today is a washout.'" - Stephanie Pilat, University of Oklahoma
This book was reviewed in the November 2012 issue of World Literature Today. Read the full review by visiting our website: http://bit.ly/XgkZyT
This book was reviewed in the November 2012 issue of World Literature Today. Read the full review by visiting our website: http://bit.ly/XgkZyT
September 9, 2011
Charge assez virulente envers les "archistars", qui oublient de tenir compte de l'environnement urbain dans lequel sont implantés leurs projets et participent à la transformation des villes en vitrines froides mais commercialisables. Si le propos n'est pas d'une originalité folle il reste quand même très pertinent.
November 9, 2021
Architecture as a sacred thing doesn’t exist, although there can be potential mediators for a positive change for we are given a certain power to initiate it wherein the affairs are mostly political.
Cecla talks of mere ideologies of a better life, of an aesthetic and the outward projection of an utopian life that is only possible through serious reforms and actions that should be the forefront for more equitable, inclusive cities. Mere beautification is never the way forward.
Argumentative book as he claims, critical aspects are fairly sensible, Strategies and Technicalities of town planning are essential but are perhaps only to be thought about in later stages of development as they call it, for they are idealistic and rather utopian concepts that would make sense only if communities ( regardless of it being a city or rural or peri urban ) are given the opportunities for thriving and basic facilities provided with for a decent living. Arguments here are hypocritical, like most of us are, but more obvious in various aspects.
He makes the right points although. The demerits of a profession where architects only try to idolize themselves with their messianic tendencies, presenting the world with lust driven, magazine made flesh of buildings. Architectural education in turn only to bring out commodities that would produce such institutions for the sake of capitalistic ideals instead of bringing up architects who are aware and well informed of the societal afflictions that are generated from these development models.
To live in an environment that is incredibly nauseating for it lacks any human/ natural connection.
Heritage Conservation is essential, to reuse and build less is essential but to speak of it in a cultural sense would be demeaning, for each generation grows under various circumstances, has to overcome entirely different conjunctures, etc. Conservation is essential, the purpose needs to be redefined in a way that a building is able to serve what is fundamental and requires thought. Yet Destroying a history to construct new history is problematic. The fact that living under certain circumstances gives the privileged classes a certain “status symbol” is where it gets problematic, under which most of us feel alienated and inferior. To think of what we actually need in order to live well is hardly thought about.
His Ideas on aesthetics is rather biased, one cannot turn towards conservation merely to preserve the cultural context, but also to think of how it will serve a purpose.
The last chapter pretty much sums up the whole idea very well. Rest of it was hard to get by.
Much of his intentions seemed to be lost in translation and ended up presenting itself as random ramblings.
Important piece in a way it presents the most crucial faults that lie beneath a pile of exotic, manipulated, lust driven prototypes in the name of burgeoning or for the sake of common welfare.
Cecla talks of mere ideologies of a better life, of an aesthetic and the outward projection of an utopian life that is only possible through serious reforms and actions that should be the forefront for more equitable, inclusive cities. Mere beautification is never the way forward.
Argumentative book as he claims, critical aspects are fairly sensible, Strategies and Technicalities of town planning are essential but are perhaps only to be thought about in later stages of development as they call it, for they are idealistic and rather utopian concepts that would make sense only if communities ( regardless of it being a city or rural or peri urban ) are given the opportunities for thriving and basic facilities provided with for a decent living. Arguments here are hypocritical, like most of us are, but more obvious in various aspects.
He makes the right points although. The demerits of a profession where architects only try to idolize themselves with their messianic tendencies, presenting the world with lust driven, magazine made flesh of buildings. Architectural education in turn only to bring out commodities that would produce such institutions for the sake of capitalistic ideals instead of bringing up architects who are aware and well informed of the societal afflictions that are generated from these development models.
To live in an environment that is incredibly nauseating for it lacks any human/ natural connection.
Heritage Conservation is essential, to reuse and build less is essential but to speak of it in a cultural sense would be demeaning, for each generation grows under various circumstances, has to overcome entirely different conjunctures, etc. Conservation is essential, the purpose needs to be redefined in a way that a building is able to serve what is fundamental and requires thought. Yet Destroying a history to construct new history is problematic. The fact that living under certain circumstances gives the privileged classes a certain “status symbol” is where it gets problematic, under which most of us feel alienated and inferior. To think of what we actually need in order to live well is hardly thought about.
His Ideas on aesthetics is rather biased, one cannot turn towards conservation merely to preserve the cultural context, but also to think of how it will serve a purpose.
The last chapter pretty much sums up the whole idea very well. Rest of it was hard to get by.
Much of his intentions seemed to be lost in translation and ended up presenting itself as random ramblings.
Important piece in a way it presents the most crucial faults that lie beneath a pile of exotic, manipulated, lust driven prototypes in the name of burgeoning or for the sake of common welfare.
May 15, 2018
Libro non freschissimo (2008), che soffre un po' di "appannamento" in quanto inteso come stimolo critico al dibattito e dunque in prospettiva necessariamente oggi privo di alcuni aggiornamenti che il lettore sentirebbe necessari, per esempio sulla Milano post-Expo (va detto che nel 2015 La Cecla ha portato avanti il brand "contro" con un libro sull'urbanistica, che a oggi tuttavia non ho avuto occasione di leggere). A ogni modo, il taglio è come detto "ipercritico" (inserendosi nel già citato brand dei "contro" alimentato per esempio da personaggi come Montanari) e spesso idiosincratico al limite dell'autotoreferenzialità e dell'opinione troppo tranchant, eppure non privo di spunti interessanti soprattutto quando la riflessione si fa più alta e tocca la missione sociale dell'architettura, totalmente persa di vista secondo La Cecla dal fenomeno delle archistar. Questo trovo spazio soprattutto nella prima parte, meno nella seconda che per me funziona peggio. Nota a margine: non leggevo La Cecla da un po' e a mio avviso siamo purtroppo lontani dalla freschezza, lucidità e originalità (e non da ultimo anche dallo spirito antropologico in senso stretto) di libri che ho molto amato come Mente Locale, Perdersi e Il Malinteso.
August 29, 2025
Ho apprezzato molti passaggi, tranne quelli in cui l'autore critica quasi rancorosamente alcuni personaggi dell'architettura (come quando parla di Rem Khoolas). Per il resto il saggio di da una concezione di architettura vera, quasi anacronistica, ma che per forza di cose rimane la vera essenza della disciplina: l'attenzione verso la socialità, la connessione tra le persone che vivono un'architettura e l'architettura stessa.
June 5, 2013
Other reviewers have written that there are better books out there which address similar issues, but this was the first book on the problems in modern architecture and city planning that I've read, and I thought it served as a good enough introduction for someone interested in the subject but with little prior knowledge. Coming from Hong Kong I can see so much of what La Cecla criticises playing out right before my eyes in my home, in the very city I live, and it's rather disheartening, but also very, very real. It has definitely made me want to read more on the topic.
Read
April 8, 2013Non finito
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews