Architecture Against Architecture: A Manifesto

by Reinier de Graaf

A fourteen-point manifesto to bring architecture into the twenty-first century

Architecture, as we know it, is in crisis. The authority of architects is crumbling, their methods no longer tenable. In a highly critical introspection, architect and writer Reinier de Graaf explores the tough choices ahead and the course of action that must follow.

Architecture Against Architecture demands we rethink both how and why we build. With wit and insight, De Graaf lays out the future of the profession, challenging readers to question the fundamental assumptions of the discipline. How do we end the feudal veneration of starchitects? When will architects finally recognize that it is in their own best interest to unionize? Why aren’t more practices collectively owned? Why do so many architects over sixty-seven refuse to retire? How do we stop buildings from being copy-righted? What will remain of architecture after AI? What can prevent iconic structures from being embroiled in money laundering? And the vital What projects should architects refuse on moral grounds?

Genres: Architecture

272 pages, Paperback

Expected publication February 16, 2027

About the author

Reinier Hendrik de Graaf was born in Schiedam, Netherlands, where he graduated from Stedelijk Gymnasium in 1982.[1] He holds an architecture diploma from Delft University and a master's degree in architecture from the Berlage Institute. De Graaf worked for architecture firms in the Netherlands and the United Kingdom before joining OMA in 1996.

Reviews

[Briana · Rating 4 out of 5]

Agree on mostly everything except AI's involvement in matters of "taste". Pairs well with Hundertwasser's proposed profession of the Architecture Doctor. 👍👍👍

[Francis Dinh · Rating 3 out of 5]

Like de Graaf says, there is nothing radical being stated in this book. As a young professional finding my foot in this profession that is in crisis, it is hard to see how this can be applied to my situation. 

Sure I see the toxicity of starchitects, heck I've even borderline worshipped some of them begging to work for them. I am happy to work where I am now because my firm's name sake isn't an all encompassing figurehead that dominates our designs but welcomes everyone's thinking equally giving us the room to design and think for ourselves. His established reputation is only used to back us instead of promoting his ideas. If only more firm owners were like him. 

I work at a firm that finds work heavily in the food service industry. We like to think we are needed. We like to think we are designing for people we'll never meet: the students who eat in our spaces, the families that come year in year out with dreams of a bright future for their kids... Lately, I've been feeling like we are constantly denied creativity due to lack of funds. And when this happens, we aren't fighting back or given the opportunity to. Why? I don't know. It's not in my pay grade or professional experience to ask. 

What makes this book difficult is that it diagnoses problems clearly, but offers little guidance for how to live or work differently within the system it critiques. Am I more aware of the problems of my profession? Yes. Do I feel more empowered to stand up for the profession? Not so much. I find myself yearning for something more concrete: a set of principles, a framework, even a guidebook for how to practice architecture ethically and meaningfully in a profession that feels increasingly disconnected from its ideals.

Maybe this book really is only meant to be a first step, an invitation to start forming those beliefs for myself. But if so, I still feel the need for more direction. It’s a valuable beginning, but not yet enough to answer the questions that made me pick it up in the first place.

[Arthur Taylor · Rating 3.25 out of 5]

*** อ่านฉบับแปลไทย ***

เป็นการวิพากษ์วงการสถาปัตยกรรมในปัจจุบัน ว่ามันมีปัญหาอะไรยังไง ทั้งในส่วนของตัวสถาปนิกและในเรื่องของงานสถาปัตยกรรมเอง ก็บอกตามตรงว่า เราไม่ค่อยอินเท่าไรคนับ ไม่ใช่คนในวงการด้วย แล้วประเด็นข้อวิพากษ์ก็ไม่ได้ใหม่ ไม่ได้แหลมคมอะไรขนาดนั้นด้วย 😅😅😅

เล่าคร่าว ๆ แบบรวม ๆ เค้าก็บอกประมาณว่า ตัวสถาปนิกเอง อย่าคิดว่าตัวเองเลิศเลอ อย่าบูชาพวกตัวบุคคล พวกสถาปนิก big name พวก great architect ทั้งหลายเลย จริง ๆ พวกเราก็คือแรงงานประเภทนึง ควรคำนึงถึงตรงนี้ รวมตัวกันเรียกร้องความเป็นธรรมในการทำงาน ไม่ใช่ยึดติดค่านิยมเดิม ๆ ทำแบบแก้แบบหามรุ่งหามค่ำ อดตาหลับขับตานอน ยิ่งทุ่มเทยิ่งดี ยิ่งเป็น art อะไรแบบนั้น มัน fantasy เพราะผลตอบแทนไม่ได้ตกที่เรา มันตกที่เจ้าของ project ที่นายทุนทั้งนั้น

แล้วอย่าคิดว่าสถาปัตยกรรมคือศิลปะสูงสุดแบบที่สำนัก Bauhaus ปลูกฝังมา มันไม่ใช่ สถาปัตยกรรมมันคือการใช้งาน โอเค มันมี Design มันมี Art แต่มันคือส่วนประกอบนึง แล้วปัจจุบันสถาปัตยกรรมมันต้องการทำตัวเป็น Art เพราะมันขายได้ มันมีมูลค่า พวกนายทุนไม่ได้อินกับสถาปัตยกรรมแต่อยากให้สถาปัตยกรรมมันขายได้ต่างหาก ไม่ได้อินกับสถาปนิกอะไรหรอก แค่ใช้เพื่อเพิ่มมูลค่าเท่านั้นล่ะ

ยังมีเรื่องสถาปัตยกรรมรับใช้การเมือง ละเลยความถูกต้องยุติธรรม รับใช้ผู้นำเผด็จการ เชื้อพระวงศ์ CEO พวกกอบโกยต่าง ๆ แล้วก็สร้างมันเข้าไป รื้อถอนทำลายมันเข้าไป ประชาชน สาธารณะไม่ได้ประโยชน์อะไรเลย เข้าไม่ถึงสถาปัตยกรรม เนื่องด้วยการกีดกันจากราคา ความเหลื่อมล้ำทางการเมือง อะไรต่าง ๆ ดังนั้นสถาปนิกต้องตระหนักว่าเรากำลังทำอะไรอยู่ ยึดโยงกับอะไร นิยามของงานสถาปัตยกรรมมันกว้างและมีผลกระทบมากกว่าแต่ก่อนแล้ว มันไม่ใช่แค่อาคาร มันเชื่อมโยงไปหมด ทั้งผังเมือง สาธาณูปโภค สิ่งแวดล้อม ธรรมชาติ โลก และที่สำคัญมันคือการเมืองคนับ

ก็ประมาณนี้คนับ เล่าแบบย่อ ๆ หยิบมาบางส่วน ซึ่งมันก็โอเคล่ะ อ่านได้อยู่ แต่คนในวงการ คนที่อินกับสถาปัตยกรรม น่าจะเก๊ทมากกว่า ส่วนเราเฉย ๆ คนับ จบละ 😄😄😄

[Axel Åström · Rating 3 out of 5]

A rather safe, sometimes obvious, sometimes opportunistic book from one of the world’s most established architects.
The ideas are perhaps not new but none the less sound, and one shouldn’t underestimate de Graafs ability to reach those for whom they might actually be new to.
It’s of course very easy to critique practices for who work for unsavory clients; who demolished when they could’ve refurbished, and who underpays and overwork their staff and contractors.
Ironically this mainly applies to offices like de Graafs, who have achieved superstardom by exploiting or atleast ignoring the practices he rallies against.

However,
With stiff competition, de Graaf still holds the title as the fields foremost cynic (self-aware hypocrite?), he knows all this. His brand has long been to with irony and contempt distance himself from the very developers and governments he works for. The work is still very much created; sometimes built, always profited from.
It is therefore hard to look past and to see it as much else than an attempt to whitewash himself to future generations, hoping his theoretical work will outlast his practical.

Marxist in the streets, yes-man in the excel-sheets.

[Ella · Rating 4 out of 5]

Thank you to Reinier de Graaf for gifting my professor a free copy of the PDF so that we could all read his work.

If you had told me a year ago that I would willingly be reading - actually reading, not just skimming - architectural manifestos, there's no way in hell I would have believed you. If you had told me four years ago, I might have believed it, but I definitely wouldn't have enjoyed it.

At this point in my education, I can thoroughly say that I did both - read it and enjoyed it.

While I disagree with his stance on AI, there isn't much else I disagree with in his writings, and there is no perfect solution to AI. I look forward to discussing this manifesto with my peers and perhaps even reading some more of his work.

[dylan jozkow · Rating 4 out of 5]

flawed but still admirable as an attempt to reimagine architecture as a politically engaged (and once again relevant) discipline. i disagree with some of the thinking (primarily in the chapter on ai) and the writing can be a little thin at points, resorting to listing names, buildings or events that relate to the point being made, rather than analyzing them. but overall its calls to action are thoughtful and practical, even if admittedly idealistic and incomplete in their scope. what remains to be seen is whether this writing will have the ability to spark discussion around it's questions, and whether we as architects will have the confidence to (attempt to) answer them?

[Francesco · Rating 4 out of 5]

Architecture manifestos are rare and impactful texts, and Architecture Against Architecture does not lack the ambition to position itself as one of the most important theoretical outputs of the beginning of this century.

Written by Reinier de Graaf, partner at OMA, it is “a manifesto for the future of architecture”. The thesis is that our profession is in crisis, a deep crisis that won’t go away by outworking and keeping our heads down. The author calls for introspection, acknowledgement of failure, and some radical measures to redefine our work and the architecture world.

A handful of manifestos (Vers une architecture, Complexity and Contradiction in Architecture, Delirious New York: A Retroactive Manifesto for Manhattan, Parametricism as Style) over the last 100 years taught generations of architects how to think about the modern city, the metropolitan conditions, its contradictions and how to overcome them or ride them as a surfer rides waves.

Architecture Against Architecture tells us to forget all those lessons since that architecture does not exist anymore and the goals should not be the same either (drop the search of a new style), as the world has dramatically changed due to turbo-capitalism and climate change.

The plan, presented in 7+7 actions, is ambitious and some proposals are drastic, all explained in a very approachable, wit, and at moments humorous fashion.

[syona · Rating 4 out of 5]

every bad unethical oldie architect should read this

[Anna Croft · Rating 4 out of 5]

“In the context of the free market economy, it is increasingly unclear for whom or what purpose buildings are produced.” Page 154.

[PJ · Rating 4 out of 5]

This could have been a Substack, probably. When will OMA adopt his recommendations?

[Callum Robert Inkster · Rating 2.75 out of 5]

Reiner de Graaf sets out his political views for all to see on centre stage in this book for better or worse.

He is class reductionist, believes there is no point in trying to stop climate change and that AI should be used to determine matters of taste.

At a point in the book he points out an issue with architecture being that the elderly keep hanging on. That they just can't or won't stop working. Yet at 62 he sees no issue with his own presence.

de Graaf proposals are a mixture of obvious statements that people need to hear like 'Architecture is Political' only to combine that with the notion that Architecture needs to become an entirely different profession and practice based exclusively on the cultivation of nature and the world. As if that profession doesn't already exist.

It's harsh criticism to state that nothing in this book is radical, but he seems to not understand his own proposals. One of his proposals, that I agree with is that we should have a moratorium on building new buildings and to focus primarily on adapting existing. Only a couple of chapters later in the conclusion to state how the construction industry would collapse and people would need retrain to find new jobs, completely forgetting that the existing buildings would require construction work to adapt their uses.
Not only that but he follows his chapter on banning all new buildings, with the idea of designing our buildings so their parts could be reused and taken apart. So what does he want, no new buildings or buildings designed to be recycled?

In his criticism of sustainability he references the methods of flood prevention that the Netherlands used in the past, how expensive it was to try and prevent the flooding. The Netherlands has now accepted the flooding and is now adapting to it instead. He uses this as an argument to forget about sustainability, yet the reason the Netherlands swapped from their concrete prevention to their soft adaptation is because it's more sustainable.