Report comment

Although I would love to agree with Sarah, my problem with her argument is that her modern examples of spatial occupation are all very transcient. Open House weekend demonstrates nicely how very little space in cities is actually open to the public. And the eviction of the Occupy movement from all of their sites demonstrates the power of land ownership rights above all else.
I actually designed a building for occupy at Finsbury Square, but due to the high turnover of people on the site, the project never got built. Conversely, two things that are solid and permanant are land and money, therefore Architects (who all presumably want to work- not just for the money, but because it is what we trained to do) must doggedly follow these commodies. The fact that we are merely window dressing a pre-determined massing model is the inevitable consequence of land law in this country. Even the recently launched government self-build funding relied on applicants to already own the land that they wanted to develop, therefore ruling out 99.9% of the people who would actually want to pursue it. The only solutions that will make a difference to the role of the Architect will happen outside of the profession, and perhaps that is the best place for people who care (Sarah included) to aim.