Mapping Controversies in Architecture

Methodology in Attitudes Assigned to Architecture as Distinctly Regional

“…represents the general historical conjectures and can be attributed to the different systematizations of historical facts, authorities and discourses. The third approach (C.) consists of research methods that are based on the specifics of developments of the contemporary world and the analysis of the ways, in which the issues of identity are updated recently [22], [38]. [7], [34].…”

“…Although all levels in this scheme are closely interconnected, their representatives do not always have consensus on the expected result; plus power of influence of each "participant" has significantly changed over the time as the process increasingly results in the general term of architecture as "compromise art". As such, according to Yaneva [38], [72] "mapping controversies means 'analysing controversies' and covers the research that enables us to describe the successive stages in the production of architectural knowledge and artifacts, buildings and urban plans. It also refers to a variety of new representational techniques and tools, which describe the stages of controversies."…”

Interobjectivity in architectural research and theory: towards a meta-theory of materiality and the effects of architecture and everyday life

“…Yaneva makes a similar move in Mapping Controversies in Architecture, 27 where she dismisses two different and well-represented approaches in architectural theory in order to advocate a third (the ANT-approach), and finally, Harman's critique of materialism, which argues that most theories tend to either undermine or overmine materiality, seem to subscribe to the same iconoclastic rhetoric.…”

“…The role of architectural theory should, from this perspective, be to 'witness and describe the modes of existence of various architectural objects'. 46 A key issue in ANT is thus to pinpoint the relevant actors in any given event. As the theory does not focus on what objects are, but on what they do, we need to follow processes where different objects (humans or non-humans) take on actor roles.…”

Negotiating Heritage in Danish Public Housing Renovation

“…However, asserting claims and sticking to them is also challenged by the organizational, political, planning and project reality of large architecture projects. To explore how the crucial questions of how it is currently decided in practice which heritage narrative should be considered in particular cases and how it is agreed upon which architectural interventions best convey this understanding, the method of controversy mapping, inspired by Yaneva [31], proves useful.…”