See discussions, st ats, and author pr ofiles f or this public ation at : https:www .researchgate.ne tpublic ation278671901 [629772]

See discussions, st ats, and author pr ofiles f or this public ation at : https://www .researchgate.ne t/public ation/278671901
A BRIEF INTRODUCTION TO COMMUNITY ARCHITECTURE CONCEPT -FROM
BELIEVING TO REALITY
Chapt er · Mar ch 2015
CITATIONS
3READS
6,517
1 author:
Some o f the author s of this public ation ar e also w orking on these r elat ed pr ojects:
ICAR2015 Int ernational Conf erence on Ar chit ectural R esearch View pr oject
Mihaela Z amfir Grig orescu
Ion Mincu Univ ersity of Ar chit ecture and Urb anism
88 PUBLICA TIONS    4 CITATIONS    
SEE PROFILE
All c ontent f ollo wing this p age was uplo aded b y Mihaela Z amfir Grig orescu on 18 June 2015.
The user has r equest ed enhanc ement of the do wnlo aded file.

A BRIEF INTRODUCTION TO COMMUNITY ARCHITECTURE
CONCEPT
-FROM BELIEVING TO REALITY
Mihaela Zamfir (Grigorescu)
Romania, “Ion Mincu” University of Architecture and Urbanism
[anonimizat]
Abstract
Currently, the architectural discourses generally s tart from the contemporary society premises.
It is about the society that we live in, about the communicational, computerized society and
about the architecture that has to meet the society ’s requests the subject of an architecture for
community, of a COMMUNITY ARCHITECTURE is approached more seldom, and even
when it is approached, there is not yet a solid the oretical base or a well-founded concept. The
attitude and also the terminology used are not rand om and derive from the actual trends-
computerization, virtualization, spectacularization, consumerism, secularization,
urbanization, the globalization process, from obeying the ephemeral a nd delocalization
effects.
The community coagulation seems to be very difficul t in the contemporary urban society. The
lack of time, the infinite delaying of the direct c ontact, the reversal of the pyramid of values
have led to the late formulation of an actual conce pt dedicated to the community architecture.
The pessimism of the contemporary philosophers and sometimes the mathematical solutions
given by the sociologists or the excessive psycholo gization of the relations between
individuals close the reluctant picture that is soa ring over the community.
However, the community germs are present in the criteria which are able to bring the
communities together: place, values, interests, age , spirituality, even if it is done in a new
way.
The present article aims to introduce the community architecture concept with references to
an interdisciplinary scientific literature, making a step forward towards the community
architecture theory . Today, the community architecture concept is clos ely linked to
communication , so in the documentation it was followed the communication by culture
relationship under the contemporary aspects. The culture-communication conceptual coupl e
is currently a subject to various approaches, from an arid theorizing to expr essive semantic
nuances, from almost vigilante utterances to balanced and open ap proaches. There are
mentioned specialists who activate in this field, n amely: Miége, Debord, Baudrillard,
Georgiu, Ghiu, Mihali. At the same time it is empha sized also relevant bibliography in the
community field: Tönnies, Paul-Lévy, Putnam, Weber, Cohen, Ashton, Hutton, Bartle,
Mih ăilescu, Hatos, Tompea. The actual tendencies of the society, the difference between the
society and the community concepts are therefore cl arified.

The article insists on the fact that the true value s that can bring the communities together are
not losing their validity, being only expressed differently. The actual tenden cies of the
society/communication, the fast circulation of information and the globalizati on must be seen
as resources and not as obstacles. Architecture, in its concreteness, will never lose its value if
it is designed for and together with the contemporary people. The article shows that today,
the architect must provide integrative teamwork and interdisciplinary spirit skills, the
integrative approach being a sine qua non condition for the architecture of the actual
communities. This translates into extensive multi-interdisciplin ary documentation, because
the community issue is approached by specialists fr om various fields: sociology,
anthropology, psychology, philosophy, medicine, ger ontology, theology, architecture and
urbanism, communication and economy.
The article makes a short radiography of the contemporary society situation, pointing out
important elements in terms of architecture, reflec ting five years of search and research in the
PhD. Along with the theory of the community archite cture term, the article aims to open the
architect’s appetite to go deeper into the communit y issue, having an obvious interdisciplinary
point of view.
Ultimately, I strongly believe that the expression of a contemporary civilized society and the
architecture that represents it, found its resource s in the life of the communities constitute it,
and in the established relations between their memb ers. Undoubtedly, the architecture reflects
the welfare state of a society, governing policies, but without the community component it
remains unsustainable. The community represents the deep layer of the society, the
spirituality, their intrinsic values while architecture is in a permanent interdependency with
the community. Today the community architecture is flexible, permeable, open to
communication. Architecture and community define ea ch other, potentiating, reviving,
integrating their own qualities, in this globalizat ion process while preserving their individual
uniqueness.
THE COMMUNITY ARCHITECTURE is an Ontological Archit ecture.
Keywords : community architecture, globalization, transcultu ration, communication,
ages, interdisciplinarity, community architect.

Fig. 1 Churchill Intergenerational Hub/ Suters
Architects, 2009
Source: Archdaily,
http://ad009cdnb.archdaily.net/wp-
content/uploads/2010/10/1288213397-suters-
churchillcommhubb-low-09.jpg

1 INTRODUCTION
Currently, the architectural discourses generally s tart from the contemporary society premises. It is about the
society that we live in, about the communicational, computerized society and about the architecture th at has to
meet the society’s requests the subject of an archi tecture for community, of a COMMUNITY
ARCHITECTURE is approached more seldom, and even when it is app roached, there is not yet a solid
theoretical base or a well-founded concept. The att itude and also the terminology used are not random and derive
from the actual trends-computerization, virtualization, spectacularization, consumerism, secularization,
urbanization, the globalization process, from obeying the ephemeral a nd delocalization effects.
The community coagulation seems to be very difficul t in the contemporary urban society. The lack of ti me, the
infinite delaying of the direct contact, the revers al of the pyramid of values have led to the late fo rmulation of an
actual concept dedicated to the community architect ure.
The pessimism of the contemporary philosophers and sometimes the mathematical solutions given by the
sociologists or the excessive psychologization of t he relations between individuals close the reluctan t picture that
is soaring over the community.
However, the community germs are present in the criteria which are able to bring the communitie s together:
place, values, interests, age, spirituality, even if it is done in a new way.
It might seem a paradox that just today, in a globa lized society, dominated, would say some specialist s, by the
spectacle architecture, this paper aims at the conc eptualization of the community architecture and mor e, the
formulation of some ideas with applicability for st imulating community spirit in and through architect ure. Yet,
the true values are not loosing theirs valability, are only differently expressed. The actual tendenci es of the
society/ communication, the fast circulation of inf ormation, globalization have to be seen as resource s not as
obstacles. Architecture, in its concretness, will n ot ever lose its value if is designed for and toget her with the
contemporary people. Today, the architect has to prove only integrative capacity of teamwork and
interdisciplinary spirit.
2 RESEARCH BACKGROUND. SOCIETY’S TRENDS
The research background can be split into three lev els: socio-cultural, professional and personal.
The socio-cultural background can be described from different points of view. Ne ver perhaps, as in the
information age where we live, the relation between culture and communication constituted a more reach
resource of analyze, permanently valid and valued b y the sciences that investigate human condition. On the other
hand, the unprecedent development of the media, in an extremely pace, gave new dimensions to the cultu ral
approaches. Culture, by it’s scientific and artistic values, en tered in the social life of the individuals,
democratizing itself.
This state of fact has given rise to well-founded f ears or, on the contrary, sometimes exaggerated, ab out the
culture status, about the contemporary society valu es since the 70’s.
Baudrillard 1 anticipates the consumerism that characterized the contemporary society [1] three years after
Debord 2 speaks about the downgrade of culture by spectacle and consumption [2]. The architecture was not
preserved by consumerism, by spectacular, permanent ly keeping touch with the society that is responds to.

1 Baudrillard defines the individual of consumer soc iety as Homo Economicus .
2 In 1967, Debord spokes about the contemporary soci ety as a spectacle, a term apparently comfortable, in fact unconfomfortable for this
world faced with an excess of communication and inf ormation.

These omissions are not rules, the new media ultima tely proving themselves real cultural tools, effici ent, that,
used with discernment, brings society to a superior value level. Communication in the virtual environm ent [3] is
shaping communities, relations between people. An a rchitecture for community is an architecture that t ake into
account all these contemporary realities, surpassin g the pessimistic tendencies of convictions, irrita tion,
indifference and extracting the innovative trends a nd the spirit of the place.
Another consequence of the unprecedent development of the media are intercultural exchanges , resulted from
globalization, conceptualized under the concept of cultural appropriation , that is manifested in four forms:
cultural exchange, cultural domination, cultural ex ploitation and transculturation . [4] Especially draws
attention this last form of cultural appropriation, the transculturation, which involves an over-mixin g of cultural
elements, a change of methods and ideas whose valid ity is universal, a process whereby cultural forms literally
move through time and space where they interact wit h other cultural forms and settings . (Richard Rogers, 2006,
From cultural exchange to transculturation: a revie w of reconceptualization of cultural appropriation , apud
Lull, 2000, p. 491).
In this context are developing the actual theories about community and society. Sociologists use two t erms from
German for community and society : GEMEINSCHAFT and GESELLSCHAFT 3 [5] . Gemeinschaft means
in German community but in sociology is used in order to name the esse ntial characteristics of the community
and Gesellschaft means society , in sociology the nouns turns into adjective, desc ribing coldness, formality. The
transformations of the contemporary era, the fast p ace of the urban life tend to augment the existing
communities, to borrow from Gesellschaft . It can be said that, in contemporary key, the ter m of community
poised between Gemeinschaft and Gesselschaft.
Another two majors global trends also reflect over the architecture: population ageing and urbanization ,
determing a change of perspective that is multidimensional . We can talk about the demographic, population
dimension of the architecture that results from the population ageing. [6] This view shapes the architecture
intended to a population with dynamic and structure influenced by the demographic phenomenon of ageing . On a
higher level we can speak about the age dimension in architecture that shapes a social perspective, the
perspective of social groups and of suitable archit ecture for every age group. The last level is the
intergenerational dimension that proposes the perspective of community architecture as integr ative
architecture of all ages . The intergenerational perspective includes the pe rsonal dimension of the individual as
person and as a member of an intergenerational comm unity. [6]
This context changes once again the premises from t he architecture can start.
CULTURE- COMMUNICATION- COMMUNITY- AGES
The professional context refers to the theoretical and practical concerns fr om the architecture in community
field. Presently it was not conceptualized the term of com munity architecture although there is interest in
this field from the specialists of various fields: architects, sociologists, psychologists, artists, m edical doctors,
engineers. These preoccupations from various fields actually give the particular character of communit y design,
that of interdisciplinarity and produces a schift i n the definition of the architect’s position. Today the
architectural profession is defined by an integrati ve capacity of corroboration of information from va rious related
fields, by a multi-criteria approach, by a teamwork . The community architect gives an increasing impor tance to
the social values.

The personal context evokes my own sphere of interest in this field of c ommunity architecture, in promoting its
social values. Even if the association may seem som ehow unusual, drawing, design, biological sciences and
especially anatomy, chemistry, social sciences and finally architecture give sense to my long time con cerns.

3 The two terms were introduced in sociology by Ferd inand Tönnies. In the ‘80s, Tönnies made a trenchan t demarcation in terms of moral,
political and sociological between the community an d society concepts.

3 COMMUNITY/SOCIETY SW ITCH. CULTURE-COMMUNICATION-
COMMUNITY-AGES
The present society means speed, agitation, densifi cation, urbanization. Communities in the old times spirit, at
least in the large cities seem to be long gone. In the original sense, community was related to a plac e, having
well-define limits or was generated by ethnic, reli gious, professional, cultural considerations. [6] B ut what about
today? What are the issues today that can determine a community? How can architecture, in a globalized society,
can stimulate specific communities? In this sense, can be architecture a tool?
In order to create tools, first we have to shape a concept that can express both community and society . Our world
cannot be defined only by community or by society, it would be artificial divided. Communities are par ts of
society as well as society is a whole of communitie s. We are sharing ideas, information, spirit even i f in a
different way today.
It is true that for architecture the PLACE is essen tial, from it derives its spirit [7], [8] answering in a specific
way, even if is not the only answer. We live in a globalized world, our society has blurry limits and its
communities also [9], [10].
The mass-media boom made the access to information, to knowledge to be for all, for all who are intere sted, of
course. In this way, we can speak about mass cultur e, better known as media culture. [6], [11]
The media system created a new communication univer s, but also a culture univers, and the ratio betwee n
culture and society has fundamentally changed. (Grigore Georgiu, 2004, Philosophy o culture. Culture and
communication, ch. VIII, p. 171)
Culture, by its scientific values has entered in th e social life of individual. The internet, the summ it of the media
development, can ofer in a very moment almost any i nformation. Practically, the freedom of choice is t otal.
The media system produced a new cultural morphology 4. The society oscillates between an established sys tem
of values to a new ontological level, difficult to understand and manage, often fragile because it bec omes
excessively more technical. This ontological crisis is reflected by and through architecture also. Arc hitecture
must give an answer to this fragile society and to its communites, extracting its innovative essences from the
culture-communication interdependency.
The digital strategy increases the importance of co mmunity role. It is emphasis the role of being connected . [12]
“Being connected is a prerequisite for all other go als of Digital Strategy […]” (Hazel Ashton & David Thorns,
2007, apud Digital Strategy, 2004, p.44, The role of information communications technology in retrieving local
community , p.215)
Eventually being connected is an important part of today’s communities and so for community concept.
“To give, to receive and to care are some of the mo st important elements of worthwhile community[…]” (Ashton,
2002, p.127)
The two major trends identified in the previous cha pter, population ageing and urbanization have a sig nificant
impact over community, culture and communication. F or the first time in the history of mankind, the po pulation
over 65 will reach in 2050 one third in the Europea n Countries and a quarter, globally speaking. [13], [14]
“The twentieth century saw a revolution in longevit y.” (United Nations New York, 2002)
The society will be reshaped, and also the communi ties. The architecture will have to harmonize this new
social-community structure and accomodate to a new tempo, yet difficult to define, that of speed and excessive
efficiency, this time projected on a much older soc iety and with a different type of energy but with a greater
openness to modern communication techniques compare d to past generations. The lifelong learning concept is
the appanage of the present society and especially of the future. The architecture will adress to a so ciety with an

4 Expression used by George Grigoriu.

aging demographic structure-in this regard, Romania is concerned also 5 [15]-but with a wide openness to
information and learning to use new information too ls.

Community architecture is interdisciplinary and tra nsdisciplinary defined. Community architecture must to give
an answer to the two tendences: ageing population a nd urbanization. Community architecture is AGE
FRIENDLY. Community architecture is universal, is a rchitecture of all ages . (Zamfir Grigorescu& Zamfir,
2014, Sustainable communities in the context of an agein g society. Premises for architecture ) [16]
So, architecture-especially of public spaces-must t ake into account a system consisting of four concep ts:
CULTURE-COMMUNICATION- COMMUNITY- AGES. [6] It takes an interdisciplinary approach,
specialists in culture, communication, psychology, sociology, gerontology. The mission of the architec t is not
easy at all, he must harmonize all these informatio ns and he must to incorporate them in the future co mmunity
project that adresses to a different reality, as ha ve been described previously and to whom must be de fined the
concept of community architecture .
4 TOWARDS A COMMUNITY ARCHITECTURE. THE NECESSITY OF A
CONCEPT
In order to develop a theory of community architect ure first is necessary to shape a concept. However, as we
previously said, is not a a very simple mission bec ause it takes a very wide, profound interdisciplina ry approach.

5 In 2000, elderly population in Romania exceeded in terms of numbers and percentages young population. (Source: www.cnpv.ro )
Fig. 2 Ageing and urbanization, the two major trend s of 21st century
© Mihaela Zamfir (Grigorescu)

It may be easier to name community architecture ins tead to conceptualize. Community architecture means the
built environment that offers itself for community use or stimulates the community participation, in a profound
social, inclusive sense. [6] It means permanent and temporary amenities both at urbanistic level- publ ic spaces,
squares, fairs and architecture objects town-halls, libraries, scenes, social establishments, clubs, g yms, after-
school facilities, (re)conversion training centers, spa centers, community centers. Any public space h as a
community valences.
Why we need a community architecture concept?
• To give a proper answer to the contemporary needs;
• To create tools for an architecture dedicated to co mmunity;
• To be aware of the need for interdisciplinary appro aches in community architecture and to form
interdisciplinary teams;
• To generate a community theory in order to shape an d build community architecture.
Until now, the community concept has not been theor ized. [6] It talks about a community architecture b ut
without a dedicated concept. Just as the concept of community architecture is essential for discipline s such as
sociology, psychology, philosophy,social work, comm unication and IT as well the concept of architectur e
dedicated to community is necessary in architectura l education and practice. The higher education of a rchitecture
is the friendly environment for developing such a c oncept and a dedicated theory. In this respect, a d edicated
master would be useful. Given the fact that it requ ires solid interdisciplinary knowledge, a postgradu ate master
course will be indicated. This postgraduated traini ng should have the following goals:
• Interdisciplinary training for the architect who de signs for community;
• Forming interdisciplinary teams necessary for commu nity projects.
In conclusion, first step is training specialists.
Fig. 3 Community architecture-integrative concept
© Mihaela Zamfir (Grigorescu)

5 RESULTS. CLUES FOR COMMUNITY ARCHITECTURE
I strongly believe that the expression of a contemp orary civilized society and the architecture that r epresents it
found its resources in the life of the constituent communities and in the established relations betwee n their
members. Undoubtedly, the architecture reflects the welfare state of a society, governing policies, bu t without
community component it remains unsustainable. Commu nity represents the deep layer of society, the spir ituality,
the intrinsec values of these and architecture is i n a permanent interdependency with community. Archi tecture
and community define each other, potenting their ow n qualities, revivaling, integrating in this global ization
process and preserving in the same time their indiv idual uniqueness.
Community architecture is the architecture itself. Then why we talk about a COMMUNITY
ARCHITECTURE ? Why we should theorize a concept that should be a ctually simply the preserve of the
architecture? The discussion embraces two aspects, on the one hand is the community with all transform ations of
the contemporary era, suspected of liquefaction or even inexistence, on the other hand is the architec ture that not
always manages to create that harmonious tandem wit h the community, remaining somewhat inconsistent an d
slightly artificial.
The present society is subject to the consumerism a nd spectacle , shaking the intrinsic values of the
communites that constitute it. It is cultivated the own interest, individualism, accumulation of mater ial goods, the
fierce competion to the detriment of community spir it. On the other hand, spare time is almost inexist ent and if
actually somehow exists, it is always streamlined. [17] The meetings are often reduced to the virtual ones and
not few are the opinions according to which public space is threatened by these alternative to concret e reality.
Architecture is subject to these trends, becoming c ommercial. Malls successfully invade public life, e specially in
young democracies. Comprehensive, they offer to the people all that they need, but only FOR CONSUMPTIO N.
Cosumerism and spectacle, [1], [2] harshness, opule nce become the preserve of current society (Romania is not
an exception), eroding values that animate communit y ones.
The necesity of shaping a community concept in order to develope a community architecture theo ry was
proved of the informations provided by the related fields.

6 CONCLUSIONS
The purpose of this paper was not to give answers to what community architec ture means, it was to introduce
the concept of community architecture in the attent ion of contemporary research and to give the proper place in
the present society. The concept of community archi tecture and a community architecture theory were de veloped
in the PhD thesis, finished last year, in 2014.
However, briefly, what is community architecture? Community architecture means the built environment that
offers itself for community, use or stimulates the community participation, in a profound social, incl usive sense.
It means permanent and temporary amenities both at urbanistic level- public spaces, squares, fairs and
architecture objects town-halls, libraries, scenes, social establishments, clubs, gyms, after-school facilitie s,
(re)conversion training centers, spa centers, community centers. A space with community valences can be
that between blocks where children play and parents and grandparents are meeting and chating. Such a s pace can
be considered with community value only when is pro perly arranged, when community approaches it, assum es
it, and there fore take care of it. Otherwise, rema ins only a space of greagarious manifestations. Com munity
architecture manifests not only in independent arch itecture objects, also can take the shape of an emb edded space
whose primarily aim is another. For exemple, can be a space at the ground-floors of collective buildin gs that can
be used in different ways by the neighbours that li ve in: birthdays, event, discussion that concern th e proper
functioning of block community. The most representi ve architectural program in the most complex form i s
community center .

The perspective change brought to architecture by t he two tendencies of the XXI century-the population
ageing and urbanization-is multidimensional. Commun ity architecture is an architecture of ages.
Architecture is not only the response of the commun ity problems as community does not fully reflect
architecture. We can speak of a dynamic, interdependence relation between architec ture and community
where active and passive roles are shared. Especial ly this relationship is the research subject of my PhD thesis.
Thus, is argued the necessity of formulation of a current theory fo r the community architecture and the
formulation of a dedicate concept in order to constitute a suport for integrated com munity strategies
formulation. Community is a concept of social scien ces and therefore the developing of a theory for th e
architecture that represents it could be done only by a interdisciplinary approach.

Fig.4 Gehua Youth and Cultural Center / Open Archit ecture, 2012
Source: Archdaily, http://ad009cdnb.archdaily.net/wp-content/uploads/2 012/09/5063c10228ba0d080700021a_gehua-youth-and-cul tural-
center-open-architecture_14.jpg

Fig.5 Ellesmere Nursing Home / HLM Architects, 2010
Source: e-architect, http://www.e-architect.co.uk/images/jpgs/london/ell esemere_nursing_home_071110_4.jpg

REFERENCES
[1] Baudrillard, Jean, 1970, Societatea de consum, mituri și structuri , 2nd edition, 2008, Bucure ști , SNSPA;
[2] Debord, Guy, 2001, Societatea spectacolului. Comentarii la societatea spectacolului , Bucure ști, Est;
[3] Cum se construie ște o comunitate on-line: http://www.feverbee.com/ ; Last accessed March 07, 2015;
[4] Rogers, Richard, 2006, From cultural exchange to transculturation: a revie w of reconceptualization of
cultural appropriation , Communication Theory ISSN 16/2006, 473-503;
[5] Tönnies, Ferdinand, 2001, Community and civil society , Cambridge University Press, London
[6] Zamfir (Grigorescu), Mihaela, 2014, Towards a community architecture-interdisciplinary highlights for the
contemporary urban society, PhD thesis, Ion Mincu, Bucure ști
[7] Norberg Schulz, Christian, 1979, Genius Loci-Towards a Phenomenology of Architecture , New York,
Rizzoli;
[8] Neam țu, Lisandru, 2006, GENIUS LOCI. Coordonate morfologice , http://lisandru.blogspot.ro/2006/06/arta-
inspatiul-public-art-in-public.html ; Last accessed March 07, 2015
[9] Bartle, Phil, 2007, Ce este comunitatea? O perspectiv ă sociologic ă, Source:
http://cec.vcn.bc.ca/mpfc/whtcomru.htm ; Last accessed March 07, 2015
[10] Bartle, Phil, 2007, Caracteristicile comunit ății , Source: http://cec.vcn.bc.ca/mpfc/modules/com-ccru.htm ;
[11] Georgiu, Grigore, 2004, Filosofia culturii. Cultur ă și comunicare, Bucure ști, Comunicare.ro
[12] Ashton, Hazel si Thorns, David, September 2007, City & Community 6:3: The role of the information
communications technology in retrieving local commu nity , (American Sociological Association) New York
Avenue, NW, Washington DC 20005-4701;
[13] WHO, 2007, Global Age-Friendly Cities: a Guide , Fran ța
http://www.who.int/ageing/publications/Global_age_f riendly_cities_Guide_English.pdf ; Last accessed
March 07, 2015 ș
[14] United Nations New York, 2002, Political Declaration and Madrid International Plan of Action on Ageing,
http://social.un.org/index/Portals/0/ageing/documen ts/Fulltext-E.pdf ; Last accessed March 07, 2015 ș
[15] Decision no. 541-June 9, 2005 for approving Nationa l Strategy for development of social care system fo r
the elderly in the period 2005 – 2008; Source:
http://www.mmuncii.ro/pub/imagemanager/images/file/ Legislatie/HOTARARI-DE-GUVERN/HG541-
2005.pdf ; Last accessed March 07, 2015 ș
[16] Zamfir (Grigorescu), Mihaela & Zamfir, Mihai-Viorel , 2014, Sustainable communities in the context of an
ageing society. Premises for architecture, Argument, Ion Mincu, Bucure ști;
[17] Zamfir (Grigorescu), Mihaela, 2011, Public space and community. Communication, particip ation,
experimentation, Landscape-Architecture-Technology-Ambient, Ion Minc u, Bucure ști.

View publication statsView publication stats