Architecture has always been designed for the centers of power in society. Architects—who are dependent on governmental and municipal planning authorities, as well as on their clients (typically private-sector developers who have led construction in the neoliberal economy for about four decades)—are entangled in a web of interests when trying to secure architectural work, design a project in the best possible way, and obtain planning approval from the authorities.
Therefore, even though architectural planning sometimes provokes public opposition due to harm to architectural or environmental values, or the displacement of long-term residents by new construction—and even though architects sometimes join residents and civil society organizations in opposing certain plans—protest is generally not considered a natural professional stance within the field of architecture.
In this article, I present four rare cases of resistance by architects in Israel who deviated from the standard objection procedures outlined in the Planning and Building Law and who voiced political criticism against government policies and the spatial worldviews of the planning establishment.
The cases I describe in this article were selected according to two criteria:
-
The architects’ objections meet the definition of the word “protest” as it appears in the Even-Shoshan Dictionary—”an appeal and objection, an expression of vigorous opposition to something”—meaning they were either forceful or provoked strong opposition from the establishment, and their actions constituted a deviation from the routine activities of civil society organizations in the field of planning.
-
The objections by these architects sought to rectify injustices in the fields of planning and architecture, motivated by a social perception of justice in planning, consideration of the broader public interest, or criticism of the government.
These objections took various forms: the publication of a catalog for an exhibition that was censored (“Civil Occupation” exhibition, 2002); the design and construction of a school for the Khan al-Ahmar communities (a tire-constructed school built in 2009 that became a political symbol); the writing and publication of the Salameh 60 document, which presented a new spatial agenda (Yaski et al., 2017); and the architects’ protest against the judicial overhaul, organized through WhatsApp groups (“Planners for Democracy,” 2023–2024).
These acts of resistance and the strong reaction they provoked sparked debate in the architectural world, generated some spatial change, created a movement among architects, and became milestones in the history of spatial protest in architecture in Israel over recent decades. In this article, I examine whether these protests constitute political margins or a central stream within the field of architecture.
