ABSTRACT
Politicians and popular media continue to interpret reconstructed cities as representing well-intentioned, but ultimately ‘failed’, attempts to implement unified architectural concepts; and that the implementation of these ideas has been interpreted by some as having negatively influencing the cities’ economic situation, and that continues to detract from the overall quality and experience of the environment. While it is difficult to argue against such a dominant perspective, this chapter suggests that there still is much to be learned from understanding more about the social, economic and political factors involved with shaping the process and product of the urban form. The chapter closes by arguing that the narratives used in this study highlight how people’s practical negotiation of buildings, sites and infrastructure sometimes coalesce with certain planning ideas as well having the potential to escape, or even emerge from, the ‘planned-for’ city. Finally, the chapter offers some brief methodological points on how others might look to unpick the ambivalent relationship between modernity, loss and the built form and how people’s engagement with urban materiality can contribute to the potential adaptive psychological functioning.
