Image source: © Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Gemäldegalerie / Jörg P. Anders
Navigating Frameworks
‘Navigating Frameworks‘ is a zine that explores how architecture and design are shaped by the systems in which they operate, from rigid city grids to the influence of neoliberal ideology. These frameworks, whether spatial, legal, economic or cultural, guide and enable creative work while also limiting it. Through a series of essays, visual reflections, and a set of design principles, the project aims to help create alternatives that do not yet exist within the current system.
While studying architectural projects from the past century, I noticed a recurring feature: regardless of function, style, or technique, nearly all were built on rectangular plots of land. The rectangle was everywhere, from social housing to educational institutions and representative monuments. At first glance, this may seem unremarkable, but it raises a deeper question: Why a rectangle? Why a grid? Who decided on this shape, and why do even the most forward-thinking architectural ideas continue to adhere to it?
Certainly, a rectangular grid is not the only option when planning a city. Throughout time, concepts for circular and triangular structures have offered new perspectives on how we plan and build cities. Circular plots could generate negative spaces that lend themselves to public parks or shared areas. Triangular layouts might inspire buildings with radically different forms, creating entirely new urban rhythms. So, why rectangles? What are the factors, regulations, and ideas driving this conception of spatial efficiency? The most apparent answer is economic: efficiency. Not efficiency in movement or beauty, but economic efficiency.
Examining the history of New York City‘s grid structure offered some insight. In 1807, Gouverneur Morris, Simeon DeWitt, and John Rutherford were appointed to design a future layout for Manhattan. They were given four years to develop a plan for the future metropolis, an immense task with long-lasting impacts on the lives of millions of people. Yet, for long stretches of those four years, no work was done.
In the end, their “Commissioners Plan” proposed a rigid grid structure influenced by the existing urban plans of Philadelphia, Charleston, and Savannah. The reasons were simple: according to them, the grid structure was the most practical and cost-effective, as "straight-sided and right-angled houses are the cheapest to build and the most convenient to live in."1
The grid was a clear framework for a predictable and efficient expansion of the city to come. This notion of efficiency created the framework within which New York would grow. The grid was and still is a physical manifestation of capitalist efficiency. Shaping not only how cities grow, but also how architects work.
While not all cities are built on geometric grid structures, most urban forms result from attempts to organise urban sprawl in economically efficient ways. Thus, urban planning is a universal factor that impacts the work of architects. Yet, the grid structure and other decisions of urban planners are not the only factors directing the work of architects. Their work is influenced and guided by an intricate web of regulations, geographic factors, and stylistic and societal norms, among many others, that go beyond a predetermined urban structure.
Image Source: Wikipedia
Image Source: Wikipedia
1 Cerdá Plan (1860), Ildefons Cerdà; 2 Nakagin Capsule Tower (1970), Kishō Kurokawa; 3 Cementerio de San Cataldo (1971), Aldo Rossi; 4 Casa del Frascio (1936), Giuseppe Terragni; 5 Maison Dom-ino (1914), LeCorbusier
Image Sources:
1 Failed Architecture, 2 Ja Magazine 110, 3 Trevor Pratt via Flickr, 4 Kaan Architecten, 5 Fondation Le Corbusier
God Created the Rectangle
Eat in a rectangle.
Sleep in a rectangle.
Repeat in a rectangle.
The city:
Organised rectangles.
Stacked. Priced. Sold.
Rectangles wrapped in regulation.
The architect screams:
„Behold! My vision!
- It’s a rectangle.“
The sidewalk:
Rectangle tiles.
The windows:
Rectangle eyes.
The graveyard:
neatly buried—
rectangle lives.
The urban planner cites
– 90 degrees never lies
Escape?
Draw a circle.
Get fined.
The structure in which New York and other cities have grown is the result of capitalist efficiency. This notion, where efficiency equals profit, is a foundational framework of modern architecture. Besides urban planning frameworks, architecture arises from a number of natural (e.g. climatic, geological, and biological) and artificial factors (e.g. traditions, legal restrictions, and technical standards). While natural conditions are mostly beyond our control, artificial conditions must be subject to continuous reflection and redefinition. These factors form the framework in which architecture is created.
Guided and constrained by frameworks, architecture (and design) establishes new framework conditions for society. This results in a dependency in which architects are responsible for addressing the limitations of their work appropriately, while society must bear the consequences of how architects navigate these constraints. At first glance, frameworks seem like annoying restrictions, limiting the possibilities of creative processes. In reality, frameworks facilitate creative work, understanding the frameworks in which we create allows us to navigate them in a meaningful and creative way.
“ […] it’s about understanding the rules [,] interpreting them […] and then applying them in a targeted manner. A suitable example is language. […] First, you have to learn the language. […] Over time, you learn more and more rules, […] and then become truly expressive by applying the rules. That‘s what poets do in their poems, for example. Poems actually always arise from a language that is taken to its extreme.“ 2 – Prof. Dr. Jörg Gleiter
Some people go even further by imposing additional limitations on their work, narrowing the framework in which their practice happens. Like the eye of a needle, a narrow framework guides their work and sets them apart from others.
„My freedom, therefore, consists in moving within the narrow framework that I have set for myself for each of my undertakings. I go even further: the more I restrict my radius of action, the greater and more meaningful my freedom will be. The more constraints one imposes on oneself, the more one frees oneself from the shackles that bind the mind.“ 3 – Igor Stravinsky
Image Sources:
1 Herzog & De Meuron, 2 Nieuwe Instituut, 3 Wikipedia, 4 Wikipedia, 5 Philippe Ruault, 6 AIA New York Chapter
We live in a world of homogeneous products shaped by industrial processes. Everything from electrical outlets to shoe sizes is highly standardised. Yet, the neoliberal system we live in upholds the myth of individualism. Through design and marketing, we are led to believe we’re expressing our unique identity by choosing which brands to wear, what music to stream, and which aesthetics to follow.
This notion of freedom is not necessarily wrong. However, the choices available to us are constrained by our financial status and the options provided by the neoliberal system. Like a gamer who believes she is making her own decisions, we too assume autonomy to pursue our desires, unaware that the choices offered are carefully curated. However, both worlds are so well designed that we see no reason to question the options given to us. The variety keeps us engaged and our belief in personal freedom intact.
But this diversity merely facilitates the neoliberal promise: that we can all succeed by discovering who we truly are. This fosters the illusion that our success depends solely on our individual choices, ignoring that we are limited by what is offered to us in the capitalist and neoliberal systems.
“The question is not whether humans can act upon their inner desires — the question is whether they can choose their desires in the first place.“ 4
– Yuval Noah Harari
These limitations do not only apply to consumers. Designers also find themselves in a constant loop. By reproducing existing ideas to feed the capitalist system, we limit ourselves and preserve the status quo, sustaining the illusion of complete autonomy. In a humanistic context, more choices often seem to equal more freedom. By introducing products into this system that fully align with existing norms, we limit ourselves and sustain the system that maintains its misleading narrative of free will.
Is this the only way of working inside this neoliberal framework? Perhaps, but I believe there are loopholes. Disruptions that let us question the standards we've internalised. To discover them, we must first become aware of our position and the framework within which we operate and produce. This will be the first step towards breaking free from the restrictions that constrain us.
While we might not change the game we play, we can expand the possible choices a user can make and the potential outcomes. To break free from the restrictions that have long constrained us, we must work with and against the framework we all operate in, proactively.
“Design cannot escape the dilemma of involuntarily serving the preservation of the capitalist system (and the strengthening of the neoliberal regime). Therefore, it must always understand its practice as criticism of its practice, i.e. criticise design with design. The practice of such a "critical" design, in the truest sense of the word, is not only the design of the object but also its context. It is therefore important to at least analyse one's role, one's involvement in existing relations of rule and their political, cultural and economic systems with creative means - and to make the results of this analysis productive in one's creative practice.“
– Friedrich von Borries
The current ambivalence of frameworks is defined by their close connection to capitalist and neoliberal systems, which inherently shape the goals and values of many frameworks in design and architecture. This means that in most cases, a focus on generating monetary value is inevitable. As Friedrich von Borries said, “Design cannot escape the dilemma of […] the capitalist system.“ This limits our practice by binding it to the logic of the market. In many cases, this leads to new skins or reiterations of the same product without offering an addition to the user's range of possibilities. However, this is not the only path designers can go down. Yes, capitalist frameworks are limiting, but they still allow for an abundance of possibilities. This is why it is worth examining the role of frameworks from a different perspective to understand their potential in design and the designer's role in their existence.
“Not all designs are emancipatory. Design can be both enabling and restrictive. The fluid nature of these boundaries obliges designers to repeatedly address the contexts of exploitation and instrumentalisation of their work.“ 5
– Friedrich von Borries
To do so, we first need to understand that Frameworks are not only an external force imposed by systems beyond our control; they are also the direct result of our work as designers. Alongside other disciplines, we navigate through frameworks set by external systems and translate them into consumable goods such as services, exhibitions, products and buildings. Goods of any kind have the potential to be emancipatory, or at least to expand the possibilities of self-determination for consumers. However, they can also do the opposite by limiting the user through recreating the same ideas in a different shape or colour. This means we need to be aware of the frameworks within which we work and those that we create. Ideally, this is what a conscious design process takes into consideration: the tension between the restrictions of our process and the restrictions we create.
“[The] Designer as a seismograph or a catalyst [,] through whom something passes and is transformed. And thus becomes an expression of his time.“ 6
– Prof. Dr. Jörg Gleiter
1 Commissioners of Streets and Roads (1811) Map of the City of New York. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Library.
2, 6 Gleiter, J. (2025) Interview, 14 Apr., via Zoom.
3 Stravinsky, I. (1947) Poetics of Music. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
4 Harari, Y.N. (2014) Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind. London: Harvill Secker.
5 von Borries, F. (2016) Weltentwerfen. Berlin: Suhrkamp.