In this article, we argue that in order to properly assess the potentials, challenges, and implications of the digital transformation in architecture and construction, we need to better understand the political-economic dynamics behind it and examine it in light of the current reorganisation of global capitalism. The focus of this article is therefore on the larger political-economic and techno-economic conditions that are shaping the implementation of digital technologies in the architecture, engineering, and construction (AEC) sector. Based on document analysis on the digital turn in architecture and construction, along with interviews with AEC professionals, we argue that the logic of platform capitalism is beginning to transform the industry, with Building Information Modelling (BIM) acting as an obligatory passage point and government policies as gate-openers. The article, first, discusses concepts of platform and platform capitalism and indicates how these apply to recent reconfigurations of actor and power relations in the field. Second, it reviews some of the developments in digital architecture from 2D drawings to BIM and beyond. Third, it examines the role of government policies as driving forces in the digital transformation. Forth, it takes a closer look at the case of software producer Autodesk and their BIM product Revit, which illustrates how the logic of platform capitalism has gained traction in architecture and construction. Finally, it concludes that some expectations can be derived from these observations: In the realm of design software, we can expect a further concentration of economic power and a near-monopolistic structure of the market. Moreover, we can expect a shift of focus and investment from architectural design to socio-digital modes of construction and urban planning that benefit primarily real estate owners, investors, developers, and construction companies. Furthermore, we can expect large construction firms to secure themselves a comfortable starting position as early adopters, while SMEs are facing bigger challenges to benefit from the digital transformation. Lastly, we can expect a further encroachment of tech giants and domain outsiders such as Alphabet into architecture and construction, turning buildings and cities into machines for data extraction.

Contemporary ecological discourse in architecture is often built upon an approach based on quantitative parameters, characterised by the use of scientific data for environmentally sound architectural design. This article questions how such an ecological approach relates to the architectural image, experience, and inhabitation.

Through two archetypical projects - Siegfried Ebeling’s Wohnkubus (1926) and Cedric Price’s Generator (1976-9) – this article examines a possible theory of ecologically oriented architecture which engages aesthetic values related to the human experience of architectural space. The projects are separated by the same fifty-year gap that separates Generator from present day, and the article therefore tries to reveal if and how both archetypes could suggest the need for an updated model for environmental design. What can we learn from these projects, and how do the Wohnkubus and Generator unveil other modelling practices? Is architecture today capable of (or even entitled to) producing exemplary representations committed to the ethical dimension of the global change?

This article provides an English translation of an unpublished German typescript found in the archive of the architect Julius Posener in the Akademie der Kunst, Berlin. Posener, a professor of architectural history at the Hochschule für Bildende Künste (HBK), travelled with a colleague and fifteen students to England for a fortnight in March 1963. They met several prominent architects, saw a wide selection of their current and recently completed works, and attended events at the Architectural Association school. The typescript is an account of the trip that he wrote up from notes in his diary on 29 March, two days after their return. Posener, who had previously spent almost a decade teaching architecture in London, proves to have been a sympathetic observer of the scene, eager to compare and contrast what he saw in England with contemporary work in Germany; his account evokes subtle disagreements between himself and his colleague on conceptual and historical points, and gives us an insight into the day-to-day workings of Denys Lasdun’s office, the Architectural Association, the London County Council, and the Building Research Station in Garston.