1 Spatialising Design: architecture in the age of technological capitalism – power, verticality, and the street Jeff Malpas A city is measured by the character of its institutions. The street is one of its first institutions. Today, these institutions are on trial – Kahn, 1971:33. Architecture has always stood in an important relation to power. The most obvious sense in which this is so is also the sense in which this relationship is most often thematized in the architectural literature – architecture seen as the embodiment of power understood in terms of the exertion of control and typically manifest in the way governments, organisations, and individuals use built form to express and reinforce their own attempts to exert and maintain control over populations, communities, groups, and individuals. The focus here is most often on architecture as an expression of the power of the state – something evident in the construction of capital cities, for instance, and explored in volumes such as Lawrence J. Vales, Architecture, power, and national identity (Vales 2008) and Michael Minkenberg’s, Power and Architecture: The Construction of Capitals and the Politics of Space (Minkenberg 2014), but also in more widespread architectural forms and styles (see Dovey 1999; see also Calvert Journal 2016, for a discussion of power and architecture in a post- Soviet context). Sometimes, the focus here is on the way in which built forms exert control directly, but frequently the focus is also on the way in which built forms serve to enable and reinforce control in more indirect means through symbol and representation. There is also, however, a deeper, if perhaps less obvious sense in which power and architecture are related – although it is a sense that underlies the connections referred to already. This is the sense in which architecture is not merely a means by which power is exercised, but rather part of the very structure by which power is constituted. Here power is understood, not merely in terms of control or the exertion of control, but more fundamentally as that which is productive of differentiation and ordering – including orderings of authority and subjectification. In this latter sense, power is at play in any and all forms of architecture, and it is so because the primary mode in which power is articulated is materially, which is to say through the ordering of place and space (as well as time), and this is just what is at issue, in a quite explicit way, in architecture. It is indeed only in and through the material and spatial, and often through the sensory affectivity that belongs to the material and spatial, that the representational and symbolic themselves operate. There have been