No abstract

The early twenty-first century saw a marked increase in the construction of the architect-designed house extension in Dublin due in part to the economic confidence of the time. While this phenomenon has been much discussed within architectural discourse, theory and practice, beyond this, the social complexities have not yet been fully been examined. This paper is based on the contention that the process of employing an architect to extend a house, and the design and construction of that project can be interpreted as being part of a social practice, a system of dispositions that makes what seem like a series of autonomous acts into a common code or endeavour. Although this social practice is not consciously organised and in fact, through their actions, the principal actors involvedthe client and the architectseek individuality rather than conformity, the generation of the final extension is subject to the historically and socially situated conditions of its production. By examining the common setting of the city; the common motivations of the actors involved; the regulatory framework governing extension development; and by citing recently built examples, the paper proposes that what seems like a diverse array of culturally insignificant acts is in fact a significant social practice, an almost invisible remaking of the city of Dublin. This paper adapts Pierre Bourdieu's notion of 'habitus' as a means to understand and describe the phenomenon of the early twenty-first-century Dublin house extension. Bourdieu uses this term to describe how individuals act in their daily lives. Habitus is a habitual or typical condition, a system that disposes people to interact with each other and with their environment in particular ways. The paper is grounded on the contention that the process of employing an architect to extend a house and

The early twenty-first century saw a marked increase in the construction of the architect-designed house extension in Dublin due in part to the economic confidence of the time. While this phenomenon has been much discussed within architectural discourse, theory and practice, beyond this, the social complexities have not yet been fully been examined. This paper is based on the contention that the process of employing an architect to extend a house, and the design and construction of that project can be interpreted as being part of a social practice, a system of dispositions that makes what seem like a series of autonomous acts into a common code or endeavour. Although this social practice is not consciously organised and in fact, through their actions, the principal actors involvedthe client and the architectseek individuality rather than conformity, the generation of the final extension is subject to the historically and socially situated conditions of its production. By examining the common setting of the city; the common motivations of the actors involved; the regulatory framework governing extension development; and by citing recently built examples, the paper proposes that what seems like a diverse array of culturally insignificant acts is in fact a significant social practice, an almost invisible remaking of the city of Dublin. This paper adapts Pierre Bourdieu's notion of 'habitus' as a means to understand and describe the phenomenon of the early twenty-first-century Dublin house extension. Bourdieu uses this term to describe how individuals act in their daily lives. Habitus is a habitual or typical condition, a system that disposes people to interact with each other and with their environment in particular ways. The paper is grounded on the contention that the process of employing an architect to extend a house and