Abstract
At the time of the founding of Athens, capital of the Neohellenic state, the intimate relationship between politics and architecture can be broken down into three phases.
The first is that of architects anticipating the choice and plan of Athens even before a political decision is taken.
The second, which lasts until the middle of the 20th century, is that of inversion, with politics taking the initiative and distorting or reforming the city's plan through the intrusion of new players - economic forces, residents, etc. - and the development of new ideas. During this period, the capital still plays its emblematic role.
Finally, the third period, following the world war, is that of the chaotic metropolis in crisis. It is no longer politics that acts as a screen for the economy, but the economy that subjects architecture and politics to its dictates. The capital city thus loses what Jean Starobinski calls its emblematic role, and retains little more than a symbolic role.
