Let’s agree that a queer architecture must sever ties with received ideas of mastery. It aims to other the architectural canon, but isn’t so dogmatic about its queer identity. Sometimes we might be able to label queerness as such, and sometimes it might pass by unnoticed. Authors may be queer, an audience might decide something’s queer, but queerness always seem to be a subheading, never the main label to a work of architecture or to an architect.
For some thirty years, architectural queerness has tried to become the main label. It constructs personas, favors performance over text, reconfigures urban domesticity, and replaces manifestos with calls for dialogue. Architecture’s references evolved, it’s ranks diversified, and our attention’s moved to structures underpinning the field. It's fair to say that today, architecture is a diffuse association of material practices without a single canon. The field is foggier and perhaps already queerer, yet queerness is not a clear architectural identity. And perhaps it shouldn’t be.