The thesis originates out of a concern for communities regrouping after dispersal, questioning what vital components of architecture can make a meaningful contribution to communal identity. It explores the role architecture can play in revitalization efforts, gaining insights by participating with community groups and intensely examining the physical neighborhood. An effort is made to go beyond mere contextualism by exploring the differences and similarities between the terms "community" and "public", and their translation to architecture. Dialogue is relocated from popular architectural discourse to strategies that will allow a culture with a rich building tradition freedom of expression, while continuing to engage theoretical issues beyond cosmetics, such as spatial relationships. A seminal conclusion of the thesis is that an architecture of space which structure public activities gives at least as much meaning to communal identity as an architecture of images with which people identify.