Delft Lectures on Architectural Design - Cultural Studies Exam Reader
179
READER DELFT LECTURES ON ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN
-
Upload
nicholas-socrates -
Category
Design
-
view
3.448 -
download
10
description
Delft Lectures on Architectural Design - Cultural Studies Exam Reader http://socratesarchitects.com
Transcript of Delft Lectures on Architectural Design - Cultural Studies Exam Reader
READERDELFT LECTURES ON ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN
DELFT LECTURES ON ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN
2010 - 2011
MSc 1 lecture series of the Department of Architecture, TU Delft
AR1A060 – 3 ects
EDITORS: Christoph Grafe / [email protected] van den Heuvel / [email protected]
The Delft Lectures on Architecture Design highlight current issues of the architecture discipline against the background of the larger societal conditions that have an inevitable impact on the practice of design. Contemporary positions in architecture practice and theory will be discussed against the background of the larger modern era (1750-2050) as char-acterised by the conditions of (post)modernity, the modern tradition in architecture and its various moments of crisis and critique.
Full professors, associate professors and researchers of the Delft Faculty of Architecture will address key contemporary topics, and investigate historical models and theoretical argu-ments while discussing the latest architecture projects as well as seminal cases.
Main issues are among others: - modernity and its related issues of mass society, democracy, capitalist development and consumerism, mobility and migra-tion; - constructions of identity and community under a global, multi-cultural condition;- the relative autonomy of the discipline vis-à-vis the project of the avant-garde, the role of the media, authorship and re-conceptualisations of perception and meaning;- the re-thinking of building processes and the interrelations between structure, cladding and ornament;- the multitude of interrelations between the everyday, public space and design practices.
Key questions concern:- where do architects stand and what can they do?- which positions and practices are developed by architects?- what strategies and approaches were and are relevant?
Format:Double lectures (2 x 45 minutes) by full professors, associate professors and researchers of the department of Architecture and other faculty members. Lectures are concentrated in the first half of the semester, 7 weeks. Generally, the double lectures start with introducing the ‘issue’, after which the ‘positions’ are discussed. The lecture coordinators are present to introduce the speakers and the topic, and to moderate questions from the students.
Examination:Written, with questions based on a reader to be compiled by the coordinators, using texts as contributed by the speakers.
INTRODUCTION
CONTENTS
Tom Avermaete, Klaske Havik, Hans Teerds – Architecture, Modernity and the Public Sphere: an Everyday TriadPaul Meurs – Building in the Stubborn City. Architecture vs History
Christoph Grafe – Welfare State Culture and its Buildings. The Example of the French Action CulturelleChristoph Grafe – Concrete Rocks on the ThamesDick van Gameren – Revisions of Spaces, chapter 2
Arie Graafland – From embodiment in urban thinking to disembodied data. The Disappearance of AffectKas Oosterhuis – A new kind of building
Kees Kaan en Henri van Bennekom – The context of the archi-tectural design process
Lara Schrijver – OMA as tribute to OMU: Exploring Reso-nances in the Work of Koolhaas and UngersHenk Engel – Theo van Doesburg and the Deconstruction of the Art of Building
Susanne Komossa – The Double-Faced Nature of ColourMichiel Riedijk – Giant Blue Shirt at the Gasoline Station. Pop Art, Colour, and Composition in the Work of Venturi, Rauch and Scott BrownMichiel Riedijk – The Parachutist in the China Shop. On Stirling
Dirk van den Heuvel – Another Sensibility. The Discovery of ContextTony Fretton – On Siza
LECTURE 1MODERNITY: CONTINUITY AND DIFFERENCE
LECTURE 2CONCEPTS OF CULTURE
LECTURE 3VIRTUAL REALITIES
LECTURE 4BUILDING PROCESSES & PRODUCTION
LECTURE 5AUTONOMY VS ENGAGEMENT
LECTURE 6THE ARCHITECTURAL COMPOSITION
OF GREAT BUILDINGS
LECTURE 7BUILDING PLACES
LECTURE 1MODERNITY: CONTINUITY AND DIFFERENCE
Tom Avermaete, Klaske Havik, Hans Teerds – Architecture, Modernity and the Public Sphere: an Everyday TriadPaul Meurs – Building in the Stubborn City. Architecture vs History
017 From the Editors
1
Ru
imte
lijk
Ont
wik
kelin
gspl
an
Schi
phol
201
5, F
ebru
ary
2007
, p. 1
1.
2
Ib
id.,
p. 1
4.
3
Tijs
van
den
Boo
men
, ‘S
chip
hol:
stad
zond
er
inw
oner
s’, i
n: In
term
edia
ir,
23 S
epte
mbe
r 199
9.
Tom
Ave
rmae
te, K
lask
e H
avik
, H
ans T
eerd
s
Intro
duct
ion
Arc
hite
ctur
e, M
oder
nity
and
the
Publ
ic
Sphe
re: A
n Ev
eryd
ay T
riad
‘Sch
ipho
l is t
he n
ewes
t city
in th
e N
ethe
rland
s’, s
ays G
erla
ch C
erfo
ntai
ne, t
he
dire
ctor
of A
mste
rdam
Airp
ort.
Inde
ed, t
he a
irpor
t has
gro
wn
into
muc
h m
ore
than
a fe
w ru
nway
s plu
s the
faci
litie
s to
hand
le a
rriv
ing
and
depa
rting
pla
nes
as q
uick
ly a
s pos
sibl
e. A
t lea
st fo
rty p
erce
nt o
f Sch
ipho
l’s to
tal p
rofit
com
es fr
om
its sh
ops a
nd o
ther
vis
itor s
ervi
ces,
whi
le o
nly
32 p
erce
nt c
omes
from
han
dlin
g ai
rcra
ft.1 In
its s
patia
l dev
elop
men
t pla
n fo
r 201
5, th
e ai
rpor
t tak
es o
n th
e m
issi
on o
f cre
atin
g a
publ
ic sp
ace
for ‘
inte
rcha
nge
and
inte
ract
ion’
.2 New
ho
tels,
mix
ed u
se in
offi
ce lo
catio
ns, a
nd a
larg
er ra
nge
of sh
ops a
re th
ree
of
the
impr
ovem
ents
that
it p
lans
to m
ake
to c
reat
e an
attr
activ
e se
tting
for t
he
publ
ic. S
chip
hol a
lso h
as it
s ow
n Ri
jksm
useu
m, p
rison
, pas
tora
l cen
tre, p
olic
e fo
rce,
mor
tuar
y, a
nd it
s ow
n br
anch
of t
he S
alva
tion
Arm
y, w
hich
hel
ps th
e ho
mel
ess,
the
airp
ort’s
onl
y tru
e re
side
nts.
Sch
ipho
l exp
ects
its p
lans
to y
ield
ric
h re
turn
s; it
has
trad
emar
ked
its ‘A
irpor
tCity
Con
cept
’ and
pla
ns to
exp
ort
it al
l ove
r the
wor
ld.
The
hear
t of A
irpor
tCity
is S
chip
hol P
laza
; the
nom
encl
atur
e al
one
mak
es
it cl
ear t
hat t
he a
irpor
t aim
s to
be se
en a
s an
urba
n en
tity.
Sch
ipho
l Pla
za is
the
mai
n sq
uare
of t
his n
ew c
ity, f
ull o
f sho
ps, c
afés
, and
resta
uran
ts. It
is th
e pl
ace
whe
re e
very
one
com
es to
geth
er: p
asse
nger
s and
em
ploy
ees,
day
tripp
ers,
va
gran
ts, a
nd lo
cals.
On
a bu
sy d
ay, m
ore
than
100
,000
vis
itors
pas
s thr
ough
th
e Pl
aza.
Its s
igni
fican
ce is
obv
ious
, say
s Jan
Ben
them
of B
enth
em C
rouw
el,
its d
esig
ner:
‘Any
one
can
go th
ere,
twen
ty-fo
ur h
ours
a d
ay, w
ithou
t a ti
cket
. Be
caus
e th
e sp
ace
does
n’t b
elon
g to
any
one,
it b
elon
gs to
you
. Thi
s typ
e of
pu
blic
dom
ain
is a
n es
sent
ial f
eatu
re o
f the
city
.’3
Not
eve
ryon
e is
as e
nthu
sias
tic a
bout
the
airp
ort’s
new
role
as a
n ur
ban
dom
ain,
bec
ause
the
expa
nsio
n of
Sch
ipho
l int
o a
city
is p
rom
pted
mai
nly
by
com
mer
cial
mot
ives
. Thi
s tie
s int
o a
broa
der s
ocia
l ten
denc
y: ‘A
irpor
ts, st
atio
ns,
and
maj
or sh
oppi
ng c
entre
s – th
e m
alls
and
meg
asto
res t
hat a
re o
verr
unni
ng
Euro
pe –
are
bec
omin
g m
ore
and
mor
e lik
e bu
stlin
g lit
tle u
rban
dev
elop
men
ts w
here
, abo
ve a
ll, th
e co
nsum
er so
ciet
y is
runn
ing
at fu
ll ste
am,’
criti
c M
ax v
an
Rooy
writ
es a
s ear
ly a
s 199
5 in
the
Dut
ch d
aily
NRC
Han
delsb
lad.
He
does
not
re
gard
this
dev
elop
men
t as e
ntire
ly fa
vour
able
. ‘So
me
futu
rolo
gists
,’ he
con
tin-
ues,
‘eve
n co
nsid
er th
e ai
rpor
t the
nat
ural
succ
esso
r to
the
old
and
incr
easi
ngly
un
safe
inne
r city
. Its
enor
mou
s ter
min
als,
pop
ulat
ed b
y te
ns o
f mill
ions
of t
rave
l-
019 From the Editors
4
M
ax v
an R
ooy,
‘Gre
nzel
oos,
za
cht fl
onke
rend
eur
owar
en-
huis
. Ond
erw
eg v
an Li
lle n
aar
Lond
en e
n Pa
rijs’
, in:
NRC
H
ande
lsbla
d (1
995)
, inc
lude
d in
: Max
van
Roo
y, H
et v
erha
al
van
de a
rchi
tect
uur.
Am
ster-
dam
(Pro
met
heus
) 200
7,
p. 2
44.
5
M
arc
Aug
é, N
on-P
lace
s:
Intro
duct
ion
to a
n A
nthr
opo-
logy
of S
uper
mod
erni
ty.
Lond
on/N
ew Y
ork
(Ver
so)
1995
, p. 7
7; o
rigin
al ti
tle:
Non
-lieu
x. In
trodu
ctio
n à
une
anth
ropo
logi
e de
la su
rmod
er-
nité
. Par
is 1
992.
6
Jü
rgen
Hab
erm
as, S
trukt
ur-
wan
del d
er Ö
ffent
lichk
eit.
Unt
ersu
chun
gen
zu e
iner
Ka
tego
rie d
er b
ürge
rlich
en
Ges
ellsc
haft.
Dar
msta
dt
(Luc
hter
hand
) 196
2; E
nglis
h tra
nsla
tion:
The
Stru
ctur
al
Tran
sfor
mat
ion
of th
e Pu
blic
Sp
here
. An
Inqu
iry in
to a
C
ateg
ory
of B
ourg
eois
Soc
iety
. St
udie
s in
cont
empo
rary
G
erm
an so
cial
thou
ght,
Cam
brid
ge, M
ass.
(MIT
Pre
ss)
1989
.
7
Fo
r the
redi
scov
ery
of
Hab
erm
as’ c
once
ptio
n of
the
publ
ic sp
here
, see
Har
old
Mah
, ‘Ph
anta
sies
the
Publ
ic
Sphe
re: R
ethi
nkin
g th
e H
aber
mas
of H
isto
rians
’, in
: Th
e Jo
urna
l of M
oder
n H
isto
ry,
vol.
72, n
o. 1
: New
Wor
k on
th
e O
ld R
egim
e an
d th
e Fr
ench
Re
volu
tion.
A S
peci
al Is
sue
in
Hon
or o
f Fra
nçoi
s Fur
et (M
arch
20
00),
pp. 1
53-1
82.
8
Br
uce
Robb
ins,
The
Pha
ntom
Pu
blic
Sph
ere.
Min
neap
olis
(U
nive
rsity
of M
inne
sota
Pre
ss)
1993
; Mic
hael
Sor
kin,
Varia
tions
on
a Th
eme
Park
. Th
e N
ew A
mer
ican
City
and
th
e En
d of
Pub
lic S
pace
. N
ew Y
ork
(Hill
& W
ang)
199
2.
9
Sork
in, V
aria
tions
on
a Th
eme
Park
, p. x
v.
10
H
ilde
Hey
nen,
Arc
hite
ctur
e an
d M
oder
nity
. A C
ritiq
ue.
Cam
brid
ge, M
ass.
(MIT
Pre
ss)
1999
, p. 2
6.
11
A
uke
van
der W
oud,
Een
ni
euw
e w
erel
d. H
et o
ntsta
an
van
het m
oder
ne N
eder
land
. A
mste
rdam
(Ber
t Bak
ker)
2006
, pp.
27-
32.
ship
bet
wee
n m
oder
nity
and
the
publ
ic sp
here
. Wha
t infl
uenc
e do
es a
rchi
tec-
ture
hav
e? H
ow c
an a
rchi
tect
ure
acco
mm
odat
e an
d re
pres
ent p
ublic
life
? Th
ese
are
ques
tions
that
arc
hite
cts m
ust a
nsw
er, b
ecau
se in
spite
of a
ll th
e pe
ssim
istic
vo
ices
, arc
hite
cts s
till f
ace
the
chal
leng
e of
shap
ing
publ
ic sp
ace
– fro
m p
iazz
a to
Pla
za™
. Ind
eed,
arc
hite
cts a
re a
ctiv
ely
sear
chin
g fo
r ans
wer
s to
thes
e qu
es-
tions
, for
new
form
s in
whi
ch to
hou
se c
onte
mpo
rary
pub
lic li
fe. L
et u
s beg
in,
how
ever
, by
inve
stiga
ting
the
soci
olog
ical
, phi
loso
phic
al, c
ultu
ral,
and
arch
itec-
tura
l bac
kdro
p to
the
notio
n of
the
publ
ic sp
here
. Thi
s not
ion
shou
ld b
e si
tuat
ed
in th
e co
ntex
t of m
oder
nity.
Afte
r all,
mod
erni
ty h
as p
rofo
undl
y in
fluen
ced
the
deve
lopm
ent o
f con
tem
pora
ry a
rchi
tect
ure
(at l
east
in th
e W
est)
and,
mor
e
spec
ifica
lly, h
as a
ffect
ed th
e w
ay in
whi
ch a
rchi
tect
ure
appr
oach
es th
e pu
blic
sp
here
. In
shor
t, th
e ce
ntra
l que
stion
of t
his a
ntho
logy
is: W
hat p
ositi
on c
an th
e ar
chite
ct ta
ke re
gard
ing
a pu
blic
sphe
re th
at is
mar
ked
by c
ontin
ual c
hang
e?
1
M
oder
nity
1.1
Mod
erni
zatio
n an
d m
oder
nity
Thre
e te
rms f
orm
the
back
grou
nd to
the
deba
te o
n th
e pu
blic
sphe
re: ‘
mod
erni
-za
tion’
, ‘m
oder
nity
’, an
d ‘m
oder
nism
’. In
brie
f, ‘m
oder
niza
tion’
refe
rs to
the
proc
ess o
f inn
ovat
ion
in so
ciet
y in
the
tech
nica
l and
soci
o-ec
onom
ic sp
here
s.
‘Mod
erni
ty’ s
igni
fies t
he e
xper
ienc
e of
this
pro
cess
, the
con
ditio
n ar
isin
g fro
m
thes
e pr
oces
ses o
f tec
hnic
al a
nd so
cio-
econ
omic
cha
nge.
Fin
ally,
‘mod
erni
sm’
stand
s for
arti
stic
and
inte
llect
ual r
eflec
tion
on th
is c
ondi
tion
– in
shor
t, th
e
way
that
this
man
ifests
itse
lf in
art
and
cultu
re.10
Thi
s int
rodu
ctio
n co
ncen
trate
s on
the
term
s ‘m
oder
niza
tion’
and
‘mod
erni
ty’,
in so
far a
s the
y pe
rtain
to th
e em
erge
nce
of th
e pu
blic
sphe
re.
The
mod
erni
zatio
n of
soci
ety
with
its t
rem
endo
us so
cial
impa
ct, r
ecei
ved
a
stron
g im
petu
s fro
m th
e te
chno
logi
cal a
nd sc
ient
ific
brea
kthr
ough
s of t
he la
te
nine
teen
th c
entu
ry. I
ndus
trial
izat
ion
led
to th
e re
orga
niza
tion
of la
bour
and
in
com
e. C
ities
gre
w to
acc
omm
odat
e th
e ‘n
ew’ l
abou
rers
. Mod
ern
mod
es o
f tra
nspo
rt m
ade
it ea
sier
to tr
avel
long
dis
tanc
es. A
ll th
ese
deve
lopm
ents
led
to
a pr
oces
s of ‘
norm
aliz
atio
n’. A
goo
d ex
ampl
e is
the
effe
ct o
f the
intro
duct
ion
of
railw
ays.
11 A
fter a
ll, a
relia
ble
rail
netw
ork
requ
ires a
syste
m fo
r acc
urat
e m
easu
rem
ent o
f tim
e. In
the
Net
herla
nds,
for i
nsta
nce,
no
such
syste
m e
xiste
d;
lers
eac
h ye
ar, h
ave
ever
ythi
ng th
at m
akes
a c
ity c
entre
app
ealin
g: p
iazz
as,
shop
ping
stre
ets,
caf
és, b
ars,
resta
uran
ts, h
otel
s, a
nd p
avem
ent c
afés
whe
re
you
can
sit a
ny ti
me,
bec
ause
its b
ound
less
spac
es a
re e
ntire
ly sh
elte
red
from
th
e w
eath
er. E
xper
ienc
ed fl
yers
do
not w
ear c
oats.
Fur
ther
mor
e, th
is c
ity is
al
way
s cle
an a
nd sa
fe. S
ecur
ity se
rvic
es a
nd th
e ai
rpor
t pol
ice
keep
wat
ch,
whi
le ju
nkie
s, b
egga
rs, a
nd ro
ugh
sleep
ers h
ardl
y da
re e
nter
the
mod
ern
ca
thed
rals
of st
eel a
nd g
lass
.’4 Whi
le th
e ar
chite
ct p
rais
es th
e ac
cess
ibili
ty a
nd
vita
lity
of th
e ne
w a
irpor
t, ca
lling
it a
pub
lic d
omai
n, th
e cr
itic
perc
eive
s thi
s di
ffere
ntly.
Afte
r all,
this
type
of c
omm
erci
al se
tting
may
at fi
rst s
eem
acc
essi
ble
to a
ll, b
ut c
amer
as a
nd o
ther
subt
le m
echa
nism
s nev
erth
eles
s fac
ilita
te a
pr
oces
s of m
onito
ring
and
excl
usio
n. C
ould
a sp
ace
that
is n
ot a
cces
sibl
e
for e
very
one,
a sp
ace
whe
re o
ne’s
cond
uct i
s mon
itore
d, re
ally
be
part
of
the
publ
ic d
omai
n? C
ould
this
kin
d of
spac
e ev
en b
e a
publ
ic sp
ace
at a
ll?
With
such
que
stion
s, V
an R
ooy
cont
rasts
new
spac
es su
ch a
s airp
orts,
railw
ay
statio
ns, a
nd sh
oppi
ng m
alls
with
trad
ition
al u
rban
spac
es li
ke p
iazz
as,
shop
ping
stre
ets,
caf
és, a
nd b
ars.
His
crit
icis
m is
bas
ed o
n an
ana
lysi
s of t
hese
new
spac
es b
y th
e Fr
ench
an
thro
polo
gist
Mar
c A
ugé,
who
des
crib
es th
em a
s int
imat
ely
boun
d up
with
m
oder
n fo
rms o
f tra
vel (
plan
es, t
rain
s, a
nd su
bway
s) a
nd q
ualifi
es th
em a
s no
n-pl
aces
. ‘N
on-p
lace
s’, h
e w
rites
, ‘ar
e sp
aces
of t
rans
port
and
trans
it th
at
are
lack
ing
any
histo
rical
sign
ifica
nce
and
stron
g sy
mbo
lism
. If a
pla
ce c
an b
e de
fined
as r
elat
iona
l, hi
storic
al a
nd c
once
rned
with
iden
tity,
then
a sp
ace
whi
ch
can
not b
e de
fined
as r
elat
iona
l, hi
storic
al, o
r con
cern
ed w
ith id
entit
y w
ill b
e a
non-
plac
e.’5 A
ugé’
s ana
lysi
s sho
ws t
hat a
gre
at d
eal o
f life
is n
ow sp
ent i
n th
ese
non-
plac
es, w
aitin
g fo
r pla
nes,
trai
ns, a
nd su
bway
s. Y
et th
e de
sign
of s
uch
spac
es, t
houg
h it
allo
ws t
hem
to fu
lfil t
heir
func
tions
in a
pre
cise
and
effi
cien
t m
anne
r, do
es n
ot p
rom
ote
a ‘p
ublic
exp
erie
nce’
. Whi
le c
ities
’ tra
ditio
nal p
ublic
sp
aces
brin
g pe
ople
toge
ther
, the
se tr
ansi
tiona
l spa
ces d
o no
t app
ear c
apab
le
of d
oing
so. A
ugé
note
s tha
t the
se n
ew sp
aces
are
gen
eric
, rat
her t
han
wov
en
into
the
histo
rical
and
soci
al fa
bric
of t
he c
ity.
This
ana
lysi
s of t
he c
hang
ing
char
acte
r of p
ublic
spac
e, w
hich
Aug
é re
late
s to
airp
ort t
erm
inal
s, ra
ilway
stat
ions
, and
subw
ays,
is n
ot fu
ndam
enta
lly n
ew.
Back
in th
e 19
60s,
the
Ger
man
phi
loso
pher
Jürg
en H
aber
mas
not
ed in
his
wel
l-kn
own
wor
k St
rukt
urw
ande
l der
Öffe
ntlic
hkei
t tha
t the
pub
lic d
omai
n is
und
er
cons
tant
pre
ssur
e fro
m a
ll so
rts o
f for
ces,
and
risk
s van
ishi
ng c
ompl
etel
y.6 I
n re
cent
arc
hite
ctur
al d
isco
urse
, the
198
9 En
glis
h tra
nsla
tion
of H
aber
mas
’ boo
k an
d ar
gum
ents
like
Aug
é’s h
ave
reop
ened
the
deba
te o
n th
e pu
blic
dom
ain,
an
d m
ore
spec
ifica
lly a
bout
its d
eclin
e.7 B
ruce
Rob
bins
’ The
Pha
ntom
Pub
lic
Sphe
re, a
nd M
icha
el S
orki
n’s V
aria
tions
on
a Th
eme
Park
. The
End
of P
ublic
Sp
ace,
8 ar
e tw
o ex
ampl
es d
raw
n fro
m th
e gr
eat fl
ood
of w
orks
exa
min
ing
the
rela
tions
hip
betw
een
the
publ
ic d
omai
n an
d ar
chite
ctur
e. T
hese
aut
hors
tend
to
link
the
notio
n of
the
publ
ic sp
here
to W
este
rn id
eas o
f dem
ocra
cy. F
or in
stanc
e,
Mic
hael
Sor
kin
writ
es in
his
intro
duct
ion,
‘In
the
“pub
lic”
spac
es o
f the
them
e pa
rk o
r the
shop
ping
mal
l, sp
eech
itse
lf is
restr
icte
d: th
ere
are
no d
emon
stra-
tions
in D
isne
ylan
d. T
he e
ffort
to re
clai
m th
e ci
ty is
the
strug
gle
of d
emoc
racy
its
elf.’
9 Whe
n pu
blic
spac
e is
not
acc
essi
ble
to a
ll, d
oes t
his i
mpl
y th
at c
erta
in
grou
ps a
re e
xclu
ded
from
the
inte
ract
ion
that
take
s pla
ce?
Whe
n a
spac
e is
de
fined
by
restr
ictio
ns (n
o de
mon
strat
ions
in D
isne
ylan
d, n
o sk
ateb
oard
ing
in
the
mal
l), to
wha
t ext
ent a
re w
e sti
ll fre
e ag
ents?
Arc
hite
cts a
re in
evita
bly
draw
n to
take
a st
and
on th
e pr
oble
mat
ic re
latio
n-
021 From the Editors
12
Otto
May
r, U
hrw
erk
und
Waa
ge. A
utor
ität,
Frei
heit
und
tech
nisc
he S
yste
me
in d
er
frühe
n N
euze
it. M
ünch
en
(C.H
. Bec
k) 1
987;
Ste
phen
To
ulm
in, C
osm
opol
is. T
he
Hid
den
Age
nda
of M
oder
nity
. N
ew Y
ork
(Fre
e) 1
990.
13
Mic
hel F
ouca
ult,
His
toire
de
la
folie
. Par
is (U
nion
Gén
éral
e de
l’E
ditio
n) 1
964.
14
Zygm
unt B
aum
an, I
ntim
atio
ns
of P
ostm
oder
nity
. Lon
don
(Rou
tledg
e) 1
992,
p. X
IV.
15
Mic
hel F
reita
g, D
iale
ctiq
ue e
t so
ciét
é. V
ol. 2
, Cul
ture
, po
uvoi
r, co
ntrô
le. L
es m
odes
de
répr
oduc
tion
form
els d
e la
so
ciét
é. M
ontré
al (L
es é
ditio
ns
Sain
t-Mar
tin) 1
986.
16
Mic
hel F
ouca
ult,
Nai
ssan
ce d
e la
clin
ique
. Une
arc
héol
ogie
du
rega
rd m
edic
al. P
aris
(PU
F)
1963
; Eng
lish
trans
latio
n:
The
Birth
of t
he C
linic
. An
Arc
haeo
logy
of M
edic
al
Perc
eptio
n. N
ew Y
ork
(Pan
theo
n Bo
oks)
197
3;
Mic
hel F
ouca
ult,
Surv
eille
r et
puni
r. Pa
ris (G
allim
ard)
197
5;
Engl
ish
trans
latio
n: D
isci
plin
e an
d Pu
nish
. The
Birt
h of
the
Pris
on. N
ew Y
ork
(Pan
theo
n Bo
oks)
197
8.
17
Je
ffrey
Her
f, Re
actio
nary
M
oder
nism
. Cam
brid
ge 1
984,
p.
1.
18
Mat
tei C
alin
escu
, Fiv
e Fa
ces o
f M
oder
nity
. Mod
erni
sm, A
vant
-G
arde
, Dec
aden
ce, K
itsch
, Po
stmod
erni
sm. D
urha
m
(Duk
e U
nive
rsity
Pre
ss) 1
987.
19
Arju
n A
ppad
urai
, Mod
erni
ty a
t La
rge.
Cul
tura
l Dim
ensi
ons o
f G
loba
lizat
ion.
Min
neap
olis
(U
nive
rsity
of M
inne
sota
Pre
ss)
1996
.
20
Re
né B
oom
kens
, Een
dre
mpe
l-w
erel
d. M
oder
ne e
rvar
ing
en
stede
lijke
ope
nbaa
rhei
d.
Rotte
rdam
(NA
i Pub
lishe
rs)
1998
.
21
‘L
e tra
nsito
ire, l
e fu
gitif
, le
co
ntin
gent
, la
moi
tié d
e l’a
rt,
dont
l’au
tre m
oitié
est
l’éte
rnel
et
l’im
mua
ble’
; Cha
rles
Baud
elai
re, ‘
Con
stant
in G
uys,
le p
eint
re d
e la
vie
mod
erne
’, in
: Oeu
vres
com
plèt
es. P
aris
(S
euil)
n.d
., p.
553
.
22
Jo
sé O
rtega
y G
asse
t, Th
e Re
volt
of th
e M
asse
s. N
ew Y
ork
(W.W
. Nor
ton
) 193
2; Jo
han
Hui
zing
a, In
the
Shad
ow o
f To
mor
row
. New
Yor
k (W
.W.
Nor
ton)
193
6.
23
Bo
omke
ns, E
en d
rem
pel-
wer
eld,
p. 2
7; se
e al
so A
rthur
M
arw
ick,
The
sixt
ies:
cul
tura
l re
volu
tion
in B
ritai
n, F
ranc
e,
Italy,
and
the
Uni
ted
Stat
es,
c. 1
958
–- c
. 197
4. N
ew Y
ork
(Oxf
ord
Uni
vers
ity P
ress
) 199
8.
as it
doe
s to
thei
r cou
nter
parts
in th
e tw
enty
-firs
t cen
tury
. The
Dut
ch p
hilo
soph
er
René
Boo
mke
ns id
entifi
es fo
ur h
isto
rical
and
phi
loso
phic
al st
ages
of m
oder
ni-
ty.20
The
first
one
starts
in th
e m
id-n
inet
eent
h ce
ntur
y, w
hen
new
inve
ntio
ns,
scie
ntifi
c br
eakt
hrou
ghs,
and
the
rise
of in
dustr
y in
spire
d am
azem
ent,
but a
lso
a di
stinc
t sen
se o
f eph
emer
ality
. Writ
ers l
ike
Cha
rles B
aude
laire
and
Arth
ur
Rim
baud
viv
idly
des
crib
ed th
is e
xper
ienc
e. B
aude
laire
for i
nsta
nce
desc
ribed
th
e co
nditi
on o
f mod
erni
ty a
s ‘th
e tra
nsito
ry, t
he fu
gitiv
e, th
e co
ntin
gent
, one
ha
lf of
art,
the
othe
r hal
f of w
hich
is th
e et
erna
l and
the
imm
utab
le’.21
In th
e se
cond
stag
e, b
etw
een
the
two
wor
ld w
ars,
the
liber
atin
g an
d pr
o-gr
essi
ve p
oten
tial o
f mod
erni
ty w
as st
rong
ly e
mph
asiz
ed. S
cien
tific
and
tech
no-
logi
cal a
dvan
ces i
nspi
red
prof
ound
con
fiden
ce in
the
perfe
ctib
ility
of s
ocie
ty
and
the
prog
ress
of c
ultu
re -
gene
rally
mea
ning
Wes
tern
cul
ture
. Mod
erni
ty w
as
expe
rienc
ed a
s dis
tant
from
the
past
and
aim
ing
at th
e fu
ture
. How
ever
, sim
ulta
-ne
ously
, ala
rmin
g bo
oks w
ere
bein
g w
ritte
n by
phi
loso
pher
s and
his
toria
ns
such
as J
osé
Orte
ga y
Gas
set a
nd Jo
han
Hui
zing
a, w
ho b
elie
ved
that
soci
ety
was
in c
risis
, tha
t it w
as lo
sing
touc
h w
ith c
lass
ical
civ
iliza
tion
and
its c
ultu
ral
idea
ls.22
The
y ev
en w
orrie
d ab
out a
retu
rn to
bar
baris
m. Y
et m
ost t
hink
ers,
and
m
ost a
rchi
tect
s, e
mbr
aced
the
mod
ern
proj
ect a
nd it
s lib
erat
ion
from
the
yoke
of
the
past:
it w
as e
xper
ienc
ed a
s a p
roje
ct o
f lib
erat
ion,
pro
gres
s, a
nd e
man
ci-
patio
n. In
arc
hite
ctur
e, th
is im
plie
d th
e ra
dica
l rec
onsi
dera
tion
of a
rchi
tect
ural
tra
ditio
n. T
he re
sulti
ng ra
dica
l urb
an a
nd a
rchi
tect
ural
pro
ject
s by
avan
t-gar
de
arch
itect
s as L
e C
orbu
sier
and
Ern
st M
ay h
ad a
trem
endo
us im
pact
on
the
pro-
fess
ion
and
on c
ities
.Th
e th
ird st
age
of m
oder
nity
had
a m
ore
diffu
se c
hara
cter
. It s
how
ed
both
regr
essi
ve a
nd p
rogr
essi
ve te
nden
cies
, and
reac
hed
its a
pex
in th
e la
te
1960
s, w
ith th
e se
xual
revo
lutio
n, a
nd th
e Pa
ris p
rote
sts o
f May
196
8 an
d th
e A
mste
rdam
Pro
vo m
ovem
ent.
One
key
feat
ure
of th
is st
age
was
the
emer
genc
e of
the
wel
fare
stat
e an
d m
ass c
ultu
re, r
esul
ting
in g
row
ing
econ
omic
al p
rosp
eri-
ty a
nd so
cial
mob
ility,
but
also
in a
n in
crea
sing
pro
cess
of i
ndiv
idua
lizat
ion.
23
The
four
th st
age
can
be ‘p
ostm
oder
nity
’: m
oder
nity
in c
risis
. Pos
tmod
erni
st th
inke
rs, s
uch
as Je
an F
ranç
ois L
yota
rd, p
rocl
aim
the
end
of a
ll ‘G
reat
inste
ad, e
ach
tow
n an
d vi
llage
set i
ts ow
n tim
e. W
hene
ver a
railw
ay st
atio
n op
ened
, the
loca
l tim
e in
evita
bly
had
to b
e br
ough
t int
o lin
e w
ith th
e tim
e al
l al
ong
the
rout
e. M
ore
gene
rally
, one
cou
ld a
rgue
that
the
ratio
nal c
ontro
l, str
uc-
turin
g, a
nd re
gula
tion
of li
fe is
the
hallm
ark
of m
oder
n ex
iste
nce.
In a
ll do
mai
ns,
mod
erni
zatio
n pr
ompt
s a se
arch
for a
gre
at, n
ew ra
tiona
l wor
ld o
rder
.12
New
ton,
for i
nsta
nce,
reje
cted
med
ieva
l cos
mol
ogy,
repl
acin
g it
with
a w
orld
or
der t
hat w
as m
uch
mor
e ab
strac
t and
com
preh
ensi
ve, a
nd th
eref
ore
mor
e tra
nspa
rent
to re
ason
. The
Fre
nch
revo
lutio
narie
s rep
lace
d ol
d lo
cal m
easu
res
of w
eigh
t, di
stanc
e, a
nd ti
me
with
‘uni
vers
ally
’ app
licab
le o
nes.
The
y ab
olis
hed
the
coun
tless
lega
l sys
tem
s of t
he M
iddl
e A
ges a
nd th
e an
cien
régi
me,
with
all
thei
r priv
ilege
s and
exc
eptio
ns, t
o cl
ear t
he w
ay fo
r a u
nifie
d le
gal c
ode.
In
each
cas
e, a
not
ent
irely
con
trolla
ble
loca
l ord
er m
ade
way
for a
ratio
nally
co
ncei
ved
univ
ersa
l one
. In
the
nam
e of
ratio
nal s
cien
ce, t
his n
ew o
rder
dea
lt ha
rshl
y w
ith c
harla
tans
, fan
tasi
sts, d
ream
ers,
and
poe
ts.13
In sh
ort,
mod
ern
soci
ety
subj
ecte
d th
e w
orld
with
‘obs
essi
vely
legi
slatin
g,
defin
ing,
stru
ctur
ing,
segr
egat
ing,
cla
ssify
ing,
reco
rdin
g an
d un
iver
saliz
ing
state
refle
cted
the
sple
ndor
or u
nive
rsal
and
abo
lute
stan
dard
s of t
ruth
’,14 a
nd
abov
e al
l in
the
nam
e of
esta
blis
hing
ulti
mat
e co
ntro
l ove
r the
wor
ld. H
ence
, th
e C
anad
ian
philo
soph
er M
iche
l Fre
itag
desc
ribes
mod
erni
ty a
s a n
ew w
ay o
f ‘re
gula
ting’
soci
ety.
15 W
hat F
reita
g m
eans
by
regu
latio
n is
the
way
that
soci
ety
is o
rgan
ized
and
repr
oduc
ed in
var
ious
med
ia. B
oth
the
orga
niza
tion
and
the
repr
oduc
tion
of so
ciet
y ch
ange
d pr
ofou
ndly
und
er th
e in
fluen
ce o
f mod
erni
ty.In
ord
er to
mai
ntai
n th
e ill
usio
n of
a p
erfe
ctib
le w
orld
, mod
ern
soci
ety
elim
i-na
ted
anyt
hing
that
man
ifestl
y co
ntra
dict
ed th
at il
lusi
on; a
ll th
e am
biva
lenc
e th
at c
ould
not
be
cont
rolle
d. D
isci
plin
e, ra
tiona
lizat
ion,
and
civ
iliza
tion
are
the
key
term
s of t
his p
roce
ss. W
hoev
er b
ehav
ed u
npre
dict
ably,
irra
tiona
lly, o
r in
any
unci
viliz
ed w
ay h
ad n
o pl
ace
in th
e ca
refu
lly w
eede
d fie
ld o
f act
ivity
that
w
as m
oder
n pu
blic
spac
e. T
heir
re-e
duca
tion
and
ratio
naliz
atio
n co
uld
take
pl
ace
in o
ne o
f the
spec
ializ
ed in
stitu
tions
(suc
h as
pris
ons,
asy
lum
s, w
orkh
ous-
es, a
cade
mie
s, a
nd b
oard
ing
scho
ols)
that
wer
e so
ple
ntifu
l in
mod
ern
soci
ety.
16
Thes
e in
stitu
tions
wer
e bo
th e
xpre
ssio
ns a
nd sa
fegu
ards
of t
he p
erfe
ctib
ility
of
that
soci
ety.
1.2
Mod
erni
ty a
nd it
s sta
ges
Whe
n w
e co
nsid
er th
e co
ncep
t of t
he p
ublic
sphe
re, w
e in
evita
bly
touc
h up
on
anot
her c
once
pt: m
oder
nity.
The
exa
ct n
atur
e of
this
con
ditio
n m
ay v
ary
sub-
stant
ially
, as J
effre
y H
erf e
mph
asiz
es: ‘
Ther
e is
no
such
thin
g as
mod
erni
ty in
ge
nera
l.’17
Diff
eren
t dis
cipl
ines
, suc
h as
phi
loso
phy,
soci
olog
y, a
nd a
rchi
tec-
ture
, hav
e in
terp
rete
d m
oder
nity
in d
iffer
ent w
ays.
Dep
endi
ng o
n on
e’s p
ositi
on
or p
ersp
ectiv
e ‘m
oder
nity
’ tak
es o
n di
ffere
nt se
man
tic fi
gure
s. M
atte
i Cal
ines
cu
writ
es o
f at l
east
‘five
face
s of m
oder
nity
’ in
the
book
with
the
sam
e tit
le,18
and
si
mila
rly, A
rjun
App
adur
ai e
mph
asiz
es in
Mod
erni
ty a
t Lar
ge19
that
mod
erni
ty
com
plie
s to
a va
riety
of m
eani
ngs.
An
arse
nal o
f ter
ms a
nd d
efini
tions
for m
o-de
rnity
has
bee
n de
velo
ped
over
the
past
deca
des.
The
follo
win
g pa
ragr
aphs
pr
ovid
e a
histo
rical
and
phi
loso
phic
al o
verv
iew
and
then
go
on to
dis
cuss
the
diffe
rent
cul
tura
l man
ifesta
tions
rela
ted
to th
e co
ncep
t of m
oder
nity.
A
s men
tione
d be
fore
, mod
erni
ty in
volv
es a
dra
stica
lly a
ltere
d co
nditi
on,
whi
ch re
sults
from
the
proc
esse
s of m
oder
niza
tion.
Obv
ious
ly, th
ere
is n
o w
ay
mod
erni
ty c
ould
hav
e m
eant
the
sam
e th
ing
to p
eopl
e in
the
nine
teen
th c
entu
ry
023 From the Editors
24
Jean
Fra
nçoi
s Lyo
tard
, Th
e Po
stmod
ern
Con
ditio
n.
A Re
port
on K
now
ledg
e.
Min
neap
olis
(Uni
vers
ity o
f M
inne
sota
Pre
ss) 1
984.
25
Boom
kens
, Een
dre
mpe
l-w
erel
d, p
. 35.
26
H
eyne
n,
Arc
hite
ctur
e an
d M
oder
nity
, p.
28;
cf.
Boom
kens
, Een
dr
empe
lwer
eld,
p. 3
5.
27
Mar
shal
l Ber
man
, All
That
is
Solid
Mel
ts in
to A
ir. T
he E
xper
i-en
ce o
f Mod
erni
ty. N
ew Y
ork
(Pen
guin
Boo
ks) 1
982,
p. 1
5.
28
Fe
rdin
and
Tönn
ies,
G
emei
nsch
aft u
nd G
esel
lscha
ft (1
887)
; Eng
lish
trans
latio
n:
Com
mun
ity a
nd C
ivil
Soci
ety.
C
ambr
idge
(Cam
brid
ge
Uni
vers
ity P
ress
) 200
1, p
. 52.
29
Ibid
., pp
. 22-
51.
30
See
e.g.
Mus
tafa
Em
irbay
er
(ed.
), Em
ile D
urkh
eim
. So
ciol
ogis
t of M
oder
nity
. O
xfor
d (B
lack
wel
l) 20
03.
31
Emile
Dur
khei
m, T
he D
ivis
ion
of La
bor i
n So
ciet
y. T
rans
late
d by
Geo
rge
Sim
pson
, New
Yor
k (T
he F
ree
Pres
s) 1
933,
p. 1
81;
orig
inal
title
De
la d
ivis
ion
du
trava
il so
cial
. Par
is 1
893.
32
Geo
rg S
imm
el, ‘
Die
Gro
ß-stä
dte
und
das G
eiste
slebe
n’
(190
3); E
nglis
h tra
nsla
tion:
‘T
he M
etro
polis
and
Men
tal
Life’
, in:
Jam
es F
arga
nis (
ed.),
Re
adin
gs in
Soc
ial T
heor
y.
The
Cla
ssic
Tra
ditio
n to
Po
stmod
erni
sm. T
hird
edi
tion,
N
ew Y
ork
(McG
raw
-Hill
) 20
00, p
. 149
.
the
mos
t im
porta
nt m
eans
for r
egul
atin
g in
the
Ges
ellsc
haft
is m
oney
. C
onse
quen
tly, e
very
thin
g is
exp
ress
ed in
mon
etar
y te
rms.
Tön
nies
sees
the
ci
ty a
s a ty
pica
l exa
mpl
e of
this
soci
ety
base
d on
mon
ey a
nd c
ontra
cts.
The
Fren
ch so
ciol
ogis
t Em
ile D
urkh
eim
poi
nts o
ut th
at w
ith th
e ad
vent
of
mod
erni
ty tr
aditi
onal
‘val
ue p
atte
rns’
can
no
long
er se
rve
as th
e un
derp
inni
ngs
of so
ciet
y. A
ccor
ding
to D
urkh
eim
, the
incr
easi
ng p
roce
ss o
f spe
cial
izat
ion
of
soci
al ro
les,
pro
fess
ions
and
occ
upat
ions
that
is c
hara
cter
istic
of m
oder
nity
pre
-ci
pita
tes c
hang
es in
eth
ics.
30 Th
e tra
ditio
nal c
olle
ctiv
e de
finiti
on o
f soc
ial t
ies
give
s way
to in
divi
dual
istic
solid
arity
. How
ever
, Dur
khei
m n
otes
that
incr
easi
ng
auto
nom
y im
plie
s an
awar
enes
s of g
row
ing
inte
rdep
ende
nce
as w
ell;
of re
lat-
ing
to th
e ot
her i
n or
der t
o or
gani
ze o
ne's
life
. He
calls
this
a sh
ift fr
om ‘m
echa
n-ic
al’ t
o ‘o
rgan
ic’ s
olid
arity
: ‘Th
ere
is th
en, a
soci
al st
ruct
ure
of d
eter
min
ed
natu
re to
whi
ch m
echa
nica
l sol
idar
ity c
orre
spon
ds. W
hat c
hara
cter
izes
it is
a
syste
m o
f seg
men
ts ho
mog
eneo
us a
nd si
mila
r to
each
oth
er. Q
uite
diff
eren
t is
the
struc
ture
of s
ocie
ties w
here
org
anic
solid
arity
is p
repo
nder
ant.
They
are
co
nstit
uted
, not
by
a re
petit
ion
of si
mila
r, ho
mog
eneo
us se
gmen
ts, b
ut b
y a
syste
m o
f diff
eren
t org
ans,
eac
h of
whi
ch h
as a
spec
ial r
ole,
and
whi
ch a
re
them
selv
es fo
rmed
of d
iffer
entia
ted
parts
.’31
In th
e ca
se o
f mec
hani
cal s
olid
arity
, the
uni
quen
ess o
f the
indi
vidu
al
rem
ains
dep
ende
nt o
n a
hom
ogen
eous
gro
up id
entit
y, w
here
as o
rgan
ic so
lidar
-ity
is b
ased
on
the
diffe
renc
es b
etw
een
indi
vidu
als.
Dur
khei
m a
rgue
s tha
t the
fa
r-rea
chin
g so
cial
cha
nges
aris
ing
from
mod
erni
ty d
o no
t dim
inis
h or
ero
de
soci
al c
ohes
ion,
but
alte
r the
nat
ure
of in
terp
erso
nal t
ies.
Dur
khei
m b
elie
ves t
hat
in a
n in
divi
dual
istic
soci
ety,
the
chal
leng
e is
to fi
nd n
ew fo
rms o
f civ
ic c
onsc
ious
-ne
ss, n
ew c
ivic
mor
als,
whi
ch re
plac
e im
ages
of c
omm
unity
dra
wn
from
trad
i-tio
n an
d re
ligio
n.In
his
fam
ous 1
903
essa
y ‘D
ie G
roßs
tädt
e un
d da
s Gei
stesle
ben’
, the
G
erm
an so
ciol
ogis
t Geo
rg S
imm
el d
escr
ibes
the
resu
lting
effe
ct fo
r the
indi
vidu
-al
: ‘Th
e de
epes
t pro
blem
s of m
oder
n lif
e de
rive
from
the
clai
m o
f the
indi
vidu
al
to p
rese
rve
the
auto
nom
y an
d in
divi
dual
ity o
f his
exi
stenc
e in
the
face
of o
ver-
whe
lmin
g so
cial
forc
es, o
f his
toric
al h
erita
ge, o
f ext
erna
l cul
ture
, and
of t
he
tech
niqu
e of
life
. . .
. The
psy
chol
ogic
al b
asis
of t
he m
etro
polit
an ty
pe o
f ind
ivid
-ua
lity
cons
ists
in th
e in
tens
ifica
tion
of n
ervo
us st
imul
atio
n w
hich
resu
lts fr
om th
e sw
ift a
nd u
nint
erru
pted
cha
nge
of o
uter
and
inne
r stim
uli.’
32 A
ccor
ding
to
Sim
mel
mod
ern
urba
nite
s dev
elop
a m
enta
lity,
a so
cal
led
‘bla
sé’ a
ttitu
de: ‘
In
this
phe
nom
enon
the
nerv
es fi
nd in
the
refu
sal t
o re
act t
o th
eir s
timul
atio
n th
e la
st po
ssib
ility
of a
ccom
mod
atin
g to
the
cont
ents
and
form
s of m
etro
polit
an li
fe.
The
self-
pres
erva
tion
of c
erta
in p
erso
nalit
ies i
s bou
ght a
t the
pric
e of
dev
alua
t-
Nar
rativ
es’,
even
of t
he n
arra
tive
of m
oder
nism
.24 T
hey
clai
m th
at th
e m
oder
n pr
ojec
t bro
ught
not
onl
y pr
ogre
ss, b
ut a
lso th
e ra
dica
lly ra
tiona
lized
mac
hine
ry
of A
usch
witz
. Alo
ng w
ith fr
eedo
m, m
oder
nity
bro
ught
alie
natio
n an
d so
cial
ex-
clus
ion.
Pos
tmod
erni
sm w
as fu
rther
arti
cula
ted
by in
fluen
tial p
hilo
soph
ers s
uch
as Ja
cque
s Der
rida,
Mic
hel F
ouca
ult,
and
Jean
Bau
drill
ard.
In c
ontra
st to
som
e of
thei
r mod
erni
st co
unte
rpar
ts, th
ese
postm
oder
n th
inke
rs h
ave
stres
sed
the
de
struc
tive
and
vola
tile
aspe
cts o
f mod
erni
ty –
its t
rans
itory
side
– b
ut h
ave
re-
frain
ed fr
om p
ropo
sing
a n
ew p
roje
ct to
dea
l with
thes
e is
sues
.25 In
som
e ca
ses,
th
is p
ostm
oder
n at
titud
e ha
s eve
n le
d to
nos
talg
ia, m
elan
chol
y, re
lativ
ism
, per
-sp
ectiv
ism
, and
indi
ffere
nce.
26
2
Th
e pu
blic
sphe
re
2.1
Gem
eins
chaf
t in
abse
ntia
Mod
erni
ty is
ofte
n de
scrib
ed a
s a c
ondi
tion
of u
proo
tedn
ess.
The
Am
eric
an
auth
or M
arsh
all B
erm
an w
rites
in h
is 1
982
book
All
That
is S
olid
Mel
ts in
to A
ir.
The
Expe
rienc
e of
Mod
erni
ty: ‘
To b
e m
oder
n is
to fi
nd o
urse
lves
in a
n en
viro
n-m
ent t
hat p
rom
ises
us a
dven
ture
, pow
er, j
oy, g
row
th, t
rans
form
atio
n of
our
-se
lves
and
the
wor
ld –
and
at t
he sa
me
time
thre
aten
s to
destr
oy e
very
thin
g w
e ha
ve, e
very
thin
g w
e kn
ow, e
very
thin
g w
e ar
e.’27
This
con
ditio
n of
soci
al u
proo
tedn
ess h
as b
een
inve
stiga
ted
prev
ious
ly b
y w
ell-k
now
n so
ciol
ogis
ts su
ch a
s Fer
dina
nd T
önni
es, E
mile
Dur
khei
m, G
eorg
Si
mm
el, a
nd M
ax W
eber
. Eac
h in
thei
r ow
n w
ay, t
hey
illum
inat
e th
e pr
ofou
nd
soci
al c
hang
es w
roug
ht b
y m
oder
nity.
The
y re
late
mod
erni
ty to
new
soci
al te
n-de
ncie
s suc
h as
indi
vidu
aliz
atio
n, fr
agm
enta
tion,
diff
eren
tiatio
n, a
nd ra
tiona
li-za
tion.
The
y de
scrib
e ho
w m
oder
nity
dra
stica
lluy
alte
rs in
terp
erso
nal r
elat
ion-
sh
ips a
nd p
atte
rns o
f sol
idar
ity a
nd so
cial
coh
esio
n.M
any
of th
ese
insi
ghts
can
be tr
aced
bac
k to
the
disti
nctio
n dr
awn
by
the
Ger
man
soci
olog
ist F
erdi
nand
Tön
nies
in h
is w
ell-k
now
n 18
87 b
ook
Gem
eins
chaf
t und
Ges
ellsc
haft.
Tön
nies
iden
tifies
two
type
s of s
ocia
l ass
ocia
-tio
n, G
emei
nsch
aft a
nd G
esel
lscha
ft: ‘T
he th
eory
of G
esel
lscha
ft ta
kes a
s its
starti
ng p
oint
a g
roup
of p
eopl
e w
ho, a
s in
Gem
eins
chaf
t, liv
e pe
acef
ully
alo
ng-
side
one
ano
ther
, but
in th
is c
ase
with
out b
eing
ess
entia
lly u
nite
d –
inde
ed, o
n th
e co
ntra
ry, t
hey
are
here
ess
entia
lly d
etac
hed.
In G
emei
nsch
aft t
hey
stay
to-
geth
er in
spite
of e
very
thin
g th
at se
para
tes t
hem
; in
Ges
ellsc
haft
they
rem
ain
sepa
rate
in sp
ite o
f eve
ryth
ing
that
uni
tes t
hem
. As a
resu
lt, th
ere
are
no a
ctiv
i-tie
s tak
ing
plac
e w
hich
are
der
ived
from
an
a pr
iori
and
pre-
dete
rmin
ed u
nity
w
hich
ther
efor
e ex
pres
ses t
he w
ill a
nd sp
irit o
f thi
s uni
ty th
roug
h an
y in
divi
dual
w
ho p
erfo
rms t
hem
.’28
Gem
eins
chaf
t is a
n or
gani
c fo
rm o
f soc
iety.
Indi
vidu
als a
re a
ssim
ilate
d in
it
at b
irth
and
they
rem
ain
affil
iate
d w
ith it
for t
he re
st of
thei
r liv
es. T
heir
way
of
life
is d
eter
min
ed b
y th
e cu
stom
s and
trad
ition
s of t
heir
Gem
eins
chaf
t. Th
ey
rega
rd th
eir a
ctio
ns a
s prim
arily
serv
ing
the
com
mun
ity. I
n th
e G
emei
nsch
aft
indi
vidu
al in
tere
sts a
re o
f no
grea
t im
porta
nce.
Tön
nies
pos
tula
tes t
hat t
his f
orm
of
com
mun
ity is
foun
d m
ainl
y in
rura
l are
as.29
The
rise
of m
oder
nity,
he
cont
inue
s, b
roug
ht a
bout
a se
cond
form
of a
ssoc
i-at
ion:
the
Ges
ellsc
haft,
in w
hich
inte
rper
sona
l rel
atio
nshi
ps d
o no
t dev
elop
or-
gani
cally
. The
rela
tions
hips
bet
wee
n in
divi
dual
s in
Ges
ellsc
haft
are
not f
ound
ed
on a
ny fu
ndam
enta
l con
nect
edne
ss, b
ut o
n co
ntra
cts a
nd a
bstra
ct ru
les.
One
of
025 From the Editors
33
Ibid
., p.
153
.
34
Lo
uis W
irth,
‘Urb
anis
m a
s a
way
of l
ife’,
in: A
mer
ican
Jo
urna
l of S
ocio
logy
, 44
(193
8), n
o. 1
, pp.
1-2
4;
repr
inte
d in
: Ric
hard
Sen
nett
(ed.
), C
lass
ic E
ssay
s on
the
Cul
ture
of C
ities
. New
Yor
k (A
pple
ton-
Cen
tury
-Cro
fts)
1969
, p. 1
56.
35
Zygm
unt B
aum
an, C
omm
unity
: Se
ekin
g Sa
fety
in a
n In
secu
re
Wor
ld. C
ambr
idge
(Pol
ity
Pres
s) 2
001,
pp.
9-1
1.
36
Zy
gmun
t Bau
man
, Mod
erni
ty
and
Am
biva
lenc
e. It
haca
(C
orne
ll U
nive
rsity
Pre
ss)
1991
.
37
Fo
r an
intro
duct
ion
to th
e te
rm
‘pub
lic sp
here
’, se
e A
rthur
St
rum
, ‘A
Bib
liogr
aphy
of t
he
Con
cept
Oef
fent
lichk
eit’,
in:
New
Ger
man
Crit
ique
, Win
ter
1994
, no.
61:
Spe
cial
Issu
e on
N
ikla
s Luh
man
n, p
p. 1
61-2
02.
38
Baum
an, M
oder
nity
and
A
mbi
vale
nce,
p. 7
.
39
Fr
eita
g, D
iale
ctiq
ue e
t soc
iété
. Vo
l. 2,
Cul
ture
, pou
voir,
co
ntrô
le.
40
Déc
lara
tion
des d
roits
de
l’hom
me
et d
u ci
toye
n, 1
798.
41
This
com
plem
enta
ry d
efini
tion
of th
e pr
ivat
e an
d pu
blic
urb
an
dom
ain
has b
een
desc
ribed
fro
m v
ario
us p
ersp
ectiv
es b
y
the
Dut
ch u
rban
ist J
an H
eelin
g:
‘Op
zoek
naa
r de
gron
dsla
gen
van
de st
eden
bouw
’, in
: H
. Bek
kerin
g, P.
Dre
we
et a
l. (e
ds.),
Ste
delij
ke tr
ansf
orm
a-tie
s. A
ctue
le o
pgav
en in
de
stad
en d
e ro
l van
de
stede
-bo
uwku
ndig
e di
scip
line.
Del
ft (D
elft
Uni
vers
ity P
ress
) 199
8,
pp. 1
57-1
83.
2.2
Pu
blic
spac
e: a
new
mod
e of
soci
al o
rgan
izat
ion
The
emer
genc
e of
mod
ern
publ
ic sp
here
is in
extri
cabl
y lin
ked
to th
e ne
ed to
co
pe w
ith th
e so
cial
am
biva
lenc
e ar
isin
g fro
m m
oder
nity,
whi
ch w
as d
iscu
ssed
in
the
prev
ious
par
agra
ph.37
Res
istin
g so
cial
am
biva
lenc
e is
one
of t
he p
rinci
pal
conc
erns
of m
oder
nity,
Bau
man
writ
es th
at ‘t
he e
ffort
to e
xter
min
ate
ambi
va-
lenc
e’ is
a ‘t
ypic
ally
mod
ern
prac
tice,
the
subs
tanc
e of
mod
ern
polit
ics,
of
mod
ern
inte
llect
, of m
oder
n lif
e’.38
The
cont
rol,
dom
estic
atio
n, a
nd re
gula
tion
of
soci
al a
mbi
vale
nce
is o
ne o
f the
mai
n fe
atur
es o
f mod
ern
life.
As n
oted
abo
ve,
Mic
hel F
reita
g de
scrib
es m
oder
nity
in c
ompa
rabl
e te
rms,
as a
new
way
of r
egu-
latin
g so
ciet
y.39
He
char
acte
rises
mod
erni
ty b
y a
new
mod
e of
soci
al re
prod
uc-
tion.
Soc
ial c
odes
and
mes
sage
s are
no
long
er c
onfin
ed to
trad
ition
al sy
mbo
ls,
but a
re a
lso g
ener
ated
and
tran
smitt
ed th
roug
h ne
w c
omm
unic
atio
ns m
edia
, lik
e ne
wsp
aper
s, ra
dio,
tele
visi
on, a
nd so
forth
. Mod
erni
ty, in
Fre
itag’
s vie
w,
mov
es b
eyon
d th
e cu
ltura
l and
sym
bolic
sphe
res t
hat r
egul
ated
the
repr
oduc
tion
of tr
aditi
onal
soci
etie
s, c
reat
ing
a po
litic
al a
nd in
stitu
tiona
l sph
ere
alon
gsid
e th
em. W
ithin
this
‘pub
lic sp
here
’ – th
at is
situ
ated
in c
offe
e ho
uses
, lea
rned
soci
-et
ies,
and
ass
ocia
tions
, in
pam
phle
ts an
d pe
riodi
cals
– ci
tizen
s ins
pire
d by
En
light
enm
ent i
deal
s deb
ate
the
prop
er o
rgan
izat
ion
of so
ciet
y an
d th
e pr
oper
fo
rm o
f com
mun
ity. A
utho
rs li
ke B
aum
an, F
reita
g, a
nd H
aber
mas
agr
ee th
at th
is
new
pub
lic sp
here
is th
e m
ost c
hara
cter
istic
ele
men
t of m
oder
nity.
One
of t
he d
efini
ng d
ocum
ents
of th
e m
oder
n pu
blic
sphe
re is
the
Dec
lara
tion
of th
e Ri
ghts
of M
an a
nd o
f the
Citi
zen.
40 T
his d
ecla
ratio
n, m
ade
in
Par
is d
urin
g th
e Fr
ench
Rev
olut
ion,
esta
blis
hed
lega
l rig
hts o
f pro
perty
for t
he
first
time.
Fro
m th
en o
n, a
n in
divi
dual
cou
ld fo
rmal
ly o
wn
and
man
age
a pl
ot
of la
nd o
r a h
ome.
Par
adox
ical
ly th
e de
clar
atio
n in
clud
ed a
defi
nitio
n of
the
priv
ate
dom
ain
and
esta
blis
hed
the
right
to m
ake
one’
s ow
n ru
les w
ithin
it. T
his
desc
riptio
n of
the
priv
ate
dom
ain
is a
lso th
e fir
st of
ficia
l defi
nitio
n of
a m
oder
n pu
blic
dom
ain.
The
Dec
lara
tion
of th
e Ri
ghts
of M
an a
nd o
f the
Citi
zen
in fa
ct in
trodu
ces
a th
ree-
pron
ged
disti
nctio
n be
twee
n pu
blic
and
priv
ate,
bas
ed o
n ow
ners
hip,
ac
cess
ibili
ty, a
nd p
urpo
se.41
With
rega
rd to
ow
ners
hip,
the
term
‘pub
lic
dom
ain’
rela
tes t
o sp
aces
und
er th
e po
sses
sion
and
man
agem
ent o
f gov
ern-
men
t, th
e pu
blic
sect
or. T
his i
nclu
des a
ll ar
eas w
ith a
col
lect
ive
func
tion,
such
as
stre
ets,
squa
res,
par
ks, a
nd so
me
publ
ic b
uild
ings
. The
pub
lic a
utho
ritie
s ar
e re
spon
sibl
e fo
r am
enity
and
secu
rity
with
in th
ese
spac
es. T
his c
ontra
sts w
ith
the
priv
ate
dom
ain,
whi
ch c
onsi
sts o
f priv
ate
prop
erty
like
land
, sho
ps, o
ffice
s an
d in
terio
r spa
ces,
man
aged
by
the
priv
ate
sect
or.
ing
the
who
le o
bjec
tive
wor
ld, a
dev
alua
tion
that
in th
e en
d un
avoi
dabl
y dr
ags
one’
s ow
n pe
rson
ality
dow
n in
to a
feel
ing
of th
e sa
me
wor
thle
ssne
ss.’33
The
‘b
lasé
’ atti
tude
that
Sim
mel
des
crib
es a
ffect
s not
onl
y on
e’s i
nter
nal e
mot
iona
l lif
e, b
ut a
lso o
ne’s
attit
ude
tow
ards
oth
ers.
Enc
ount
ers b
etw
een
peop
le in
the
city
are
impe
rson
al a
nd m
arke
d by
rese
rve.
The
Am
eric
an u
rban
soci
olog
ist Lo
uis W
irth
expa
nds o
n Si
mm
el’s
theo
ries
in h
is in
fluen
tial 1
938
essa
y ‘U
rban
ism a
s a w
ay o
f life
’. W
irth
argu
es th
at th
e so
cial
cha
nges
resu
lting
from
mod
erni
ty c
an b
est b
e pe
rcei
ved
in th
e m
oder
n ci
ty, w
hich
is d
istin
guish
ed b
y its
size
, den
sity,
and
het
erog
enei
ty. H
ere
one
can
note
how
freq
uent
inte
ract
ion
does
not
nec
essa
rily
lead
to tr
ue so
ciab
ility,
but
im
plie
s mer
ely
play
ing
parti
cula
r rol
es, s
uch
as p
ostm
an, f
ello
w su
bway
pas
sen-
ger,
and
so o
n. M
oder
n ur
bani
tes,
Wirt
h sa
ys, s
how
a g
row
ing
tend
ency
to
enco
unte
r eac
h ot
her i
n se
gmen
tal,
utili
taria
n ro
les.
In fa
ct, h
e ad
ds, m
oder
n so
ciet
y is
the
prod
uct o
f a c
ompl
ex in
terp
lay
of ro
les:
‘By
virtu
e of
his
diffe
rent
in-
tere
sts a
risin
g ou
t of d
iffer
ent a
spec
ts of
soci
al li
fe, t
he in
divi
dual
acq
uire
s mem
-be
rshi
p in
wid
ely
dive
rgen
t gro
ups,
eac
h of
whi
ch fu
nctio
ns o
nly
with
refe
renc
e to
a c
erta
in se
gmen
t of h
is pe
rson
ality
. Nor
do
thes
e gr
oups
eas
ily p
erm
it of
a
conc
entri
c ar
rang
emen
t so
that
the
narr
ower
one
s fal
l with
in th
e ci
rcum
fere
nce
of
the
mor
e in
clus
ive
ones
, as i
s mor
e lik
ely
to b
e th
e ca
se in
the
rura
l com
mun
ity o
r in
prim
itive
soci
etie
s. R
athe
r the
gro
ups w
ith w
hich
the
pers
on ty
pica
lly is
affi
liat-
ed a
re ta
ngen
tial t
o ea
ch o
ther
or i
nter
sect
in h
ighl
y va
riabl
e fa
shio
n.’34
Wirt
h sa
w th
at th
e m
oder
n se
tting
of t
he c
ity m
akes
it p
ossi
ble
to k
eep
mov
ing
from
one
soci
al c
ircle
to a
noth
er w
ithou
t tru
ly g
ettin
g to
kno
w a
nyon
e.
In th
e ci
ty a
per
son
can,
so to
spea
k, m
ove
from
one
wor
ld to
ano
ther
and
m
ay b
ehav
e di
ffere
ntly
in e
ach
one
with
out a
nyon
e no
ticin
g th
e di
ffere
nce.
Fu
rther
mor
e, b
ecau
se th
e ci
ty b
rings
ver
y di
ffere
nt p
eopl
e to
geth
er in
a sm
all
area
, one
is c
onsta
ntly
in th
e co
mpa
ny o
f stra
nger
s. P
eopl
e w
ho a
re w
orld
s ap
art i
n so
cial
term
s mus
t ofte
n sh
are
the
sam
e fe
w p
hysi
cal s
quar
e m
etre
s.
In th
e m
oder
n ur
ban
setti
ng, r
ich
and
poor
stan
d in
line
nex
t to
each
oth
er,
Chr
istia
ns, J
ews,
and
Mus
lims s
it si
de b
y si
de o
n th
e tra
m. D
iffer
ent g
roup
s an
d cl
asse
s are
con
tinua
lly c
ross
ing
path
s.In
his
boo
k C
omm
unity
: See
king
Saf
ety
in a
n In
secu
re W
orld
, the
Pol
ish
so
ciol
ogis
t Zyg
mun
t Bau
man
offe
rs a
synt
hesi
s of m
any
of th
e ab
ove-
men
tione
d in
sigh
ts in
to th
e re
latio
nshi
p be
twee
n m
oder
nity
and
com
mun
ity. H
e ar
gues
th
at m
oder
nity
ero
ded
the
‘den
se so
ciab
ility
’ of t
he p
re-m
oder
n, fe
udal
soci
ety,
di
srup
ting
tradi
tiona
l pat
tern
s of r
ight
s and
dut
ies.
It sh
atte
red
the
sens
e of
a
natu
ral s
ocia
l hie
rarc
hy, i
n w
hich
eac
h in
divi
dual
has
a fi
xed
plac
e w
ithin
the
fam
ily, v
illag
e, o
r urb
an c
omm
unity
. Bau
man
und
ersc
ores
that
the
prom
ise
of
libe
ratio
n fro
m tr
aditi
on, o
f ind
ivid
ual f
reed
om, a
nd o
f sel
f-rea
lizat
ion,
a
prom
ise
whi
ch is
an
inhe
rent
par
t of m
oder
nity,
com
es a
t a h
igh
pric
e. A
fter a
ll,
this
free
dom
goe
s han
d in
han
d w
ith th
e lo
ss o
f sec
urity
, of t
acit,
shar
ed o
pin-
ions
, and
of s
ocia
l tie
s and
shar
ed se
ntim
ents,
all
of w
hich
wer
e ce
ntra
l to
tradi
-tio
nal w
ays o
f life
.35
Baum
an su
gges
ts th
at th
e di
sapp
eara
nce
of tr
aditi
onal
form
s of s
ocia
l or
gani
zatio
n, o
f fam
iliar
type
s of c
omm
unity
, cre
ates
‘soc
ial a
mbi
vale
nce’
.36
With
in m
oder
nity,
indi
vidu
al ro
les a
nd in
terp
erso
nal r
elat
ions
are
nev
er c
lear
fro
m th
e ou
tset,
neve
r defi
ned
unam
bigu
ously
in a
dvan
ce. B
aum
an h
olds
that
m
oder
nity
pos
es th
e pr
oble
m o
f the
ong
oing
org
aniz
atio
n an
d re
orga
niza
tion
of th
e so
cial
sphe
re, o
f soc
iety.
027 From the Editors
In S
trukt
urw
ande
l der
Öffe
ntlic
hkei
t, H
aber
mas
sum
mar
izes
the
deve
lop-
men
tal h
isto
ry o
f the
pub
lic sp
here
, whi
ch h
e lin
ks to
the
rise
of c
apita
list s
ocie
ty
in E
urop
e. H
is a
rgum
ent,
state
d br
iefly
, is t
hat t
he a
dven
t of t
he st
ock
exch
ange
, as
a re
sult
of th
e m
arch
of c
apita
lism
, led
aro
und
1550
to th
e em
erge
nce
of
tradi
ng o
rgan
izat
ions
that
obt
aine
d po
litic
al p
ower
. The
resu
lt w
as a
dom
ain
of
öffe
ntlic
he p
ower
, in
whi
ch th
e sta
te a
nd th
e do
min
ant e
cono
mic
cla
ss w
ere
in
cha
rge.
Tho
se w
ho d
id n
ot b
elon
g to
this
dom
ain
had
no a
cces
s to
it. A
s cap
i-ta
lism
con
tinue
d to
exp
and
and
inte
nsify
, how
ever
, a n
ew b
ourg
eois
clas
s of
doct
ors,
law
yers
, and
scho
lars
em
erge
d, w
hich
dev
elop
ed a
crit
ique
of ö
ffent
li-ch
e po
wer
. Hen
ce, i
n th
e ei
ghte
enth
cen
tury
a b
ourg
eois
publ
ic sp
here
was
bor
n in
whi
ch th
e or
gani
zatio
n of
soci
ety
was
subj
ect t
o cr
itica
l exa
min
atio
n: ‘T
he
bour
geoi
s pub
lic sp
here
may
be
conc
eive
d ab
ove
all a
s the
sphe
re o
f priv
ate
peop
le w
ho c
ome
toge
ther
as a
pub
lic; t
hey
soon
cla
imed
the
publ
ic sp
here
reg-
ulat
ed fr
om a
bove
aga
inst
the
publ
ic a
utho
ritie
s the
mse
lves
, to
enga
ge th
em in
a
deba
te o
ver t
he g
ener
al ru
les g
over
ning
rela
tions
in th
e ba
sical
ly p
rivat
ized
but
pu
blic
ly re
leva
nt sp
here
of c
omm
odity
exc
hang
e an
d so
cial
labo
r.’44
Acc
ordi
ng to
Hab
erm
as, i
n th
is n
ew o
rder
, deb
ates
on
how
to o
rgan
ize
soci
ety
took
pla
ce in
per
sona
l dis
cuss
ions
and
in p
rint m
edia
. The
pre
ss w
as
one
med
ium
that
pla
yed
an im
porta
nt ro
le in
the
form
atio
n of
pub
lic o
pini
on
(öffe
ntlic
he M
einu
ng),
beca
use
it fu
nctio
ned
as a
foru
m in
whi
ch c
itize
ns c
ould
di
scus
s im
porta
nt so
cial
issu
es. B
ooks
, pam
phle
ts, a
nd n
ewsp
aper
s circ
ulat
ed
amon
g th
e lit
erat
e, se
rvin
g as
veh
icle
s for
thes
es, a
naly
ses,
arg
umen
ts, a
nd
coun
tera
rgum
ents
that
refe
rred
to o
ne a
noth
er o
r con
tradi
cted
one
ano
ther
. Th
e ne
w p
ublic
spac
es a
lso in
clud
ed p
hysi
cal f
orum
s suc
h as
salo
ns, c
afés
, an
d cl
ubs,
whe
re m
embe
rs o
f diff
eren
t cla
sses
met
to e
ngag
e in
deb
ate,
ver
bal
spar
ring,
and
dis
play
s of r
heto
rical
soph
istic
atio
n.
It w
ould
all
have
bee
n un
thin
kabl
e be
fore
the
eigh
teen
th c
entu
ry: t
he n
ews-
pape
rs a
nd p
erio
dica
ls, th
e pr
inte
d ev
iden
ce o
f the
new
free
dom
of e
xpre
ssio
n th
at w
as so
on to
be
ensh
rined
in th
e la
w, a
long
with
the
freed
om o
f ass
ocia
tion.
Fo
r Hab
erm
as th
e En
light
enm
ent w
as th
e ra
dian
t, in
spiri
ng d
awn
of m
oder
nity,
an
d th
e cr
eatio
n of
the
publ
ic sp
here
was
one
of i
ts gr
eate
st ac
hiev
emen
ts, if
no
t its
very
ess
ence
. The
opp
ortu
nity
for t
he p
ublic
to fo
rm th
eir o
wn
opin
ions
, he
repe
ated
ly e
mph
asiz
es, i
s a n
eces
sary
con
ditio
n of
hum
an fr
eedo
m a
nd
eman
cipa
tion.
Acc
ordi
ng to
Hab
erm
as, t
he b
ourg
eois
pub
lic sp
here
is th
e ba
ckbo
ne
of W
este
rn d
emoc
racy
, whe
re a
ll th
e pu
blic
deb
ates
take
pla
ce th
at se
rve
as
the
basi
s for
pol
itica
l dec
isio
ns, d
ebat
es th
at a
re e
ntire
ly o
pen
to a
ll ci
tizen
s.
Öffe
ntlic
hkei
t is t
he sp
here
in w
hich
idea
s can
be
freel
y ex
pres
sed,
exc
hang
ed,
and
criti
cize
d. T
his a
ctiv
e fo
rmat
ion
of p
ublic
opi
nion
diff
ers s
trong
ly fr
om th
e tra
ditio
nal s
ituat
ion,
in w
hich
pub
lic o
pini
on w
as c
hara
cter
ized
prim
arily
by
its
unco
nsid
ered
cha
ract
er a
nd th
e fa
ct th
at it
was
not
subj
ect t
o di
scus
sion
and
cr
itici
sm. W
hat w
ent o
n in
trad
ition
al c
omm
uniti
es w
as m
ore
like
pass
ive
trans
-m
issi
on o
f ide
as o
n th
e pu
blic
opi
nion
from
gen
erat
ion
to g
ener
atio
n.
The
seco
nd d
istin
ctio
n be
twee
n pu
blic
and
priv
ate
dom
ains
rela
tes t
o
acce
ssib
ility
. The
pub
lic d
omai
n is
acc
essi
ble
to a
ll, a
t eve
ry m
omen
t of t
he
day.
Stre
ets,
squa
res,
par
ks, a
nd th
e ci
ty’s
othe
r pub
lic sp
aces
are
not
gen
eral
ly
fenc
ed in
. Any
one
is fr
ee to
use
them
, up
to a
poi
nt. T
he u
se o
f the
priv
ate
dom
ain
may
be
subj
ect t
o re
stric
tions
, how
ever
. Bus
ines
ses m
ay h
ave
limite
d op
enin
g ho
urs,
and
org
aniz
atio
ns m
ay re
stric
t the
num
ber o
r typ
e of
vis
itors
th
ey re
ceiv
e. B
y de
finiti
on, t
he p
rivat
e do
mai
n is
exc
lusi
ve, s
hutti
ng o
ut th
e
prov
erbi
al O
ther
. The
pub
lic d
omai
n is
incl
usiv
e; it
serv
es to
stre
ngth
en th
e so
cial
fabr
ic.
The
third
way
in w
hich
one
can
dis
tingu
ish
betw
een
the
publ
ic a
nd th
e pr
ivat
e do
mai
n is
in te
rms o
f the
ir pu
rpos
e. A
hou
se h
as a
n in
divi
dual
pur
pose
; it
serv
es th
e in
tere
sts o
f an
indi
vidu
al o
r a p
rivat
e bo
dy (a
fam
ily, b
usin
ess,
or
orga
niza
tion)
. Squ
ares
, stre
ets,
or p
ublic
bui
ldin
gs, o
n th
e ot
her h
and,
hav
e
a co
llect
ive
purp
ose;
they
serv
e th
e pu
blic
inte
rest.
The
hou
se is
ther
efor
e th
e sy
mbo
l of t
he p
rivat
e do
mai
n, w
hile
the
squa
re, t
he p
ublic
bui
ldin
g, a
nd th
e str
eet a
re sy
mbo
ls of
the
publ
ic d
omai
n. T
he u
se a
nd m
anag
emen
t of p
ublic
sp
aces
are
ofte
n gr
ound
ed in
soci
al m
otiv
es, w
hile
the
use
and
man
agem
ent o
f pr
ivat
e sp
aces
are
mor
e of
ten
base
d on
indi
vidu
al o
r per
sona
l con
side
ratio
ns.
In th
is c
ompl
emen
tary
app
roac
h, th
e pu
blic
dom
ain
is c
lear
ly d
istin
guis
hed
from
the
priv
ate
dom
ain.
Nev
erth
eles
s, a
ccor
ding
to th
is d
efini
tion,
onl
y a
smal
l po
rtion
of t
he c
ity is
pub
lic d
omai
n –
nam
ely,
the
spac
e th
at is
und
er p
ublic
ow
ners
hip,
is a
lway
s acc
essi
ble,
and
has
a c
olle
ctiv
e pu
rpos
e. T
he re
st of
the
spac
e m
ust b
e as
sign
ed to
the
priv
ate
or se
mi-p
ublic
dom
ain.
Thi
s app
roac
h
excl
udes
cou
ntle
ss sp
aces
in w
hich
the
rela
tions
hip
betw
een
publ
ic a
nd p
rivat
e is
mor
e co
mpl
ex. T
hese
spac
es a
re o
ften
of c
entra
l im
porta
nce
in th
e co
ntem
po-
rary
city
and
soci
ety.
The
trip
artit
e di
stinc
tion
betw
een
publ
ic a
nd p
rivat
e sti
ll
influ
ence
s man
y di
scus
sion
s on
the
publ
ic d
omai
n. W
hat i
s mor
e, it
s mul
tiple
de
finiti
ons o
f pub
lic a
nd p
rivat
e of
ten
lead
to m
isun
ders
tand
ings
.Th
e te
rm ‘p
ublic
sphe
re’ i
s wid
er in
scop
e th
an ‘p
ublic
dom
ain’
. It a
lso
refe
rs to
a sp
ecifi
c pr
actic
e or
set o
f pra
ctic
es. T
he p
hilo
soph
ical
deb
ate
on th
e co
ncep
t of t
he p
ublic
sphe
re is
ofte
n lin
ked
to th
e di
scus
sion
on
the
deve
lopm
ent
of W
este
rn d
emoc
racy
. The
wor
k of
the
philo
soph
ers J
ürge
n H
aber
mas
and
H
anna
h A
rend
t and
that
of t
he so
ciol
ogis
t Ric
hard
Sen
nett
help
s to
clar
ify th
e
rela
tions
hip
betw
een
this
theo
retic
al d
ebat
e an
d ac
tual
pub
lic sp
ace.
2.3
A
ppro
ache
s to
the
mod
ern
publ
ic sp
here
: Hab
erm
as, A
rend
t, an
d Se
nnet
t
Jü
rgen
Hab
erm
as: a
new
mod
e of
soci
al re
prod
uctio
n
A v
arie
ty o
f thi
nker
s hav
e at
tem
pted
to d
escr
ibe
the
char
acte
ristic
s of t
he
mod
ern
publ
ic sp
here
. With
out a
dou
bt, t
he G
erm
an p
hilo
soph
er Jü
rgen
H
aber
mas
is o
ne o
f the
mos
t im
porta
nt. H
is w
ell-k
now
n bo
ok S
trukt
urw
ande
l de
r Öffe
ntlic
hkei
t is d
evot
ed e
ntire
ly to
this
subj
ect.42
Hab
erm
as d
efine
s the
term
Ö
ffent
lichk
eit,
‘the
publ
ic sp
here
’, as
‘a re
alm
of s
ocia
l life
in w
hich
som
ethi
ng
appr
oach
ing
publ
ic o
pini
on c
an b
e fo
rmed
. . .
and
in w
hich
citi
zens
can
co
nfer
in a
n un
restr
ictiv
e m
anne
r’.43
He
desc
ribes
this
sphe
re a
s a so
cial
do
mai
n –
alon
gsid
e th
e sta
te a
nd th
e co
mm
erci
al d
omai
n –
in w
hich
ratio
nal
disc
ussi
on ta
kes p
lace
bet
wee
n ci
tizen
s on
mat
ters
of g
ener
al in
tere
st. T
he
publ
ic o
pini
on e
mer
ging
from
this
ratio
nal d
ebat
e fo
rmal
ly a
nd in
form
ally
in
fluen
ces t
he o
rgan
izat
ion
of so
ciet
y.
42
Hab
erm
as, T
he S
truct
ural
Tr
ansf
orm
atio
n of
the
Publ
ic
Sphe
re. F
or a
det
aile
d di
scus
-si
on o
f the
con
cept
of t
he
publ
ic sp
here
in th
e w
ork
of
Jürg
en H
aber
mas
, see
Pet
er
Hoh
enda
hl &
Pat
ricia
Rus
sian
,
‘Jürg
en H
aber
mas
: “Th
e Pu
blic
Sp
here
” (1
964)
’, in
: N
ew G
erm
an C
ritiq
ue, 1
974,
pp
. 45-
48.
43
Hab
erm
as, T
he S
truct
ural
Tr
ansf
orm
atio
n of
the
Publ
ic
Sphe
re, p
. 141
; Eng
lish
trans
latio
n: Jü
rgen
Hab
erm
as,
Sara
Lenn
ox, &
Fra
nk Le
nnox
, ‘T
he P
ublic
Sph
ere.
An
Ency
clop
edia
Arti
cle’
(196
4),
in: N
ew G
erm
an C
ritiq
ue,
no. 3
(Aut
umn
1974
), p.
49.
44
Hab
erm
as, T
he S
truct
ural
Tr
ansf
orm
atio
n of
the
Publ
ic
Sphe
re, p
. 27.
029 From the Editors
45
Hab
erm
as, L
enno
x, &
Lenn
ox,
‘The
Pub
lic S
pher
e. A
n En
cycl
oped
ia A
rticl
e’, p
. 54.
46
Hab
erm
as, T
he S
truct
ural
Tr
ansf
orm
atio
n of
the
Publ
ic
Sphe
re, p
. 171
.
47
Ib
id.,
p. 1
73.
48
Osk
ar N
egt &
Ale
xand
er
Klug
e, Ö
ffent
lichk
eit u
nd
Erfa
hrun
g. Z
ur O
rgan
isat
ions
-an
alys
e vo
n bü
rger
liche
r und
pr
olet
aris
cher
Öffe
ntlic
hkei
t. Fr
ankf
urt a
.M. (
Suhr
kam
p)
1972
; Eng
lish
trans
latio
n by
Pe
ter L
aban
yi e
t al.,
Pub
lic
Sphe
re a
nd E
xper
ienc
e.
Tow
ard
an A
naly
sis o
f the
Bo
urge
ois a
nd P
role
taria
n Pu
blic
Sph
ere.
Min
neap
olis
1993
. For
an
intro
duct
ion
to
the
thin
king
of N
egt a
nd K
luge
, se
e Fr
edric
Jam
eson
, ‘O
n N
egt
and
Klug
e’, i
n: O
ctob
er
(Aut
umn
1988
), vo
l. 46
: ‘A
lexa
nder
Klu
ge: T
heor
etic
al
Writ
ings
, Sto
ries,
and
an
Inte
rvie
w’,
pp. 1
51-1
77.
49
Neg
t & K
luge
, Pub
lic S
pher
e an
d Ex
perie
nce,
p. 1
2.
50
Ib
id. S
ee a
lso E
berh
ard
Knöd
ler-B
unte
, Sar
a Le
nnox
, &
Fran
k Le
nnox
, ‘Th
e Pr
olet
aria
n Pu
blic
Sph
ere
and
Polit
ical
O
rgan
izat
ion.
An
Ana
lysi
s of
Osk
ar N
egt a
nd A
lexa
nder
Kl
uge’
s “Th
e Pu
blic
Sph
ere
and
Expe
rienc
e”’,
in: N
ew G
erm
an
Crit
ique
, Win
ter 1
975,
no.
4,
pp. 5
1-75
.
51
Nan
cy F
rase
r, ‘R
ethi
nkin
g th
e Pu
blic
Sph
ere.
A c
ontri
butio
n to
the
criti
que
of a
ctua
lly
exis
ting
dem
ocra
cy’,
in: C
raig
C
alho
un (e
d.),
Hab
erm
as a
nd
the
Publ
ic S
pher
e. C
ambr
idge
, M
ass.
(MIT
Pre
ss) 1
992,
p.
123
.
52
C
athe
rine
R. S
quire
s,
‘Ret
hink
ing
the
Blac
k Pu
blic
Sp
here
. An
Alte
rnat
ive
Voca
bula
ry fo
r Mul
tiple
Pub
lic
Sphe
res’
, in:
Com
mun
icat
ion
Theo
ry, 1
2 (2
002)
, no.
4,
pp. 4
46-4
68, a
t p. 4
46.
53
Ibid
., p.
457
.
54
C
raig
J. C
alho
un, S
ocia
l Th
eory
and
the
Polit
ics o
f Id
entit
y. C
ambr
idge
, Mas
s.
(Bla
ckw
ell)
1994
.
55
Jo
hn D
owne
y &
Nat
alie
Fe
nton
, ‘N
ew M
edia
, Cou
nter
Pu
blic
ity a
nd th
e Pu
blic
Sp
here
’, in
: New
Med
ia
Soci
ety,
(200
3), n
o. 5
, pp
. 185
-202
.
56
Th
eodo
r W. A
dorn
o,
‘Mei
nung
sfor
schu
ng u
nd
Öffe
ntlic
hkei
t’ (1
964)
, in:
Id
em, S
ozio
logi
sche
Sch
rifte
n I,
Fran
kfur
t 197
2, p
p.
532-
537;
Eng
lish
trans
latio
n:
‘Opi
nion
Res
earc
h an
d Pu
blic
ness
’, in
: Soc
iolo
gica
l Th
eory
, 23
(Mar
ch 2
005)
, no
. 1, p
p. 1
16-1
23.
of th
eir c
lass
, gen
der,
statu
s, o
r rac
e.51
In ‘R
ethi
nkin
g th
e Bl
ack
Publ
ic S
pher
e:
An
Alte
rnat
ive
Voca
bula
ry fo
r Mul
tiple
Pub
lic S
pher
es’,
Cat
herin
e R.
Squ
ires
advo
cate
s an
elab
orat
e ty
polo
gy o
f the
pub
lic sp
here
, with
cat
egor
ies s
uch
as
‘enc
lave
, cou
nter
publ
ic, a
nd sa
telli
te p
ublic
sphe
res’
.52 N
ew v
ocab
ular
y of
this
ki
nd w
ill m
ake
it po
ssib
le, s
he a
rgue
s, to
dis
tingu
ish
amon
g a
wid
e ra
nge
of c
oun-
terp
ublic
sphe
res o
n th
e ba
sis o
f ‘ho
w th
ey re
spon
d to
dom
inan
t soc
ial p
ress
ures
, le
gal r
estri
ctio
ns, a
nd o
ther
cha
lleng
es fr
om d
omin
ant p
ublic
s and
the
state
’.53
A n
umbe
r of a
utho
rs h
ave
also
poi
nted
out
the
impo
rtanc
e of
the
new
mas
s m
edia
in th
e fo
rmat
ion
of a
cou
nter
publ
ic sp
here
. Cra
ig C
alho
un, f
or in
stanc
e,
has a
sser
ted
that
the
mas
s med
ia ‘a
re n
ot e
ntire
ly n
egat
ive
and
ther
e is
a c
erta
in
amou
nt o
f roo
m o
f man
oeuv
re fo
r alte
rnat
ive
dem
ocra
tic m
edia
stra
tegi
es’.54
John
D
owne
y an
d N
atal
ie F
ento
n ha
ve e
xpan
ded
on th
is id
ea in
thei
r arti
cle
‘New
M
edia
, Cou
nter
Pub
licity
and
the
Publ
ic S
pher
e’, i
n w
hich
they
giv
e va
rious
exa
m-
ples
of h
ow th
e In
tern
et h
as m
ade
coun
ter-p
ublic
sphe
res p
ossi
ble
– fo
r ins
tanc
e in
th
e Za
patis
ta a
nd M
cSpo
tligh
t cam
paig
ns –
thro
ugh
‘sm
all,
alte
rnat
ive,
non
-mai
n-str
eam
, rad
ical
, gra
ssro
ots o
r com
mun
ity m
edia
’.55 T
hese
per
spec
tives
ech
o th
e ar
ticle
‘Mei
nung
sfor
schu
ng u
nd Ö
ffent
lichk
eit’
that
the
Ger
man
phi
loso
pher
Th
eodo
r W. A
dorn
o pu
blis
hed
in 1
964,
in w
hich
he
high
light
ed th
e im
porta
nce
of th
e m
ass m
edia
in th
e m
oder
n pu
blic
sphe
re.56
Ado
rno
poin
ts ou
t tha
t the
mas
s m
edia
pla
ys a
dua
l rol
e, a
s bot
h ‘fo
rum
s’ a
nd ‘o
rgan
s’ o
f pub
lic o
pini
on. H
is
anal
ysis
of t
he m
ass m
edia
as s
imul
tane
ously
incu
lcat
ing
a no
rmat
ive
conc
ept o
f th
e pu
blic
sphe
re a
nd a
ctin
g as
veh
icle
s for
pub
lic p
ract
ices
still
seem
s im
porta
nt
toda
y as
we
seek
to u
nder
stand
new
cou
nter
-pub
lic sp
here
s.
H
anna
h A
rend
t: th
e po
litic
al d
imen
sion
or t
he sp
ace
of a
ppea
ranc
e
In h
er b
ook
The
Hum
an C
ondi
tion
(195
8), t
he G
erm
an-A
mer
ican
phi
loso
pher
H
anna
h A
rend
t lin
ks th
e co
ncep
t of t
he p
ublic
sphe
re to
pol
itica
l act
ion.
The
pu
blic
sphe
re, A
rend
t say
s, is
a p
lace
whe
re p
eopl
e ac
t rat
her t
han
wor
k. T
his
pers
pect
ive
she
base
s on
an A
risto
telia
n di
stinc
tion
betw
een
two
form
s of a
ctiv
ity.
The
first
type
of a
ctiv
ity, l
abou
r, is
cha
ract
eriz
ed b
y ne
cess
ity a
nd c
ompu
lsion
, an
d th
e se
cond
, act
ion,
by
freed
om a
nd se
lf-re
aliz
atio
n. B
y ac
ting
and
spea
king
Th
e tra
nsfo
rmat
ion
of th
e pu
blic
sphe
reJü
rgen
Hab
erm
as’ t
itle
Stru
ktur
wan
del d
er Ö
ffent
lichk
eit r
efer
s to
the
chan
ges t
hat
the
publ
ic sp
here
has
und
ergo
ne si
nce
the
eigh
teen
th c
entu
ry. H
aber
mas
bel
ieve
s it
has b
een
in d
eclin
e. In
late
cap
italis
m, H
aber
mas
says
, the
pub
lic sp
here
has
de-
gene
rate
d in
to a
man
ipul
ated
real
m. T
he in
stitu
tions
that
wer
e su
ppos
ed to
foste
r an
d pr
otec
t the
pub
lic sp
here
– v
olun
tary
ass
ocia
tions
and
the
mas
s med
ia –
hav
e gr
adua
lly b
een
recu
pera
ted
by st
ate
and
econ
omy.
Civ
il-so
ciet
y or
gani
zatio
ns a
nd
asso
ciat
ions
that
pre
viou
sly w
orke
d to
dev
elop
info
rmed
pub
lic o
pini
on, n
o lo
nger
ha
ve th
e cr
itica
l dist
ance
that
is in
disp
ensa
ble
to p
ublic
deb
ate.
In sh
ort,
‘larg
e or
-ga
niza
tions
striv
e fo
r pol
itica
l com
prom
ises w
ith th
e sta
te a
nd w
ith e
ach
othe
r, ex
-cl
udin
g th
e pu
blic
sphe
re w
hene
ver p
ossib
le’.45
The
com
mun
icat
ions
med
ia th
at
citiz
ens a
re m
eant
to u
se to
air
thei
r opi
nion
s, a
rgum
ents,
and
crit
icism
are
, to
a gr
owin
g ex
tent
, in
the
serv
ice
of p
rivat
e, c
omm
erci
al in
tere
sts. W
hat c
ould
hav
e be
en a
n in
stitu
tiona
l pill
ar o
f the
pub
lic sp
here
has
deg
ener
ated
into
an
instr
umen
t of
pub
licity
. ‘Th
e w
orld
fash
ione
d by
the
mas
s med
ia’,
Hab
erm
as sa
ys, ‘
is a
publ
ic
sphe
re in
app
eara
nce
only.
’46 Th
e co
nten
t diss
emin
ated
thro
ugh
the
med
ia is
no
long
er c
ritic
al a
nd a
rgum
enta
tive
in c
hara
cter
, but
refle
cts t
he p
rom
otio
nal c
hara
c-te
r of t
he c
ultu
re o
f con
sum
ptio
n. T
he in
filtra
tion
of m
arke
t prin
cipl
es in
to th
e m
ass
med
ia h
as, a
ccor
ding
to H
aber
mas
, tra
nsfo
rmed
act
ive,
ratio
nal p
ublic
deb
ate
into
pas
sive
cultu
ral c
onsu
mpt
ion.
As a
resu
lt, ‘t
he so
undi
ng b
oard
of a
n ed
ucat
ed
strat
um tu
tore
d in
the
publ
ic u
se o
f rea
son
has b
een
shat
tere
d; th
e pu
blic
is sp
lit
apar
t int
o m
inor
ities
of s
peci
alist
s who
put
thei
r rea
son
to u
se n
on-p
ublic
ly a
nd th
e m
ass o
f con
sum
ers w
hose
rece
ptiv
enes
s is p
ublic
but
unc
ritic
al. C
onse
quen
tly, i
t co
mpl
etel
y la
cks t
he fo
rm o
f com
mun
icat
ion
spec
ific
to th
e pu
blic
.’47
C
ount
er-p
ublic
sphe
res
The
publ
ic sp
here
ext
ends
muc
h fu
rther
than
the
bour
geoi
s sph
ere
desc
ribed
by
Jürg
en H
aber
mas
, a fa
ct th
at h
as b
een
brou
ght f
orw
ard
by th
e G
erm
an p
hilo
so-
pher
s Osk
ar N
egt a
nd A
lexa
nder
Klu
ge. I
n Ö
ffent
lichk
eit u
nd E
rfahr
ung,
they
em
phas
ize
that
one
of t
he e
ssen
tial f
eatu
res o
f the
pub
lic sp
here
is th
at it
alw
ays
cont
ains
Geg
enöf
fent
lichk
eit,
coun
ter-p
ublic
sphe
res.
48 N
egt a
nd K
luge
dem
on-
strat
e th
at a
t the
sam
e tim
e as
Hab
erm
as’ l
iber
al, b
ourg
eois
pub
lic sp
here
cam
e in
to b
eing
, pop
ulat
ed m
ainl
y by
lite
rate
whi
te m
en, s
o di
d pr
olet
aria
n, p
lebe
ian,
an
d fe
mal
e pu
blic
sphe
res.
The
y cl
aim
that
the
publ
ic sp
here
is n
ot a
n ex
pres
sion
of
the
disc
ours
e w
ithin
a si
ngle
soci
al c
lass
, but
that
mor
e ty
pica
lly a
var
iety
of
soci
al g
roup
s len
d th
eir c
ontra
sting
voi
ces t
o th
e de
bate
. The
two
auth
ors s
tress
th
e pl
ural
ity o
f the
pub
lic sp
here
, in
whi
ch n
ew fo
rms o
f pub
lic li
fe a
re c
onsta
ntly
em
ergi
ng: ‘
Thes
e ne
w fo
rms s
eem
to p
eopl
e to
be
no le
ss p
ublic
than
the
tradi
tion-
al b
ourg
eois
pub
lic sp
here
. Her
e an
d in
wha
t fol
low
s we
only
und
ersta
nd th
e pu
blic
sphe
re a
s an
aggr
egat
e of
phe
nom
ena
that
hav
e co
mpl
etel
y di
vers
e
char
acte
ristic
s and
orig
ins.
The
pub
lic sp
here
has
no
hom
ogen
eous
subs
tanc
e w
hatso
ever
.’49
As N
egt a
nd K
luge
see
it, o
ne o
f the
hal
lmar
ks o
f the
pub
lic sp
here
is th
at it
m
akes
it p
ossi
ble
for i
ndiv
idua
ls to
inte
rpre
t soc
ial r
ealit
y an
d ex
pres
s tho
se in
ter-
pret
atio
ns. I
n th
is se
nse,
the
publ
ic sp
here
is a
‘cen
tral e
lem
ent i
n th
e or
gani
zatio
n of
hum
an e
xper
ienc
e’.50
A si
mila
r vie
w is
exp
ress
ed b
y th
e co
ntem
pora
ry so
cial
th
eoris
t Nan
cy F
rase
r. Sh
e to
o em
phas
izes
that
Hab
erm
as’ n
otio
n of
the
publ
ic
sphe
re e
xclu
des a
var
iety
of p
ublic
s. T
hese
suba
ltern
pub
lics o
r cou
nter
publ
ics,
as
Fra
ser c
alls
them
, inc
lude
‘suc
h di
vers
e gr
oups
as w
omen
, wor
kers
, peo
ples
of
col
or, a
nd g
ays a
nd le
sbia
ns’,
who
are
bar
red
from
the
publ
ic sp
here
bec
ause
031 From the Editors
57
Han
nah
Ahr
endt
, The
Hum
an
Con
ditio
n. C
hica
go/L
ondo
n (U
nive
rsity
of C
hica
go P
ress
) 19
98, p
. 198
; orig
inal
edi
tion
1958
. See
also
:geo
rge
Baird
, Th
e Sp
ace
of A
ppea
ranc
e.
Cam
brid
ge, M
ass.
(MIT
Pre
ss)
1995
, cha
pter
7.
58
Ibid
., p.
7.
59
Ibid
., pp
. 28-
37; 1
92-1
99.
60
Ibid
., p.
50.
61
Ibid
., p.
52.
62
Ibid
., p.
60.
63
Ibid
., p.
57.
64
Rich
ard
Senn
ett,
The
Fall
of
Pub
lic M
an. N
ew Y
ork
(Vin
tage
) 197
7.
65
Ib
id.,
p. 2
9.
Ri
char
d Se
nnet
t: th
e ris
e an
d fa
ll of
‘civ
icne
ss’
Build
ing
on A
rend
t, w
ho d
efine
s the
term
‘pol
is’ a
s the
locu
s of t
he p
ublic
sp
here
, the
soci
olog
ist R
icha
rd S
enne
tt pl
aces
the
publ
ic c
lear
ly in
the
cont
ext
of th
e ci
ty. In
his
196
7 bo
ok T
he F
all o
f Pub
lic M
an, S
enne
tt de
scrib
es th
e
the
mod
ern
city
’s pu
blic
sphe
re a
s the
spac
e in
whi
ch a
nony
mou
s ind
ivid
uals
in
tera
ct.64
The
con
cept
of ‘
the
publ
ic’ i
s clo
sely
con
nect
ed to
the
emer
genc
e of
m
oder
n ur
ban
life.
With
in th
is c
onte
xt, p
ublic
spac
e w
as u
nder
stood
as t
he
soci
al sp
ace
in w
hich
stra
nger
s mee
t. Th
is sp
ace
incl
uded
bou
leva
rds a
nd c
ity
park
s, a
s wel
l as t
he c
afés
, the
atre
s, a
nd o
pera
hou
ses w
here
‘the
pub
lic’ c
on-
greg
ated
. Who
ever
took
a st
roll
on th
e bo
ulev
ard
or w
ent t
o th
e th
eatre
was
ve
ntur
ing
out a
mon
g un
fam
iliar
peo
ple.
Unt
il th
at ti
me,
the
thea
tre- a
nd o
pera
-go
ing
publ
ic h
ad b
een
a re
lativ
ely
clos
e ci
rcle
of p
eopl
e w
ho k
new
eac
h ot
her
wel
l, an
d w
hen
they
gat
here
d to
see
a pe
rform
ance
, it w
as u
sual
ly b
y in
vita
tion.
In
mod
ern
urba
n lif
e, h
owev
er, t
he p
ublic
had
incr
easi
ngly
bec
ome
an a
ssem
-bl
age
of st
rang
ers,
and
telli
ngly,
per
form
ance
s no
long
er re
quire
d an
invi
tatio
n bu
t the
pur
chas
e of
a ti
cket
.A
s enc
ount
ers w
ith st
rang
ers b
ecam
e m
ore
frequ
ent,
soci
ety
need
ed n
ew
soci
al c
onve
ntio
ns to
brin
g or
der t
o th
e ne
w d
omai
n of
the
publ
ic. S
enne
tt us
es
the
notio
n of
‘civ
icne
ss’ t
o de
scrib
e th
e ur
ban
soci
al c
onve
ntio
ns th
at e
mer
ge in
th
e ei
ghte
enth
cen
tury
. Civ
icne
ss p
erm
eate
d ev
ery
aspe
ct o
f pub
lic in
tera
ctio
n,
such
as l
angu
age,
dre
ss, a
nd, a
bove
all,
atti
tude
: ‘Pl
ayac
ting
in th
e fo
rm o
f m
anne
rs, c
onve
ntio
ns, a
nd ri
tual
ges
ture
s is t
he v
ery
stuff
out o
f whi
ch p
ublic
re
latio
ns a
re fo
rmed
.’65
In e
ight
eent
h-ce
ntur
y Pa
ris, L
ondo
n, o
r Rom
e, S
enne
tt w
rites
, the
pub
lic
dom
ain
was
a sp
here
of r
egul
ated
soci
abili
ty. It
was
qui
te n
orm
al fo
r pas
sers
- by
in p
ublic
spac
es to
gre
et o
ne a
noth
er, e
ven
if th
ey w
ere
com
plet
e str
ange
rs.
The
patro
ns o
f caf
és a
nd a
le h
ouse
s fre
ely
deba
ted
mat
ters
of g
ener
al in
tere
st w
ithou
t bei
ng a
cqua
inte
d. P
erso
nal r
emar
ks w
ere
avoi
ded.
The
pub
lic d
omai
n w
as a
safe
hav
en, w
here
peo
ple
coul
d tra
de in
thei
r priv
ate
conc
erns
for a
pu
blic
ly o
rient
ed c
osm
opol
itan
life.
Wha
t was
true
of i
nter
actio
n in
par
ks a
nd th
eatre
s was
also
true
of p
ublic
de
bate
; who
ever
took
par
t in
it w
as e
nter
ing
the
publ
ic d
omai
n an
d ha
d th
ere-
fore
to o
bey
the
rule
s of p
ublic
app
eara
nce.
As d
ress
and
cou
rteou
snes
s wer
e to
inte
ract
ion
with
stra
nger
s in
the
park
, so
eloq
uenc
e an
d ar
gum
enta
tive
skill
s w
ere
to in
tera
ctio
n in
pub
lic d
ebat
e. A
rgum
ent w
as p
art o
f civ
icne
ss, a
s wer
e co
urte
sy, t
act,
and
char
m. I
t was
the
mos
t sui
tabl
e w
ay o
f ens
urin
g th
at d
is-
agre
emen
ts be
twee
n str
ange
rs d
id n
ot g
et o
ut o
f han
d. Ju
st as
citi
zens
dre
ssed
in
a c
erta
in w
ay in
pub
lic to
con
form
to so
cial
nor
ms r
athe
r tha
n to
exp
ress
thei
r pe
rson
aliti
es, a
rgum
ents
wer
e a
mea
ns o
f per
suad
ing
one’
s aud
ienc
e ra
ther
th
an a
mod
e of
self-
expr
essi
on. I
n th
is c
limat
e of
tole
ranc
e an
d so
ciab
le in
tera
c-tio
n w
ith st
rang
ers,
pub
lic d
ebat
e co
uld
flour
ish,
says
Sen
nett,
who
se a
rgum
ent
in th
is re
spec
t res
embl
es th
at o
f Hab
erm
as. N
ot o
nly
urba
n sp
ace,
but
also
pol
i-
in p
ublic
spac
e, w
e ap
pear
to o
ne a
noth
er a
s fre
e an
d eq
ual i
ndiv
idua
ls, a
nd
polit
ics b
ecom
e po
ssib
le, A
rend
t cla
ims.
She
writ
es: ‘
Act
ion
and
spee
ch c
reat
e a
spac
e be
twee
n th
e pa
rtici
pant
s whi
ch c
an fi
nd it
s pro
per l
ocat
ion
alm
ost a
ny
time
and
anyw
here
. It i
s the
spac
e of
app
eara
nce
in th
e w
ides
t sen
se o
f the
w
ord,
nam
ely
the
spac
e w
here
I ap
pear
to o
ther
s as o
ther
s app
ear t
o m
e,
whe
re m
en e
xist
not m
erel
y lik
e ot
her l
ivin
g or
inan
imat
e th
ings
but
mak
e th
eir
appe
aran
ce e
xplic
itly.
’57
The
esse
nce
of th
e pu
blic
sphe
re, a
s Are
ndt i
dent
ifies
it, i
s to
allo
w u
s to
rela
te to
one
ano
ther
in o
ur p
lura
lity,
with
the
aim
of c
reat
ing
a co
mm
on w
orld
: ‘A
ctio
n, th
e on
ly a
ctiv
ity th
at g
oes o
n di
rect
ly b
etw
een
men
with
out t
he in
term
e-di
ary
of th
ings
or m
atte
r, co
rres
pond
s to
the
hum
an c
ondi
tion
of p
lura
lity,
to
the
fact
that
men
, not
Man
, liv
e on
the
earth
and
inha
bit t
he w
orld
. Whi
le a
ll as
pect
s of t
he h
uman
con
ditio
n ar
e so
meh
ow re
late
d to
pol
itics
, thi
s plu
ralit
y is
sp
ecifi
cally
the
cond
ition
– n
ot o
nly
the
cond
itio
sine
qua
non
, but
the
cond
itio
per q
uam
– o
f all
polit
ical
life
.’58
The
spac
e th
at A
rend
t ass
ocia
tes w
ith th
is c
ondi
tion
and
activ
ity is
pub
lic
spac
e, a
nd sh
e ha
rks b
ack
to th
e co
ncep
t of t
he a
gora
, the
mar
ketp
lace
of t
he
anci
ent G
reek
pol
is (c
ity-st
ate)
.59 In
oth
er w
ords
, Are
ndt a
rgue
s tha
t the
re is
a
spec
ific
plac
e w
here
peo
ple,
in a
ll th
eir d
iver
sity,
can
– a
nd m
ust –
be
seen
and
he
ard.
Out
of t
his p
ersp
ectiv
e, th
e pu
blic
spac
e is
the
stage
on
whi
ch p
eopl
e pe
rform
. Hen
ce, A
rend
t cle
arly
doe
s not
sim
ply
equa
te th
e pu
blic
sphe
re w
ith
the
agor
a, o
r with
any
oth
er p
artic
ular
pub
lic sp
ace,
urb
an o
r oth
erw
ise.
She
be
lieve
s tha
t the
pub
lic sp
here
can
take
man
y fo
rms.
Bui
ldin
g on
a re
publ
ican
tra
ditio
n, sh
e se
es a
hig
hly
deve
lope
d ci
vic
publ
ic c
ultu
re a
s one
in w
hich
citi
-ze
ns p
artic
ipat
e en
erge
tical
ly in
num
erou
s ass
ocia
tions
of a
ll si
zes t
hat o
ffer
them
opp
ortu
nitie
s for
‘act
ion’
. The
med
ia c
an p
oten
tially
do
a gr
eat d
eal t
o su
ppor
t thi
s cul
ture
, she
says
. The
y co
ntrib
ute
info
rmat
ion,
cre
atin
g th
eir o
wn
little
pub
lic sp
aces
– in
new
spap
ers,
for e
xam
ple
– w
here
citi
zens
can
thin
k ab
out p
ublic
them
es to
geth
er.
For A
rend
t, th
e te
rm ‘p
ublic
sphe
re’ h
as tw
o cl
osel
y co
nnec
ted,
but
not
id
entic
al, m
eani
ngs.
Firs
tly, s
he se
es th
e pu
blic
sphe
re a
s ess
entia
l to
hum
an
exis
tenc
e. W
hat a
ppea
rs in
the
publ
ic sp
here
mus
t be
genu
inel
y vi
sibl
e an
d
acce
ssib
le to
eve
ryon
e. R
ealit
y is
firs
t con
stitu
ted
by th
is p
roce
ss o
f ent
erin
g th
e pu
blic
sphe
re: ‘
It m
eans
firs
t tha
t eve
ryth
ing
that
app
ears
in p
ublic
can
be
seen
an
d he
ard
by e
very
body
and
has
the
wid
est p
ossi
ble
publ
icity
. For
us,
app
ear-
ance
– so
met
hing
that
is b
eing
seen
and
hea
rd b
y ot
hers
, as w
ell a
s by
our-
selv
es –
con
stitu
tes r
ealit
y.’60
Onl
y th
at w
hich
is b
roug
ht in
to th
e pu
blic
sphe
re
and
can
be d
iscu
ssed
by
a br
oad
publ
ic m
akes
a c
ontri
butio
n to
soci
ety.
Onl
y
a lif
e liv
ed in
pub
lic c
an b
e m
eani
ngfu
l, A
rend
t say
s. T
he se
cond
mea
ning
that
A
rend
t ass
igns
to th
e te
rm ‘p
ublic
sphe
re’ i
s ‘th
e w
orld
itse
lf, in
sofa
r as i
t is
com
mon
to u
s all
and
disti
ngui
shed
from
our
priv
atel
y ow
ned
plac
e in
it’.61
She
sta
tes t
hat t
his w
orld
is c
onsti
tute
d by
the
‘wor
ld o
f thi
ngs’
whi
ch is
the
hum
an
artifi
ce. U
ndou
bted
ly, A
rchi
tect
ure
is p
art o
f thi
s wor
ld o
f thi
ngs –
and
is a
s suc
h a
prem
ise
for p
ublic
life
.A
rend
t, to
o, re
fers
to a
dec
line
in th
e pu
blic
sphe
re. S
he se
es a
loss
of ‘
com
-m
onal
ity’ r
esul
ting
from
the
rise
of m
ass s
ocie
ty. W
hat c
once
rns h
er is
not
that
th
ere
are
so m
any
peop
le, b
ut th
at th
e w
orld
bet
wee
n th
em c
an n
o lo
nger
co
nnec
t and
div
ide
them
.62 A
ccor
ding
to A
rend
t, w
ithou
t thi
s typ
e of
com
mon
al-
ity, e
ach
indi
vidu
al re
mai
ns su
spen
ded
in h
is o
wn
indi
vidu
ality
, in
his o
wn
pure
ly p
erso
nal e
xper
ienc
e.63
033 From the Editors
66
Brun
o La
tour
, We
Hav
e N
ever
Be
en M
oder
n. C
ambr
idge
(H
arva
rd U
nive
rsity
Pre
ss)
1993
.
67
Fo
r an
intro
duct
ion
to th
e w
ork
of Le
doux
, see
Ant
hony
Vid
ler,
Cla
ude-
Nic
olas
Ledo
ux. A
rchi
-te
ctur
e an
d U
topi
a in
the
Era
of
the
Fren
ch R
evol
utio
n. B
asel
/Bo
ston
(Birk
häus
er) 2
006.
68
Fran
zisk
a Bo
llere
y,
Arc
hite
ktur
konz
eptio
n
der u
topi
sche
n So
zial
iste
n.
Alte
rnat
ive
Plan
ung
und
Arc
hite
ktur
für d
en g
esel
l-sc
haftl
iche
n Pr
ozes
s. M
ünch
en
(Moo
s) 1
977.
69
Geo
rge
G. I
gger
s, T
he
Doc
trine
of S
aint
-Sim
on.
An
Expo
sitio
n. N
ew Y
ork
(Sch
ocke
n Bo
oks)
197
2; K
eith
Tayl
or (e
d.),
Hen
ri Sa
int S
imon
17
60-1
825.
Sel
ecte
d W
ritin
gs
on S
cien
ce, I
ndus
try a
nd
Soci
al O
rgan
izat
ion.
New
Yo
rk (H
olm
es &
Mei
er) 1
975.
70
Bolle
rey,
Arc
hite
kturk
onze
ptio
n de
r uto
pisc
hen
Sozi
alis
ten.
71
C
harle
s Fou
rier,
Trai
té d
e l’a
ssoc
iatio
n ag
ricol
e (1
822)
, Le
nou
veau
mon
de in
dustr
iel
(182
9).
72
Karl
Mar
x &
Frie
dric
h En
gels,
Th
e C
omm
unis
t Man
ifesto
(1
848)
, in:
Kar
l Mar
x,
Sele
cted
Writ
ings
. Ed.
La
wre
nce
H. S
imon
, In
dian
apol
is (H
acke
tt) 1
994,
p.
184
.
and
Cha
rles F
ourie
r. In
Ow
en’s
desi
gn fo
r the
vill
age
of N
ew La
nark
(181
5)
in S
cotla
nd, a
larg
e, c
olle
ctiv
e sp
ace
is th
e ce
ntra
l mea
ns o
f mix
ing
wor
kers
’ dw
ellin
gs w
ith p
ublic
are
as su
ch a
s nur
sery
scho
ols,
a c
omm
unal
din
ing
hall,
ki
tche
ns, a
nd li
brar
ies.
Ow
en c
alle
d th
e re
sult
a ‘C
omm
unity
of M
utua
l A
ssoc
iatio
n’.68
Also
in F
ranc
e, so
cial
mov
emen
ts, b
ased
on
utop
ian
idea
s abo
ut
a m
oder
n pu
blic
sphe
re, e
mer
ged
afte
r 180
0. T
he S
aint
-Sim
onis
ts –
nam
ed
afte
r the
nin
etee
nth-
cent
ury
refo
rmer
Cla
ude
Hen
ri de
Sai
nt-S
imon
, esta
blis
hed
thei
r firs
t soc
iety
bui
ldin
gs in
Par
is a
roun
d 18
30. T
hese
bui
ldin
gs h
ouse
d ab
out
fifte
en fa
mili
es, a
nd a
man
sion
form
ed th
e pu
blic
cen
tre fo
r all
the
hous
ehol
ds,
whe
re p
eopl
e co
uld
mee
t, ea
t tog
ethe
r, an
d so
forth
. The
Sai
nt S
imon
iste
s ai
med
to c
reat
e ne
w c
omm
unal
form
s of s
ocie
ty. La
nd o
wne
rshi
p an
d bi
rth
no lo
nger
mat
tere
d, b
ut ra
ther
skill
s in
the
scie
nces
and
indu
stry.
69
Yet n
one
of th
ese
initi
ativ
es c
ould
riva
l Cha
rles F
ourie
r’s v
isio
n of
a ‘n
ew
indu
stria
l wor
ld’,
as h
e ca
lled
it in
his
ess
ay ‘L
e no
uvea
u m
onde
indu
strie
l’ (1
829)
. Ide
al c
omm
uniti
es o
r ‘ph
alan
xes’
, hou
sed
in p
hala
nstè
res,
wer
e to
form
th
e co
rner
stone
of F
ourie
r’s n
on-re
pres
sive
soci
ety.
In h
is e
arly
writ
ings
, Fou
rier
desc
ribes
the
outw
ard
char
acte
ristic
s of h
is p
hala
nstè
re; i
ts la
yout
is b
ased
on
that
of t
he p
alac
e at
Ver
saill
es. T
he c
entra
l bui
ldin
g w
as in
tend
ed fo
r pub
lic
purp
oses
(and
incl
uded
the
dini
ng h
all,
libra
ry, a
nd c
onse
rvat
ory)
, whi
le
priv
ate
apar
tmen
ts an
d w
ork
area
s wer
e lo
cate
d in
the
win
gs.70
In T
raité
de
l’ass
ocia
tion
agric
ole
(182
2), F
ourie
r des
crib
ed th
e ph
alan
stère
as a
min
iatu
re
city
in w
hich
the
stree
ts w
ere
shel
tere
d fro
m th
e el
emen
ts, so
that
it w
ould
al
way
s be
poss
ible
to e
ncou
nter
oth
er p
eopl
e.71
Four
ier’s
new
indu
stria
l wor
ld re
mai
ned
a dr
eam
, des
pite
num
erou
s atte
mpt
s to
foun
d ph
alan
stère
s in
Euro
pe a
nd A
mer
ica.
The
pro
ject
that
mos
t nea
rly
appr
oach
ed F
ourie
r’s id
eas w
as th
e Fa
mili
stère
whi
ch th
e in
dustr
ialis
t Jea
n-Ba
ptis
te G
odin
had
bui
lt ne
xt to
his
fact
ory
in th
e no
rther
n Fr
ench
tow
n of
Gui
se
betw
een
1859
and
187
0. T
his c
ompl
ex c
onsi
sts o
f thr
ee re
side
ntia
l bui
ldin
gs,
a cr
èche
, a n
urse
ry sc
hool
, a th
eatre
, sch
ools,
a sw
imm
ing
pool
, and
a la
undr
y.
Its m
ost d
istin
ctiv
e el
emen
ts, h
owev
er, a
re th
e la
rge
cour
tyar
ds w
ith o
verh
ead
light
ing,
with
gal
lerie
s alo
ngsi
de th
em th
at g
ive
acce
ss to
the
apar
tmen
ts. T
hese
ce
ntra
l cou
rtyar
ds w
ere
conc
eive
d as
pla
ces f
or p
ublic
use
and
inte
ract
ion.
In
The
Com
mun
ist M
anife
sto, K
arl M
arx
and
Frie
dric
h En
gels
seve
rely
crit
iciz
ed
the
expe
rimen
ts of
Uto
pian
soci
alis
ts su
ch a
s Ow
en a
nd F
ourie
r: ‘T
hey
still
drea
m o
f exp
erim
enta
l rea
lisat
ion
of th
eir s
ocia
l Uto
pias
, of f
ound
ing
isol
ated
“p
hala
nstè
res”
, of e
stabl
ishi
ng “
Hom
e C
olon
ies”
, of s
ettin
g up
a “
Little
Icar
ia”
–
duod
ecim
o ed
ition
s of t
he N
ew Je
rusa
lem
– a
nd to
real
ise
all t
hese
cas
tles
in th
e ai
r, th
ey a
re c
ompe
lled
to a
ppea
l to
the
feel
ings
and
pur
ses o
f the
bo
urge
ois.
’72
tics b
ecam
e pu
blic
. No
long
er w
ere
gove
rnm
ent a
ffairs
dis
cuss
ed o
nly
in th
e se
lect
circ
le o
f the
nob
ility
and
the
adm
inis
trativ
e el
ite; i
nste
ad, t
hey
beca
me
po
litic
al is
sues
, tha
t per
tain
ed to
eve
ryon
e’s i
nter
ests
and
abou
t whi
ch p
eopl
e fo
rmed
thei
r ow
n op
inio
ns.
3
Th
e pu
blic
sphe
re a
nd a
rchi
tect
ure:
repr
esen
ting
and
acco
mm
odat
ing
the
publ
ic d
omai
n
‘The
mos
t vita
l for
ce in
our
tim
e se
ems t
o be
the
awak
enin
g sp
irit o
f dem
ocra
cy
. . .
and
it m
ay b
e th
at th
e liv
ing
art w
e ho
pe fo
r will
em
body
this
spiri
t.’Ba
rry
Park
er, 1
910
‘The
peo
ple
wan
t the
bui
ldin
gs th
at re
pres
ent t
heir
soci
al a
nd c
omm
unity
life
to
give
mor
e th
an fu
nctio
nal f
ulfil
lmen
t. Th
ey w
ant t
heir
aspi
ratio
n fo
r mon
umen
tal-
ity, j
oy, p
ride,
and
exc
item
ent t
o be
satis
fied.
The
fulfi
llmen
t of t
his d
eman
d ca
n be
acc
ompl
ishe
d w
ith th
e ne
w m
eans
of e
xpre
ssio
n at
han
d, th
ough
it is
no
easy
task
.’Si
gfrie
d G
iedi
on, J
osé
Luis
Ser
t, Fe
rnan
d Lé
ger,
Nin
e Po
ints
on M
onum
enta
lity,
194
3
3.1
Shap
ing
the
publ
ic sp
here
The
mod
ern
publ
ic sp
here
is n
ot m
erel
y a
subj
ect o
f writ
ing
and
thou
ght.
In
mod
ern
Wes
tern
soci
ety,
to a
gro
win
g ex
tent
, ‘pu
blic
’ is c
onsi
dere
d to
be
that
w
hich
can
be
plan
ned
and
orga
nize
d. T
he p
ublic
sphe
re is
defi
ned
as th
e do
mai
n of
act
ivity
in w
hich
soci
ety
can
start
to b
uild
itse
lf. T
he p
ublic
sphe
re is
th
e co
nstit
utio
nal s
yste
m th
at la
ys d
own
a pe
rson
’s rig
hts;
it is
the
abstr
act s
pace
of
the
econ
omic
free
mar
ket;
it is
the
foru
m o
f sci
entis
ts di
sman
tling
trad
ition
al
know
ledg
e; it
is th
e m
oder
n, b
urea
ucra
tic sy
stem
, whi
ch d
oes a
way
with
pr
ivile
ge, n
epot
ism
, and
irre
gula
ritie
s by
impo
sing
a u
nive
rsal
, rat
iona
lly
plan
ned
orde
r.66
3.2
The
acco
mm
odat
ion
of th
e pu
blic
as a
n ex
plic
it ai
m o
f arc
hite
ctur
e
The
perfe
ctib
ility
of t
he m
oder
n pu
blic
sphe
re fi
nds i
ts fu
llest
expr
essi
on in
the
dom
ain
of m
oder
n ar
chite
ctur
e an
d ur
ban
plan
ning
. Env
isio
ning
the
publ
ic
sphe
re b
y m
eans
of a
rchi
tect
ural
and
urb
an fo
rm is
one
of t
he c
hief
aim
s of
mod
ern
arch
itect
ure.
The
mod
ern
faith
in th
e po
tent
ial o
f arc
hite
ctur
e to
influ
-en
ce h
uman
beh
avio
ur a
nd a
rticu
late
the
publ
ic sp
here
is a
ptly
illu
strat
ed b
y Fr
ench
arc
hite
ct C
laud
e-N
icol
as Le
doux
in th
e ei
ghte
enth
cen
tury
. Led
oux
be-
lieve
d th
at e
very
thin
g –
polit
ics,
mor
als,
legi
slatio
n –
was
with
in th
e sc
ope
of
the
arch
itect
, who
m h
e de
scrib
ed a
s ‘eq
ual t
o th
e C
reat
or’.67
Ledo
ux sp
ent m
uch
of h
is li
fe d
esig
ning
the
idea
l ind
ustri
al to
wn.
His
onl
y bu
ilt w
ork
was
the
Salin
e Ro
yale
in A
rc-e
t-Sen
ans (
Fran
ce),
a se
mic
ircul
ar c
ompl
ex. I
n th
e m
iddl
e is
a
larg
e pu
blic
spac
e, d
omin
ated
by
the
dire
ctor
’s ho
use
but a
lso a
cces
sibl
e to
th
e ot
her i
nhab
itant
s of t
he c
ity su
ch a
s lab
oure
rs, c
lerk
s, a
nd se
rvan
ts. Le
doux
re
gard
ed th
is sp
ace
as a
pla
ce fo
r rec
reat
ion
and
for m
eetin
g ot
her p
eopl
e,
whe
re d
iffer
ent s
ocia
l cla
sses
cou
ld o
bser
ve a
nd in
fluen
ce o
ne a
noth
er.
We
find
a si
mila
r pai
ring
of a
vis
ion
of th
e pu
blic
sphe
re w
ith a
rchi
tect
ural
fo
rm in
the
wor
k of
nin
etee
nth-
cent
ury
soci
al u
topi
ans,
such
as R
ober
t Ow
en
035 From the Editors
73
Susa
n H
ende
rson
, ‘A
Set
ting
for M
ass C
ultu
re. L
ife a
nd
Leis
ure
in th
e N
idda
Val
ley’
, in
: Pla
nnin
g Pe
rspe
ctiv
es,
no. 1
0 (1
995)
, pp.
199
-222
.
74
Ib
id.,
p. 1
99.
75
For a
dis
cuss
ion
of p
asto
ral
and
coun
ter-p
asto
ral r
eact
ions
to
mod
erni
ty, se
e al
so:
Hey
nen,
Arc
hite
ctur
e an
d M
oder
nity
(not
e 10
).
76
Br
uno
Taut
, Mod
ern
Arc
hite
ctur
e (1
929)
, as q
uote
d in
: Pau
l Gre
enha
lgh
(ed.
), M
oder
nism
in D
esig
n. Lo
ndon
(R
eakt
ion
Book
s) 1
990,
p. 4
8.
77
For a
n in
trodu
ctio
n to
CIA
M,
see
Eric
Mum
ford
, The
CIA
M
Dis
cour
se o
n U
rban
ism
. C
ambr
idge
, Mas
s. (M
IT P
ress
) 20
05.
78
Engl
ish
trans
latio
n in
: Ulri
ch
Con
rads
(ed.
), Pr
ogra
ms a
nd
Man
ifesto
es o
n 20
th-c
entu
ry
Arc
hite
ctur
e. C
ambr
idge
, M
ass.
(MIT
Pre
ss) 1
975,
p.
111
.
79
Le C
orbu
sier
, La
Ville
Rad
ieus
e (1
936)
. Par
is (V
ince
nt, F
réal
&
Cie
) 196
4; E
nglis
h tra
nsla
tion:
Th
e Ra
dian
t City
. Ele
men
ts of
a
Doc
trine
of U
rban
ism
to b
e U
sed
as th
e Ba
sis o
f Our
Mac
hine
-Age
Civ
iliza
tion.
Lo
ndon
(Fab
er &
Fab
er) 1
967,
p.
87.
80
‘Il fa
ut tu
er la
“ru
e-co
rrid
or”.
’ Le
Cor
busi
er, P
réci
sion
s sur
un
état
pré
sent
de
l’arc
hite
ctur
e et
de
l’ur
bani
sme.
Par
is (C
rès)
19
30; P
aris
(Alta
mira
) 199
4.
81
‘L
a m
aiso
n ne
sera
plu
s sou
dée
à la
rue
par s
on tr
otto
ir’,
Le C
orbu
sier
, La
Cha
rte
d’A
thèn
es. P
aris
(Min
uit)
1941
, p. 2
1.
82
‘N
ous a
vons
, bie
n en
tend
u,
supp
rimé
la “
rue-
corr
idor
”,
la ru
e de
tout
es le
s vill
es d
u m
onde
. Nos
mai
sons
d’ha
bita
tion
n’on
t rie
n à
voir
avec
les r
ues.
. . .
Nou
s avo
ns
donn
é to
ut le
sol d
e la
vill
e au
pi
éton
, sur
la te
rre
mêm
e:
gazo
ns, a
rbre
s, te
rrai
ns d
e je
u: à
peu
prè
s 100
% d
u so
l à
l’usa
ge d
e l’h
abita
nt. E
t co
mm
e no
s mai
sons
d’
habi
tatio
n so
nt e
n l’a
ir, su
r pi
lotis
, on
trave
rse
la v
ille
en
n’im
porte
que
l sen
s.’ L
e C
orbu
sier
, La
Ville
Rad
ieus
e,
p. 1
08. E
nglis
h tra
nsla
tion
by
the
trans
lato
r of t
his t
ext.
effo
rt is
an
unde
rtaki
ng th
at re
pres
ents
conc
rete
ben
efit f
or a
ll an
d th
e el
imin
a-tio
n of
one
of t
he g
reat
est c
ause
s of u
nhap
pine
ss a
mon
gst t
he h
umbl
er m
embe
rs
of so
ciet
y. T
hese
are
the
supr
eme
joys
that
eac
h in
divi
dual
can
ear
n by
a sp
iritu
-al
or “
mat
erna
l” p
artic
ipat
ion
in w
orki
ng fo
r the
col
lect
ive
good
. Tha
t is w
hat
citiz
ensh
ip is
!’79 F
or m
any
of th
ese
arch
itect
s, th
is n
ew p
ersp
ectiv
e on
the
publ
ic
sphe
re w
as a
radi
cal a
ltern
ativ
e to
exi
sting
urb
an p
ublic
spac
e. It
was
a d
rasti
c de
partu
re fr
om th
e ol
d co
ncep
tion
of p
ublic
spac
e, w
ith it
s stre
ets,
alle
yway
s,
and
squa
res.
In h
is 1
930
cred
o, Le
Cor
busi
er p
uts i
t thi
s way
: ‘th
e “c
orrid
or-
stree
t” m
ust b
e ki
lled’
).80 In
a sk
etch
illu
strat
ing
this
stat
emen
t, th
e tra
ditio
nal
stree
t is e
mph
atic
ally
cro
ssed
out
. In
the
wor
ds o
f the
193
3 A
then
s Cha
rter,
on
e of
the
mos
t im
porta
nt m
anife
stos p
rodu
ced
by C
IAM
it re
ads:
‘Hou
ses w
ill
no lo
nger
be
sold
ered
to th
e str
eet b
y th
e pa
vem
ent.’
81
Le C
orbu
sier
thus
sign
als t
he d
emis
e of
the
old
publ
ic sp
ace
of th
e ni
ne-
teen
th-c
entu
ry c
ity o
f the
bou
rgeo
isie
, whi
ch w
as fo
unde
d on
a st
rict s
epar
atio
n be
twee
n pr
ivat
e an
d pu
blic
dom
ains
. He
emph
asiz
es th
at th
e m
oder
n ag
e
calls
for a
noth
er ty
pe o
f pub
lic sp
ace
and
new
foun
datio
ns fo
r the
pub
lic
sphe
re. A
s an
alte
rnat
ive,
he
prop
oses
a c
ity in
whi
ch p
rivat
e pr
oper
ty is
kep
t to
a m
inim
um o
r eve
n el
imin
ated
com
plet
ely.
‘The
libe
ratio
n of
the
grou
nd’,
Le
Cor
busi
er w
rites
, des
crib
ing
the
gestu
re o
f cla
imin
g th
e en
tire
terr
ain
of th
e ci
ty a
s pub
lic d
omai
n. T
his l
iber
ated
gro
und
form
s the
bas
is fo
r an
open
type
of
city
and
a c
once
ptio
n of
pub
lic sp
ace
as a
vas
t lan
dsca
pe th
at is
acc
essi
ble
to
all,
in w
hich
indi
vidu
als o
f all
sorts
can
mov
e fre
ely,
see
one
anot
her,
mee
t, an
d ev
en e
nter
into
dis
cuss
ion.
Thi
s is t
he id
eal i
mag
e of
the
mod
ern
publ
ic sp
here
th
at th
e ar
chite
cts i
n th
e M
oder
n M
ovem
ent p
ut fo
rwar
ds: ‘
We
have
, of c
ours
e,
elim
inat
ed th
e “c
orrid
or-st
reet
” [ru
e-co
rrid
or],
the
stree
t fou
nd in
eve
ry c
ity in
th
e w
orld
. Our
dw
ellin
gs h
ave
noth
ing
to d
o w
ith th
e str
eets.
. . .
We
have
giv
en
ALL
TH
E G
ROU
ND
in th
e ci
ty to
the
pede
stria
n on
the
grou
nd, e
ven
law
ns,
trees
, spo
rts fi
elds
; alm
ost 1
00%
of t
he g
roun
d is
for u
se b
y th
e in
habi
tant
s.
And
bec
ause
our
dw
ellin
gs a
re in
the
air,
on p
iles,
one
can
mov
e th
roug
h th
e ci
ty in
any
dire
ctio
n on
e ch
oose
s.’82
In th
e ey
es o
f mod
ern
arch
itect
s, p
ublic
spac
e is
‘fre
e’ sp
ace,
libe
rate
d fro
m
the
yoke
of o
wne
rshi
p str
uctu
res,
from
the
rule
s and
nor
ms o
f the
bou
rgeo
is
publ
ic sp
here
. In
reac
tion
to th
e rig
id d
efini
tions
offe
red
by th
e tra
ditio
nal c
ity,
the
arch
itect
s of t
he M
oder
n M
ovem
ent p
ropo
sed
to c
reat
e a
surfa
ce li
bre
(free
Des
pite
this
crit
icis
m, a
ctiv
e de
sign
of t
he m
oder
n pu
blic
sphe
re b
y fo
rmal
m
eans
rem
aine
d on
e of
the
mos
t im
porta
nt ta
sks o
f mod
ern
arch
itect
ure
in th
e tw
entie
th c
entu
ry. T
his b
ecom
es c
lear
in th
e ho
usin
g pr
ojec
ts de
velo
ped
by
Ger
man
arc
hite
ct E
rnst
May
for D
as N
eue
Fran
kfur
t. D
urin
g M
ay’s
term
as c
ity
arch
itect
from
192
6 to
193
0, F
rank
furt
gain
ed a
n in
tern
atio
nal r
eput
atio
n as
th
e ce
ntre
of N
eues
Bau
en, s
ymbo
lized
by
the
publ
ic h
ousi
ng p
roje
cts t
hat M
ay
and
his s
taff
deve
lope
d ar
ound
the
exis
ting
city.
With
in fi
ve y
ears
, May
had
not
on
ly p
rovi
ded
new
hou
sing
for o
ne q
uarte
r of t
he p
opul
atio
n, b
ut a
lso a
rriv
ed a
t a
new
defi
nitio
n of
the
mod
ern
publ
ic sp
here
. The
land
scap
e an
d th
e tra
nsiti
ons
betw
een
arch
itect
ure
and
land
scap
e pl
ay a
key
role
in th
is d
efini
tion.
Thi
s is i
l-lu
strat
ed in
May
’s pl
an fo
r the
Nid
da ri
ver v
alle
y, w
hich
he
deve
lope
d in
col
lab-
orat
ion
with
land
scap
e ar
chite
ct Le
brec
ht M
igge
.73 In
resp
onse
to th
e re
ques
t to
deve
lop
seve
ral n
ew h
ousi
ng e
state
s (Si
edlu
ngen
) for
the
city
of F
rank
furt,
May
fir
st de
sign
ed a
larg
e la
ndsc
ape
proj
ect b
etw
een
the
new
Sie
dlun
gen
and
the
exis
ting
villa
ges.
Thi
s par
k is
a c
ontin
uous
syste
m o
f pub
lic g
arde
ns a
nd p
aths
, w
hich
subt
ly m
erge
with
the
sem
i-priv
ate
area
s and
gar
dens
of t
he h
ousi
ng
esta
tes.
May
’s ‘p
oliti
cs o
f par
klan
d’ n
ot o
nly
prov
ides
a fr
amew
ork
for t
he e
ntire
pu
blic
hou
sing
pro
gram
me
of D
as n
eue
Fran
kfur
t. A
bove
all,
it o
ffers
the
expr
es-
sion
of a
mod
ern
publ
ic sp
here
cha
ract
eriz
ed b
y le
isur
e tim
e an
d re
crea
tion
and
inte
nded
to re
sult
in a
neu
es Le
ben:
‘Thi
s new
ly c
reat
ed p
ublic
are
na re
iter-
ated
man
y of
the
mov
emen
ts’ h
eroi
c th
emes
at t
he sa
me
time
that
it d
epol
iti-
cize
d th
em. I
t was
a m
oder
nist
land
scap
e co
mpo
sed
of tw
o re
alm
s: th
e pl
ayin
g fie
lds a
nd st
adia
for c
olle
ctiv
e ga
mes
and
the
spec
tacl
e, a
nd th
e pr
ivat
e al
lot-
men
t gar
den.
’74 T
he N
idda
Val
ley
is th
e em
bodi
men
t of a
mod
ern
pasto
ral
conc
eptio
n of
the
publ
ic sp
here
: a sp
here
that
is m
etic
ulou
sly d
esig
ned
and
ther
efor
e br
ings
abo
ut a
new
form
of s
ocie
ty, ty
pifie
d by
per
sona
l aut
onom
y an
d le
isur
e.75
Tow
ards
the
end
of th
e 19
20s,
the
idea
that
arc
hite
ctur
e sh
ould
giv
e sh
ape
to th
e pu
blic
sphe
re g
aine
d ge
nera
l acc
epta
nce
amon
g th
e ad
here
nts o
f Neu
es
Baue
n. B
runo
Taut
’s 19
29 b
ook
Mod
ern
Arc
hite
ctur
e su
ccin
ctly
exp
ress
es th
is
poin
t of v
iew
: ‘Th
e ar
chite
ct .
. . b
ecom
es th
e cr
eato
r of a
n et
hica
l and
soci
al
char
acte
r; th
e pe
ople
[will
] be
brou
ght t
o a
bette
r beh
avio
ur in
thei
r mut
ual
deal
ings
and
rela
tions
hip
with
eac
h ot
her.
Thus
arc
hite
ctur
e be
com
es th
e cr
eato
r of n
ew so
cial
obs
erva
nces
[Ges
ellsc
haftl
iche
r For
men
].’76
We
find
the
sam
e co
nnec
tion
betw
een
the
rene
wal
of a
rchi
tect
ural
form
s an
d th
e re
new
al o
f Ges
ellsc
haftl
iche
For
men
whe
n w
e tu
rn to
the
arch
itect
s who
to
ok p
art i
n th
e C
IAM
(Con
grès
Inte
rnat
iona
ux d
’Arc
hite
ctur
e M
oder
ne),
such
as
Le C
orbu
sier
, Ern
st M
ay, H
anne
s Mey
er, a
nd M
art S
tam
.77 T
hey
expl
icitl
y lin
k th
e fu
ture
of m
oder
n ar
chite
ctur
e an
d ur
ban
plan
ning
to th
e so
cial
and
pol
itica
l is
sue
of th
e pu
blic
sphe
re. I
n th
e w
ords
of t
heir
open
ing
decl
arat
ion:
’Tow
n pl
an-
ning
is th
e or
gani
zatio
n of
the
func
tions
of c
olle
ctiv
e lif
e; it
ext
ends
ove
r bot
h
the
urba
n ag
glom
erat
ions
and
the
coun
trysi
de. .
. . I
t is e
ssen
tial t
oday
for a
rchi
-te
cts t
o ex
erci
se a
n in
fluen
ce o
n pu
blic
opi
nion
by
info
rmin
g th
e pu
blic
of t
he
fund
amen
tals
of th
e ne
w a
rchi
tect
ure.
’78
The
artic
ulat
ion
of a
new
, ‘tra
nspa
rent
’ pub
lic sp
here
, bas
ed o
n eq
ualit
y an
d pe
rson
al a
uton
omy,
bec
ame
one
of th
e le
adin
g ob
ject
ives
of t
he M
oder
n M
ovem
ent i
n ar
chite
ctur
e. M
any
arch
itect
s of t
he M
oder
n M
ovem
ent c
once
ived
th
e pu
blic
sphe
re a
s an
asse
mbl
y of
pol
itica
lly a
ctiv
e in
divi
dual
s. F
or in
stanc
e,
Le C
orbu
sier
des
crib
ed p
ublic
spac
e in
193
3 as
the
locu
s of ‘
basi
c pl
easu
res:
ac
tion,
par
ticip
atio
n in
col
lect
ive
wor
k, th
e re
aliz
atio
n of
whi
ch b
y co
mm
unal
037 From the Editors
83
‘Sur
face
s ver
tes’
and
‘v
érita
bles
pra
iries
, des
forê
ts,
des p
lage
s nat
urel
les o
u
artifi
ciel
les’
. Le
Cor
busi
er,
La C
harte
d’A
thèn
es.
84
Kare
l Tei
ge, T
he M
inim
um
Dw
ellin
g. T
rans
late
d by
Eric
D
luho
sch,
Cam
brid
ge, M
ass.
(M
IT P
ress
) 200
2, p
. 23.
85
For a
n in
trodu
ctio
n to
this
de
bate
, see
Chr
istia
ne
C. C
ollin
s & G
eorg
e R.
Col
lins,
‘M
onum
enta
lity.
A C
ritic
al
Mat
ter i
n M
oder
n A
rchi
tec-
ture
’, in
: Har
vard
Arc
hite
ctur
e Re
view
4 (S
prin
g 19
84),
pp
. 14-
35, a
t p. 3
5.
86
O
tto W
agne
r, D
ie G
roßs
tadt
. Ei
ne S
tudi
e üb
er d
iese
. Vie
nna
(Sch
roll)
191
1, q
uote
d in
: Iva
n T.
Ber
end,
Dec
ades
of C
risis
. C
entra
l and
Eas
tern
Eur
ope
befo
re W
orld
War
II. B
erke
ley
(Uni
vers
ity o
f Cal
iforn
ia P
ress
) 19
98, p
. 91.
87
R.M
. Sch
indl
er, ‘
A M
anife
sto’
(191
2), i
n: D
avid
Geb
hard
,
Schi
ndle
r. Sa
n Fr
anci
sco,
Cal
. (W
illia
m S
tout
) 197
1, p
. 148
.
88
W
alte
r C. B
ehre
ndt,
Mod
ern
Build
ing.
Lond
on (M
artin
H
opki
nson
) 193
8, p
. 182
.
89
Le
wis
Mum
ford
, ‘Th
e D
eath
of
the
Mon
umen
t’, in
: Jam
es
L. M
artin
, Ben
Nic
holso
n,
& N
. Gab
o (e
ds.),
Circ
le.
An
Inte
rnat
iona
l Sur
vey
of
Con
struc
tive
Art.
Lond
on
(Fab
er &
Fab
er) 1
937,
pp
. 263
-270
.
90
Sigf
ried
Gie
dion
, Jos
é Lu
is
Sert,
& F
erna
nd Lé
ger,
N
ine
Poin
ts on
Mon
umen
talit
y
(a p
aper
from
194
3), r
epub
-lis
hed
in: J
oan
Ock
man
with
Ed
war
d Ei
gen
(eds
.), A
rchi
tec-
ture
Cul
ture
194
3-19
68.
A D
ocum
enta
ry A
ntho
logy
. N
ew Y
ork
(Col
umbi
a Bo
oks o
f A
rchi
tect
ure/
Rizz
oli)
1993
.
91
Ib
id.,
p. 2
1.
the
mod
ern
mon
umen
t is v
erita
bly
a co
ntra
dict
ion
in te
rms;
if it
is a
mon
umen
t,
it is
not
mod
ern,
and
if it
is m
oder
n, it
can
not b
e a
mon
umen
t.’89
Des
pite
this
neg
ativ
ity, m
oder
n ar
chite
cts w
ere
cons
tant
ly c
onfro
nted
w
ith re
ques
ts to
des
ign
build
ings
repr
esen
tativ
e of
the
new
pub
lic sp
here
. To
wn
halls
, com
mun
ity c
entre
s, c
ultu
ral c
entre
s, p
ublic
libr
arie
s and
mus
eum
s,
peop
le’s
pala
ces,
you
th c
lubs
– th
ese
are
prim
e ex
ampl
es o
f mod
ern
proj
ects
that
mus
t rep
rese
nt th
e pu
blic
sphe
re in
a su
itabl
e m
anne
r and
ther
efor
e re
quire
a
degr
ee o
f mon
umen
talit
y.
3.4
Refra
min
g th
e pu
blic
: arc
hite
ctur
e an
d th
e pu
blic
sphe
re in
the
post-
war
per
iod
It is
no
coin
cide
nce
that
afte
r the
hor
rors
of t
he S
econ
d W
orld
War
the
issu
e of
re
pres
entin
g th
e pu
blic
sphe
re a
rose
onc
e ag
ain,
and
had
lost
none
of i
ts im
-po
rtanc
e to
mod
ern
arch
itect
s. E
ven
befo
re th
e w
ar e
nded
, a fe
w E
urop
eans
th
at h
ad e
mig
rate
d to
the
Uni
ted
Stat
es st
arte
d a
deba
te o
n ‘th
e ne
w m
onum
en-
talit
y’. T
he c
ore
issu
e w
as th
e sy
mbo
lic m
eani
ng o
f arc
hite
ctur
e in
the
cont
ext o
f a
new
dem
ocra
tic so
cial
ord
er. A
n im
porta
nt m
anife
sto w
as p
rese
nted
in 1
943
by th
e Sw
iss c
ritic
Sig
fried
Gie
dion
, the
arc
hite
ct Jo
sé Lu
is S
ert,
and
the
artis
t Fe
rnan
d Lé
ger,
unde
r the
title
Nin
e Po
ints
on M
onum
enta
lity.
90 T
his d
ocum
ent
was
prim
arily
an
atte
mpt
to li
bera
te th
e te
rm ‘m
onum
enta
lity’
from
the
load
ed
auth
orita
rian
sym
bolis
m o
f nat
iona
l soc
ialis
m a
nd It
alia
n fa
scis
m a
nd to
brin
g
it in
to th
e do
mai
n of
dem
ocra
tic sy
mbo
lism
; or m
ore
spec
ifica
lly, t
o us
e it
in th
e re
pres
enta
tion
of a
dem
ocra
tic p
ublic
sphe
re. I
n N
ine
Poin
ts on
Mon
umen
talit
y,
Gie
dion
, Ser
t, an
d Lé
ger w
rite
that
mon
umen
ts ca
n on
ly c
ome
into
bei
ng in
a
‘uni
fyin
g cu
lture
’. O
nly
a co
mm
only
shar
ed c
ultu
re c
an b
e m
eani
ngfu
lly re
pre-
sent
ed; o
ther
wis
e, th
ere
is n
othi
ng b
ut h
ollo
w sy
mbo
lism
. Mor
eove
r, m
onum
ents
‘hav
e to
satis
fy th
e et
erna
l dem
and
of th
e pe
ople
for t
rans
latio
n of
thei
r col
lec-
tive
forc
e in
to sy
mbo
ls. T
he m
ost v
ital m
onum
ents
are
thos
e w
hich
exp
ress
the
feel
ing
and
thin
king
of t
his c
olle
ctiv
e fo
rce.
. . .
The
peo
ple
wan
t the
bui
ldin
gs
that
repr
esen
t the
ir so
cial
and
com
mun
ity li
fe to
giv
e m
ore
than
func
tiona
l fu
lfilm
ent.’
91 G
iedi
on, S
ert,
and
Lége
r’s n
ine
poin
ts ar
e a
very
insi
ghtfu
l for
mul
a-tio
n of
the
prob
lem
of r
epre
sent
ing
the
publ
ic sp
here
, one
whi
ch re
mai
ns ju
st
as re
leva
nt a
s eve
r. Th
ey b
egin
by
ackn
owle
dgin
g th
at n
eith
er fu
nctio
nalis
m n
or
the
Mod
ern
Mov
emen
t’s N
eues
Bau
en w
ere
capa
ble
of re
pres
entin
g pe
ople
’s co
llect
ive
aspi
ratio
ns. T
hen
they
go
on to
sugg
est t
hat a
true
col
lect
ivity
can
onl
y ex
pres
s its
valu
es a
nd h
isto
rical
con
tinui
ty a
t the
loca
l lev
el. L
arge
cen
traliz
ed
surfa
ce).
This
cha
nges
the
very
mea
ning
of p
ublic
and
priv
ate.
The
resu
lting
sp
aces
wer
e re
ferr
ed to
as ‘
gree
n su
rface
s’ o
r ‘ge
nuin
e m
eado
ws,
fore
sts,
natu
ral o
r arti
ficia
l bea
ches
’.83
3.3
The
publ
ic b
uild
ing:
the
repr
esen
tatio
n of
the
mod
ern
res p
ublic
a
Mod
ern
arch
itect
s are
con
front
ed n
ot o
nly
with
the
need
to a
ccom
mod
ate
the
publ
ic sp
here
, but
also
with
the
issu
e of
repr
esen
ting
it. M
any
mod
ern
arch
itect
s re
gard
ed th
e tra
ditio
nal t
ypol
ogie
s of p
ublic
arc
hite
ctur
e as
exp
ress
ions
of t
he
ideo
logi
es o
f the
tota
litar
ian
state
and
the
Chu
rch:
‘The
feud
al lo
rds,
the
chur
ch
aris
tocr
acy,
and
eve
n th
e bo
urge
oisi
e re
quire
d m
onum
enta
lity
with
its s
umpt
u-ou
s dec
orat
ions
for t
heir
repr
esen
tatio
n: it
was
by
such
mea
ns th
at th
e ru
ling
clas
s mig
htily
boo
sts it
s ow
n pr
ide
and
at th
e sa
me
time
stron
gly
affe
cts t
hose
it
rule
s. .
. . T
he fa
ct th
at m
onum
enta
lity
is in
trins
ical
ly a
n as
ocia
l phe
nom
enon
, th
at it
is a
n ex
pres
sion
of e
xplo
itatio
n, m
akes
it e
ssen
tial t
o br
eak
with
this
trad
i-tio
n on
ce a
nd fo
r all.
Toda
y, in
pla
ce o
f mon
umen
tal a
rchi
tect
ure
we
have
the
pres
s, ra
dio,
pos
ters
, and
so o
n. In
our
tim
e, th
ese
new
med
ia u
nque
stion
ably
re
pres
ent t
he m
ost p
ower
ful m
eans
of i
nflue
ncin
g th
e id
eolo
gica
l dis
posi
tion
of
the
popu
lar m
asse
s.’84
In th
is p
assa
ge, t
he C
zech
crit
ic K
arl T
eige
exp
ress
es a
vi
ew sh
ared
by
man
y m
oder
n ar
chite
cts w
ho b
elie
ve th
at th
e em
erge
nce
of th
e m
oder
n pu
blic
sphe
re m
ade
the
clas
sic
form
al v
ocab
ular
y fo
r pub
lic b
uild
ings
su
perfl
uous
. Tak
ing
mon
umen
talit
y as
thei
r the
me,
they
sear
ch fo
r a su
itabl
e fo
rmal
lang
uage
to re
pres
ent t
he n
ew p
ublic
sphe
re.85
Des
igni
ng a
pub
lic a
rchi
-te
ctur
e or
res p
ublic
a, th
us b
ecom
es o
ne o
f the
gre
at c
halle
nges
of m
oder
n ar
chite
ctur
e.O
tto W
agne
r, a
lead
ing
figur
e in
turn
-of-t
he-c
entu
ry V
ienn
a, is
one
mod
ern
arch
itect
who
exp
licitl
y ad
dres
ses t
his i
ssue
. In
his w
ell-k
now
n bo
ok D
ie G
roß-
stadt
, he
emba
rks o
n a
sear
ch fo
r a m
oder
n m
onum
enta
lity.
Wag
ner’s
ap-
proa
ch to
mon
umen
talit
y is
bas
ed o
n tw
o pr
emis
es. T
he fi
rst i
s the
will
to c
reat
e an
aes
thet
ic th
at re
pres
ents
the
impl
icit
idea
ls of
the
mod
ern
age.
Sec
ondl
y,
mon
umen
talit
y m
eans
to W
agne
r the
com
mun
icat
ion
of n
ew so
cial
idea
ls to
the
popu
latio
n th
roug
h ar
chite
ctur
e. In
the
mod
ern
met
ropo
lis, W
agne
r sou
ght t
o re
plac
e th
e ol
d co
ncep
t of m
onum
enta
lity
with
a ‘m
onum
enta
lity
of st
anda
rdiz
a-tio
n’, c
hara
cter
ized
by
repe
titio
n an
d a
‘her
oic
scal
e’.86
A c
onte
mpo
rary
of W
agne
r’s, t
he V
ienn
ese
arch
itect
Rud
olf S
chin
dler
, ex
pres
sed
the
need
to fi
nd a
new
way
of r
epre
sent
ing
the
publ
ic sp
here
as
follo
ws:
‘Mon
umen
talit
y is
the
mar
k of
pow
er. T
he fi
rst m
aste
r was
the
tyra
nt.
He
sym
boliz
ed h
is p
ower
ove
r the
hum
an m
ass b
y hi
s con
trol o
ver m
atte
r. Th
e po
wer
sym
bol o
f prim
itive
cul
ture
was
con
fined
to th
e de
feat
of t
wo
sim
ple
re-
sista
nces
of m
atte
r: gr
avity
and
coh
esio
n. M
onum
enta
lity
beca
me
appa
rent
in
prop
ortio
n to
the
hum
an m
ass d
ispl
acem
ent e
ffort.
. . .
Toda
y a
diffe
rent
pow
er
is a
skin
g fo
r its
mon
umen
t.’87
Man
y ar
chite
cts o
f the
Mod
ern
Mov
emen
t wer
e co
nvin
ced,
how
ever
, tha
t m
onum
ents
had
beco
me
supe
rfluo
us. I
n th
eir e
yes,
the
chan
ging
cha
ract
er o
f th
e ne
w p
ublic
sphe
re c
ould
not
be
reco
ncile
d w
ith th
e no
tion
of th
e m
onum
ent.
The
Ger
man
arc
hite
ct a
nd c
ritic
Wal
ter B
ehre
ndt w
rote
in 1
938
that
‘a d
emo-
crat
ic so
ciet
y w
hose
stru
ctur
e, b
ased
on
the
conc
ept o
f org
anic
ord
er, i
s of
dyna
mic
cha
ract
er, h
as n
o us
e, a
nd th
eref
ore
no d
esire
for t
he m
onum
ent’.
88
The
Am
eric
an u
rban
ist L
ewis
Mum
ford
was
eve
n m
ore
expl
icit
abou
t the
inco
m-
men
sura
bilit
y of
the
mod
ern
age
with
the
idea
of t
he m
onum
ent:
‘The
not
ion
of
039 From the Editors
92
From
a le
ctur
e th
at G
iedi
on
gave
in 1
946
to th
e Ro
yal
Insti
tute
of B
ritis
h A
rchi
tect
s,
publ
ishe
d w
ith c
omm
enta
ries
by H
enry
-Rus
sel H
itchc
ock,
W
alte
r Gro
pius
, the
Sw
edis
h cr
itic
Gre
gor P
aulss
on, a
nd
othe
rs: G
rego
r Pau
lsson
et a
l.,
‘In S
earc
h of
a N
ew M
onum
en-
talit
y: a
Sym
posi
um’,
in
: Arc
hite
ctur
al R
evie
w, 1
04
(Sep
tem
ber 1
948)
, p. 1
26.
93
Ibid
., p.
123
.
94
See
J. Ty
rwhi
tt, J.
L. S
ert,
&
E.N
. Rog
ers (
eds.
), Th
e H
eart
of th
e C
ity. T
owar
ds th
e H
uman
isat
ion
of U
rban
Life
. Lo
ndon
195
2, p
. 3.
95
Ibid
., p.
165
-167
.
96
A
ccor
ding
to a
n ar
ticle
by
the
criti
c Re
yner
Ban
ham
– ‘T
he
New
Bru
talis
m’,
in:
Arc
hite
ctur
al D
esig
n, Ja
nuar
y 19
55; r
eprin
ted
in: I
dem
, The
N
ew B
ruta
lism
. Eth
ic o
r A
esth
etic
? Lo
ndon
196
6 –
man
y yo
ung
CIA
M m
embe
rs
advo
cate
d th
e ‘ro
ot-a
nd-
bran
ch re
ject
ion
of a
ll th
e A
then
ian
cate
gorie
s, w
hich
th
ey fr
eque
ntly
dam
ned
as
“dia
gram
mat
ic”’
(p. 7
1).
97
Max
Ris
sela
da &
Dirk
van
den
H
euve
l, Te
am 1
0, 1
953-
1981
. In
Sea
rch
of a
Uto
pia
of th
e Pr
esen
t. Ro
tterd
am (N
Ai
Publ
ishe
rs) 2
005.
98
Ibid
., se
e al
so: T
om A
verm
aete
, A
noth
er M
oder
n. T
he P
ost-W
ar
Arc
hite
ctur
e an
d U
rban
ism
of
Can
dilis
-Josi
c-W
oods
. Ro
tterd
am (N
Ai P
ublis
hers
) 20
05.
99
See
e.g.
Vik
tor G
ruen
, Sh
oppi
ng To
wn
USA
. The
Pl
anni
ng o
f Sho
ppin
g C
ente
rs.
New
Yor
k 19
60.
10
0
Ibid
., an
d Vi
ctor
Gru
en, T
he
Hea
rt of
Our
Citi
es. N
ew Y
ork
(Sim
on &
Sch
uste
r) 19
64.
repr
esen
tatio
n of
the
publ
ic sp
here
as o
ne o
f the
mos
t im
porta
nt ta
sks,
CIA
M
was
una
ble
to p
rovi
de a
nua
nced
resp
onse
to th
is q
uesti
on. T
his p
rovo
ked
grow
ing
diss
atis
fact
ion
amon
g yo
ung
CIA
M m
embe
rs. T
he E
nglis
h ar
chite
cts
Alis
on a
nd P
eter
Sm
ithso
n, fo
r ins
tanc
e, fo
und
faul
t with
the
Mod
ern
Mov
emen
t’s ‘m
echa
nica
l’ lim
itatio
ns.96
In 1
956,
this
tend
ency
cul
min
ated
in
the
brea
k-up
of C
IAM
by
a gr
oup
of y
oung
arc
hite
cts i
nclu
ding
Ald
o va
n Ey
ck,
Jaco
b Ba
kem
a, P
eter
and
Alis
on S
mith
son,
and
Geo
rges
Can
dilis
, who
bec
ame
know
n as
Team
10.
97 F
or th
em, o
ne o
f the
mos
t im
porta
nt is
sues
was
the
cont
ra-
dict
ory
and
com
plex
qua
lity
of th
e pu
blic
sphe
re. A
lison
and
Pet
er S
mith
son
wro
te, ‘
Our
func
tiona
lism
mea
ns a
ccep
ting
the
real
ities
of t
he si
tuat
ion,
with
al
l the
ir co
ntra
dict
ions
and
con
fusi
ons a
nd tr
ying
to d
o so
met
hing
with
them
. In
con
sequ
ence
, we
have
to c
reat
e an
arc
hite
ctur
e an
d a
tow
n pl
anni
ng w
hich
–
thro
ugh
built
form
– c
an m
ake
mea
ning
ful t
he c
hang
e, th
e gr
owth
, the
flow
, th
e “v
italit
y” o
f the
com
mun
ity.’
Gro
ups l
ike
Team
10
tried
to fi
nd a
ltern
ativ
e w
ays
of re
pres
entin
g th
e pu
blic
sphe
re, i
ntro
duci
ng n
ew c
once
pts s
uch
as ‘s
tem
’, ‘w
eb’ a
nd ‘s
treet
s in
the
air’.
98
3.5
The
publ
ic sp
here
in su
burb
ia
Refle
ctio
n on
the
publ
ic sp
here
with
in p
ost-w
ar a
rchi
tect
ural
dis
cour
se w
as n
ot
limite
d to
the
Euro
pean
city
. In
the
1950
s, a
new
issu
e ar
ose,
prim
arily
in th
e U
nite
d St
ates
, tho
ugh
also
in E
urop
e: th
e is
sue
of th
e su
burb
an p
ublic
sphe
re.
In th
e U
nite
d St
ates
, it w
as a
bove
all
the
orig
inal
ly A
ustri
an a
rchi
tect
Vic
tor
Gru
en w
ho d
evel
oped
a v
isio
n of
the
subu
rban
pub
lic sp
here
, with
in th
e co
ntex
t of
his
idea
s abo
ut th
e sh
oppi
ng m
all a
s a n
ew a
rchi
tect
ural
type
.99 Li
ke th
e Te
am 1
0 ar
chite
cts,
Gru
en to
ok th
e tra
ditio
nal t
own
as o
ne o
f the
mai
n po
ints
of
refe
renc
e fo
r his
new
vis
ion
of th
e su
burb
an p
ublic
sphe
re, a
s he
illus
trate
s in
Sho
ppin
g To
wn
USA
and
The
Hea
rt of
Our
Citi
es.10
0 Gru
en n
otes
the
deat
h
of h
igh-
qual
ity p
ublic
spac
es in
subu
rban
hou
sing
dev
elop
men
ts fo
r the
mid
dle
clas
s fro
m th
e ea
rly 1
950s
onw
ards
. He
emph
asiz
es th
at in
crea
sing
use
of
auto
mob
iles,
the
idea
l of p
rivat
izat
ion,
and
the
mon
ofun
ctio
nal n
atur
e of
the
subu
rb h
ave
deep
ly in
fluen
ced
the
deve
lopm
ent o
f the
pub
lic sp
here
: ‘H
ow
diffe
rent
this
is fr
om o
ur e
arlie
r Am
eric
an tr
aditi
on w
hich
allo
wed
peo
ple
from
al
l cla
sses
to m
ingl
e to
geth
er a
s the
y sti
ll do
in c
omm
uniti
es w
here
peo
ple
live
as w
ell a
s wor
k. S
omet
hing
of t
his m
ixtu
re is
hea
lthie
r for
dem
ocra
cy w
hich
w
ill su
rely
suffe
r if r
esid
entia
l sub
urbs
con
tinue
to re
fuse
pub
lic h
ousi
ng p
roje
cts,
bu
sine
ss fi
rms,
indu
stry
and
rest
cam
ps. W
ithou
t thi
s the
y w
ill re
mai
n sm
ug,
or a
utho
ritar
ian
state
s are
in th
eir v
iew
by
defin
ition
inca
pabl
e of
repr
esen
ting
popu
lar i
deal
s in
an a
uthe
ntic
way
.In
the
year
s afte
r 194
3, th
e pr
oble
m o
f the
repr
esen
tatio
n of
the
publ
ic
sphe
re re
peat
edly
resu
rface
d in
arc
hite
ctur
al d
ebat
e, in
clo
se c
onne
ctio
n w
ith
the
fund
amen
tal p
robl
em o
f mea
ning
in a
rchi
tect
ure.
Sig
fried
Gie
dion
iden
tified
th
e re
pres
enta
tion
of th
e m
oder
n pu
blic
sphe
re a
s a c
ruci
al th
ird st
ep in
the
de-
velo
pmen
t of m
oder
n ar
chite
ctur
e an
d ur
ban
plan
ning
: ‘Th
e fir
st w
as th
e si
ngle
ce
ll. .
. . F
rom
the
sing
le c
ell t
o th
e ne
ighb
ourh
ood,
to th
e ci
ty a
nd th
e or
gani
sa-
tion
of th
e w
hole
regi
on, i
s one
dire
ct se
quen
ce. T
hus i
t can
be
said
that
the
seco
nd st
ep o
f mod
ern
arch
itect
ure
was
con
cent
rate
d on
urb
anis
m. T
he th
ird
step
lies a
head
. . .
. Thi
s is t
he re
conq
uest
of m
onum
enta
l exp
ress
ion.
The
pe
ople
wan
t bui
ldin
gs re
pres
entin
g th
eir s
ocia
l, ce
rem
onia
l and
com
mun
ity
life.
’92 W
ithin
this
dis
cuss
ion,
the
Swed
ish
criti
c G
rego
r Pau
lson
focu
sed
on
the
link
betw
een
mon
umen
talit
y an
d th
e au
thor
itaria
n ex
pres
sion
of p
ower
, co
nclu
ding
that
the
repr
esen
tatio
n of
the
mod
ern
publ
ic sp
here
had
to b
e an
ti-m
onum
enta
l by
defin
ition
: ‘m
onum
enta
lity
is n
ot d
esira
ble.
The
tota
litar
ian
soci
ety
has a
lway
s tak
en m
onum
enta
lity
into
its s
ervi
ce to
stre
ngth
en it
s pow
er
over
peo
ple,
the
dem
ocra
tic so
ciet
y in
con
form
ity w
ith it
s nat
ure
is a
nti-
mon
umen
tal.’
93
The
them
e of
the
new
mon
umen
talit
y pl
ayed
a m
ajor
role
in th
e po
st-w
ar
deba
tes w
ithin
CIA
M a
nd Te
am 1
0. A
t the
CIA
M c
onfe
renc
e in
Brid
gew
ater
in
1947
, the
re w
as a
dis
cuss
ion
on a
new
mon
umen
talit
y to
be
real
ized
thro
ugh
colla
bora
tion
betw
een
arch
itect
ure,
pai
ntin
g, a
nd sc
ulpt
ure.
The
bac
kgro
und
to
this
deb
ate
was
that
, acc
ordi
ng to
Gie
dion
and
Le C
orbu
sier
, arc
hite
cts
had
been
pla
cing
too
muc
h em
phas
is o
n bi
olog
ical
and
eco
nom
ic fa
ctor
s and
ha
d be
en n
egle
ctin
g th
e ro
le o
f aes
thet
ic a
nd so
cial
val
ues i
n th
eir d
esig
ns.
Non
ethe
less
, thi
s deb
ate
with
in C
IAM
har
dly
gene
rate
d an
y pr
actic
al p
ropo
s-al
s reg
ardi
ng a
rchi
tect
ural
form
. Wha
t had
a g
reat
er im
pact
in th
is re
spec
t was
th
e de
bate
on
the
‘cor
e’ in
itiat
ed a
t CIA
M c
onfe
renc
e in
Hod
desd
on (1
951)
by
the
Engl
ish
dele
gatio
n, th
e so
-cal
led
MA
RS g
roup
. At t
his c
onfe
renc
e th
e ch
air-
man
of C
IAM
, Jos
é Lu
is S
ert,
quot
ed a
boo
k by
the
Span
ish
philo
soph
er O
rtega
y
Gas
set,
The
Revo
lt of
the
Mas
ses:
‘the
“ur
bs”
or th
e “p
olis
” sta
rts b
y be
ing
an
empt
y sp
ace,
the
“for
um”,
the
“ago
ra”
and
all t
he re
st ar
e ju
st m
eans
of fi
th
at e
mpt
y sp
ace,
of l
imiti
ng it
s out
lines
. The
pol
is is
not
prim
arily
a c
olle
ctio
n
of h
abita
ble
dwel
lings
, but
a m
eetin
g pl
ace
for c
itize
ns, a
spac
e se
t apa
rt
for p
ublic
func
tions
.’94 In
deed
, thi
s poi
nts a
t a sh
ift w
ithin
the
focu
s of C
IAM
. Th
e in
itial
focu
s on
the
dwel
ling
as th
e ba
sic
com
pone
nt o
f the
mod
ern
city
is
grad
ually
repl
aced
by
atte
ntio
n fo
r the
pub
lic sp
here
. Hen
ce, t
he fi
nal s
tate
-m
ents
of th
e H
odde
sdon
con
gres
s app
ear t
o ha
ve se
t the
tone
for a
new
ag
enda
in m
oder
n ar
chite
ctur
e: ‘T
he m
ost i
mpo
rtant
role
of t
he C
ore
is to
en
able
peo
ple
to m
eet o
ne a
noth
er to
exc
hang
e id
eas.
. . .
The
ess
ence
of t
he
Cor
e is
that
it is
a re
ndez
vous
, . .
. a p
lace
whe
re p
eopl
e m
ay g
athe
r for
leis
ure-
ly in
terc
ours
e an
d co
ntem
plat
ion.
. . .
The
exp
ress
ion
of th
e C
ore
mus
t int
erpr
et
the
hum
an a
ctiv
ities
that
take
pla
ce th
ere:
bot
h th
e re
latio
ns o
f ind
ivid
uals
with
on
e an
othe
r and
the
rela
tions
of i
ndiv
idua
ls w
ith th
e co
mm
unity
. . .
. Its
func
tion
is to
pro
vide
opp
ortu
nitie
s – in
an
impa
rtial
way
– fo
r spo
ntan
eous
man
ifesta
-tio
ns o
f soc
ial l
ife.’95
This
des
crip
tion
of th
e co
re re
sem
bles
the
defin
ition
s of t
he p
ublic
sphe
re
by H
anna
h A
rend
t, Jü
rgen
Hab
erm
as a
nd R
icha
rd S
enne
tt.Ev
en th
ough
the
Hod
desd
on c
oncl
usio
ns id
entifi
ed th
e ac
com
mod
atio
n an
d
041 From the Editors
10
1
Gru
en, S
hopp
ing
Tow
n U
SA,
p. 2
1.
102
Ib
id.,
pp. 2
3-24
.
103
C
harle
s Moo
re, ‘
You
Hav
e to
Pa
y fo
r the
Pub
lic Li
fe’,
in:
Pers
pect
a (1
965)
, no.
9/1
0,
p. 6
5. S
ee a
lso in
this
boo
k,
p. 2
83-2
90.
10
4
Pete
r Bla
ke, G
od’s
Ow
n Ju
nkya
rd. T
he P
lann
ed
Det
erio
ratio
n of
Am
eric
a’s
Land
scap
e. N
ew Y
ork
(H
olt,
Rine
hart
& W
insto
n)
1964
; Rob
ert V
entu
ri, D
enis
e Sc
ott B
row
n, &
Ste
ven
Izen
our,
Lear
ning
from
Las V
egas
. C
ambr
idge
, Mas
s. (M
IT P
ress
) 19
72; i
dem
, Lea
rnin
g fro
m
Levi
ttow
n (1
969,
unp
ublis
hed)
.
10
5
Han
s Pau
l Bah
rdt,
Die
m
oder
ne G
roßs
tadt
. So
ziol
ogis
che
Übe
rlegu
ngen
zu
m S
tädt
ebau
. Rei
nbek
(R
owoh
lt) 1
961.
10
6
Senn
ett,
The
Fall
of P
ublic
M
an.
10
7
Jane
Jaco
bs, T
he D
eath
and
Lif
e of
Gre
at A
mer
ican
Citi
es.
New
Yor
k (R
ando
m H
ouse
&
Vint
age
Book
s) 1
961.
10
8
A.C
. Zijd
erve
ld, S
tede
n zo
nder
sted
elijk
heid
. Een
cu
ltuur
soci
olog
isch
e stu
die
van
een
bele
idsp
robl
eem
. [C
ities
w
ithou
t Urb
anity
], D
even
ter
(Van
Logh
um S
late
rus)
198
3.
of th
e pr
ivat
e do
mai
n an
d th
e di
sney
ficat
ion
of th
e ci
ty h
ave
erod
ed th
is id
eal
thro
ugho
ut th
e tw
entie
th c
entu
ry. T
he d
ownf
all o
f the
sove
reig
n ci
tizen
s and
th
eir p
ublic
sphe
re is
des
crib
ed in
two
book
s tha
t hav
e be
com
e ca
noni
cal:
Die
m
oder
ne G
roßs
tadt
by
Han
s Pau
l Bah
rdt (
1961
),105 an
d Th
e Fa
ll of
Pub
lic M
an
by R
icha
rd S
enne
tt (1
974)
.106 Ba
hrdt
show
s how
, with
in la
te m
oder
n so
ciet
y, th
e pu
blic
sphe
re h
as in
crea
sing
ly b
ecom
e a
plac
e fo
r opt
iona
l, le
isur
e-tim
e ac
tivi-
ties,
in a
dditi
on to
traf
fic a
nd tr
ansp
ort.
Gen
eral
ly, th
e ex
pand
ing
role
of r
ecre
a-tio
n an
d en
terta
inm
ent i
n pu
blic
spac
e is
link
ed to
pos
t-ind
ustri
al so
ciet
y, b
ut in
th
is re
spec
t the
re m
ay b
e m
ore
cont
inui
ty b
etw
een
indu
stria
l and
pos
t-ind
ustri
al
soci
ety
than
is g
ener
ally
supp
osed
.Ja
ne Ja
cobs
’ wel
l-kno
wn
book
The
Dea
th a
nd Li
fe o
f Gre
at A
mer
ican
Citi
es
(196
1) a
lso a
ddre
sses
the
decl
ine
of tr
aditi
onal
pub
lic sp
ace
and
citiz
ensh
ip.10
7 In
an
atte
mpt
to b
reat
he n
ew li
fe in
to th
ese
them
es in
the
mod
ern
met
ropo
litan
se
tting
, Jac
obs g
ives
prio
rity
to th
e m
ain
tradi
tiona
l fea
ture
s of u
rban
pub
lic
spac
e: it
s man
agea
bilit
y an
d ‘w
alka
bilit
y’. F
rom
the
sam
e pe
rspe
ctiv
e, sh
e
criti
cize
s the
qua
lity
of e
xisti
ng p
ublic
spac
e on
the
leve
l of t
he st
reet
, the
par
k,
and
the
squa
re. J
acob
s mak
es a
cas
e fo
r ada
ptin
g ur
ban
plan
ning
to tr
aditi
onal
sp
atia
l pro
perti
es, r
athe
r tha
n th
e ot
her w
ay ro
und.
In th
e m
oder
n m
etro
polis
, it
is im
poss
ible
to p
lan
the
prop
ertie
s of p
ublic
spac
e fo
r the
city
as a
who
le,
and
so th
ose
prop
ertie
s mus
t be
foun
d at
the
scal
e of
the
stree
t, Ja
cobs
arg
ues.
H
er b
ook
play
ed a
cru
cial
par
t in
the
reas
sess
men
t of s
patia
l qua
lity
and
ever
y-da
y ex
perie
nce
in th
e de
bate
abo
ut u
rban
pub
lic sp
ace
in N
orth
Am
eric
a.Th
e w
ork
of th
e D
utch
soci
olog
ist A
nton
C. Z
ijder
veld
intro
duce
s the
idea
of
‘citi
es w
ithou
t urb
anity
’.108 H
e be
lieve
s tha
t one
of t
he m
ain
reas
ons f
or th
e em
erge
nce
of su
ch c
ities
is th
e ris
e of
an
etho
s spe
cific
to th
e w
elfa
re st
ate,
in
whi
ch th
e ci
tizen
is se
en a
s a c
lient
and
a c
onsu
mer
, rat
her t
han
a pa
rtici
pant
. Be
caus
e of
thes
e de
velo
pmen
ts, li
ttle
urba
n ci
vicn
ess r
emai
ns. T
he c
ities
’ spe
cial
tie
s to
cultu
ral l
ife a
re w
eake
ning
, and
so is
the
civi
c, li
bera
l act
ivis
m th
at le
d
to th
eir e
cono
mic
‘gre
atne
ss’,
alon
g w
ith th
e co
llect
ive,
nor
mat
ive
basi
s for
the
orga
niza
tion
of th
e ur
ban
publ
ic sp
here
.The
wor
k of
Bah
rdt,
Senn
ett,
Jaco
bs,
and
Zijd
erve
ld ra
ises
the
issu
e of
the
conn
ectio
n be
twee
n th
e pu
blic
sphe
re
and
urba
nity.
Obv
ious
ly, so
me
parti
cipa
nts i
n th
is d
ebat
e ta
ke a
ver
y di
ffere
nt
stanc
e. C
onsi
der,
for i
nsta
nce,
the
posi
tion
that
Rem
Koo
lhaa
s def
ends
in h
is
writ
ten
wor
k. H
is e
ssay
‘Gen
eric
City
’ con
tend
s tha
t the
city
of t
he fu
ture
will
ha
ve n
o hi
story
, no
cent
re, a
nd, m
ost i
mpo
rtant
ly, n
o pu
blic
life
– o
r at l
east,
its
publ
ic li
fe w
ill n
o lo
nger
be
visi
ble.
Koo
lhaa
s hol
ds th
at it
will
larg
ely
take
pla
ce
in b
uild
ings
and
com
plex
es o
f bui
ldin
gs, i
n ho
tel l
obbi
es, c
asin
os, a
nd c
inem
as,
and
in th
e en
clos
ed sp
aces
of m
alls
and
amus
emen
t par
ks. T
hese
type
s of
build
ings
are
‘pla
cele
ss’,
and
do n
ot h
ave
to b
e em
bedd
ed in
a la
rger
pub
lic
lack
lustr
e, b
ackw
ater
s.’10
1 Fo
r Gru
en, w
ho w
as in
fact
the
arch
itect
of t
he fi
rst
encl
osed
shop
ping
mal
l (So
uthd
ale,
Min
neso
ta, 1
954)
, the
shop
ping
cen
tre
is th
e ar
chite
ctur
al ty
pe th
at c
an re
dres
s the
lack
of h
igh-
qual
ity p
ublic
spac
e:
‘The
bas
ic n
eed
of th
e su
burb
an sh
oppe
r is f
or a
con
veni
ently
acc
essi
ble,
am
ply
stock
ed sh
oppi
ng a
rea
with
ple
ntifu
l and
free
par
king
. Thi
s is t
he p
urel
y pr
actic
al n
eed
. . .
Goo
d pl
anni
ng, h
owev
er, w
ill c
reat
e ad
ditio
nal a
ttrac
tions
fo
r sho
pper
s by
mee
ting
othe
r nee
ds w
hich
are
inhe
rent
in th
e ps
ycho
logi
cal
clim
ate
pecu
liar t
o su
burb
ia. B
y af
ford
ing
oppo
rtuni
ties f
or so
cial
life
and
re
crea
tion
in a
pro
tect
ed p
edes
trian
env
ironm
ent,
by in
corp
orat
ing
civi
c an
d ed
ucat
iona
l fac
ilitie
s, sh
oppi
ng c
ente
rs c
an fi
ll an
exi
sting
voi
d. T
hey
can
prov
ide
the
need
ed p
lace
and
opp
ortu
nity
for p
artic
ipat
ion
in m
oder
n co
m-
mun
ity li
fe th
at th
e an
cien
t Gre
ek A
gora
, the
Med
ieva
l Mar
ket P
lace
and
our
ow
n To
wn
Squa
res p
rovi
ded
in th
e pa
st.’10
2 Sou
thda
le w
as lo
cate
d in
one
su
ch n
ew su
burb
, and
the
shop
ping
mal
l tha
t Gru
en d
esig
ned
was
inte
nded
to
bec
ome
a ki
nd o
f Mai
n St
reet
, so
that
the
subu
rb w
ould
hav
e a
look
and
a
cent
re o
f its
own.
A fe
w y
ears
afte
r Gru
en p
rese
nted
his
idea
s abo
ut th
e sh
oppi
ng m
all a
s the
ne
w M
ain
Stre
et, t
he A
mer
ican
arc
hite
ct C
harle
s Moo
re to
ok a
crit
ical
stan
ce
tow
ards
the
acco
mm
odat
ion
and
repr
esen
tatio
n of
the
publ
ic sp
here
in c
omm
er-
cial
env
ironm
ents.
In h
is a
rticl
e ‘Y
ou h
ave
to P
ay fo
r the
Pub
lic Li
fe’ (
1965
), he
w
rote
, ‘M
ore
rece
nt y
ears
hav
e th
eir m
onum
ents
as w
ell.
Inde
ed .
. . D
isne
ylan
d m
ust b
e re
gard
ed a
s the
mos
t im
porta
nt si
ngle
pie
ce o
f con
struc
tion
in th
e W
est
in th
e pa
st se
vera
l dec
ades
. . .
. Cur
ious
ly, fo
r a p
ublic
pla
ce, D
isne
ylan
d is
no
t fre
e. Y
ou b
uy ti
cket
s at t
he g
ate.
. . .
you
hav
e to
pay
for t
he p
ublic
life
. D
isne
ylan
d, it
app
ears
, is e
norm
ously
impo
rtant
and
succ
essf
ul ju
st be
caus
e it
recr
eate
s all
the
chan
ces t
o re
spon
d to
a p
ublic
env
ironm
ent,
whi
ch Lo
s Ang
eles
pa
rticu
larly
doe
s not
any
long
er h
ave.
It a
llow
s pla
y-ac
ting,
bot
h to
be
wat
ched
an
d to
be
parti
cipa
ted
in, i
n a
publ
ic sp
here
.’103 M
oore
’s co
ntro
vers
ial r
emar
ks
on D
isne
ylan
d no
t onl
y pr
ompt
ed a
rchi
tect
ure
mag
azin
es to
lavi
sh a
ttent
ion
on
the
amus
emen
t par
k, b
ut a
lso o
pene
d a
criti
cal a
rchi
tect
ural
deb
ate
on th
e au
then
ticity
and
the
prop
ertie
s of t
he su
burb
an p
ublic
sphe
re. M
oore
’s ar
ticle
ca
n be
seen
as t
he tr
igge
r for
a lo
ng se
ries o
f stu
dies
of t
he p
ublic
sphe
re in
su
burb
ia, s
ome
of th
e be
st-kn
own
bein
g G
od’s
Ow
n Ju
nkya
rd (1
964)
by
Pe
ter B
lake
, and
Lear
ning
from
Levi
ttow
n (1
969)
and
Lear
ning
from
Las V
egas
(1
972)
by
Robe
rt Ve
ntur
i and
Den
ise
Scot
t Bro
wn.
104 Th
is la
st stu
dy is
an
inve
sti-
gatio
n of
the
cons
titut
ive
logi
c an
d pr
inci
ples
of t
he n
ew su
burb
an p
ublic
sp
here
. Ven
turi
and
Scot
t-Bro
wn
anal
yze
how
bill
boar
ds a
nd si
gns i
n su
burb
an
envi
ronm
ents
com
mun
icat
e w
ith p
asse
rs-b
y, w
hat p
lace
arc
hite
ctur
e ha
s in
su
burb
an p
ublic
spac
e, a
nd, m
ore
spec
ifica
lly, h
ow b
uild
ings
rela
te to
the
new
pu
blic
spac
e of
hig
hway
s and
par
king
spac
es. I
n th
eir s
tudi
es o
f Las
Veg
as a
nd
Levi
ttow
n, V
entu
ri an
d Sc
ott B
row
n di
scov
er n
ew p
ublic
and
sem
i-pub
lic sp
aces
th
at fu
nctio
n th
roug
h th
e vi
sual
logi
c of
adv
ertis
emen
ts an
d bi
llboa
rds.
4
Th
e la
te m
oder
n pu
blic
sphe
re
4.1
A p
ublic
sphe
re w
ithou
t urb
anity
In o
ur o
wn
day,
we
seem
to h
ave
larg
ely
give
n up
on
the
idea
l of t
he p
oliti
cally
ac
tive
citiz
ensh
ip th
at ta
kes c
harg
e of
mun
icip
al a
nd n
atio
nal a
ffairs
by
mea
ns
of th
e pu
blic
sphe
re. T
he o
ngoi
ng tr
end
of g
loba
lizat
ion,
the
cultu
ral h
egem
ony
043 From the Editors
10
9
Rem
Koo
lhaa
s, ‘T
he G
ener
ic
City
’, in
: Rem
Koo
lhaa
s &
Bruc
e M
au, S
, M, L
, XL.
Ro
tterd
am (0
10) 1
995,
pp
. 123
8-12
64; a
lso in
clud
ed
in th
e pr
esen
t boo
k in
the
chap
ter ‘
Defi
nitio
ns’.
11
0
Yoch
ai B
enkl
er, T
he W
ealth
of
Net
wor
ks. N
ew H
aven
(Y
ale
Uni
vers
ity P
ress
) 200
6.
111
Fo
r an
intro
duct
ion
to th
is
notio
n of
adh
ocra
cy, s
ee B
ob
Trav
ica,
New
Org
aniz
atio
nal
Des
igns
. Inf
orm
atio
n A
spec
ts.
Wes
tpor
t, C
onn.
(Abl
ex/
Gre
enw
ood)
199
9.
112
Be
nkle
r, Th
e W
ealth
of
Net
wor
ks, p
. 256
.
113
H
owar
d Rh
eing
old,
Sm
art
Mob
s. C
ambr
idge
, Mas
s.
(Bas
ic B
ooks
) 200
2,
pp. 1
58-1
60.
11
4
Man
uel C
aste
lls, J
ack
Linch
uan
Qiu
, Mire
ia
Fern
andé
z-A
rdèv
ol, &
Ara
ba
Sey,
Mob
ile C
omm
unic
atio
n an
d So
ciet
y. C
ambr
idge
, M
ass.
(MIT
Pre
ss) 2
007,
p.
188
.
115
M
iche
lle P
erro
t (ed
.),
Ges
chie
deni
s van
het
per
soon
-lij
k le
ven.
Vol
. 8, D
e ne
gen-
tiend
e ee
uw: d
e m
ater
iële
cu
ltuur
en
de w
erel
d va
n he
t in
divi
du. A
mste
rdam
(Ago
n)
1995
, p. 1
02-1
05; E
nglis
h ed
ition
: Mic
helle
Per
rot,
His
tory
of P
rivat
e Lif
e. V
ol. I
V,
From
the
fires
of r
evol
utio
n to
th
e gr
eat w
ar. C
ambr
idge
, M
ass.
(Har
vard
Uni
vers
ity
Pres
s) 1
990.
11
6
Wal
ter W
eyns
, ‘G
rens
sche
r-m
utse
linge
n. E
en so
ciol
o-gi
sche
ver
kenn
ing
van
de
gren
s tus
sen
priv
é en
pub
liek
dom
ein’
, in:
Tijd
schr
ift v
oor
Soci
olog
ie (1
998)
, no.
3.
11
7
Ala
in To
urai
ne, W
hat i
s D
emoc
racy
? Bo
ulde
r, C
olo.
(W
estv
iew
Pre
ss) 1
997,
p. 4
8.
4.3
The
colo
niza
tion
of th
e liv
ing
envi
ronm
ent
In th
e co
urse
of t
he tw
entie
th c
entu
ry, a
nd c
erta
inly
in th
e pa
st de
cade
, the
dis
-tin
ctio
n be
twee
n pr
ivat
e an
d pu
blic
has
und
ergo
ne a
met
amor
phos
is.
Trad
ition
ally,
the
publ
ic sp
here
is d
efine
d in
bin
ary
oppo
sitio
n to
the
priv
ate
sphe
re, w
hich
is se
en a
s the
repo
sito
ry o
f all
thos
e th
ings
that
thre
aten
the
publ
ic d
omai
n. T
he p
rivat
e sp
here
mai
ntai
ns th
e ill
usio
n of
the
trans
pare
nt, r
a-tio
nal,
and
cont
rolla
ble
publ
ic sp
here
. It i
s a p
lace
of s
ecre
ts: th
e se
cret
s of t
he
body
, of s
exua
lity,
of d
eath
. It a
ccom
mod
ates
the
anxi
etie
s and
fear
s of t
he
unkn
own.
As M
iche
lle P
erro
t has
said
, the
se se
cret
s for
m th
e ba
sis o
f the
intim
a-cy
of t
he fa
mily
. The
dar
ker t
hose
secr
ets a
re –
that
is to
say,
the
mor
e th
ey
clas
h w
ith th
e ill
usio
n of
the
man
agea
ble
wor
ld –
the
high
er th
e w
alls
that
mus
t be
bui
lt ar
ound
priv
ate
life.
In o
ther
wor
ds, t
he p
rivat
e sp
here
is n
ot o
nly
a pl
ace
of se
clus
ion,
but
also
the
Pand
ora’
s box
that
mod
ern
soci
ety
desp
erat
ely
tries
to k
eep
clos
ed, s
o th
at th
e pu
blic
sphe
re re
mai
ns in
tact
.115
Som
e no
w c
laim
that
the
publ
ic-p
rivat
e di
stinc
tion
has b
ecom
e so
poo
rly
defin
ed th
at it
is n
o lo
nger
one
of t
he m
ajor
regu
lato
ry p
rinci
ples
of o
ur so
cie-
ty.11
6 In
his b
ook
Wha
t is D
emoc
racy
?, A
lain
Tour
aine
writ
es th
at th
e m
uch
used
bi
nary
opp
ositi
on b
etw
een
publ
ic a
nd p
rivat
e lif
e ca
nnot
be
mai
ntai
ned.
117
Tour
aine
doe
s not
mea
n to
say
that
eve
ry a
spec
t of t
he d
istin
ctio
n be
twee
n pr
ivat
e an
d pu
blic
is o
utm
oded
. Wha
t doe
s see
m to
be
out o
f dat
e is
the
rigid
di
stinc
tion
betw
een
the
publ
ic sp
here
in it
s mod
ern
guis
e as
a ra
tiona
l, tra
ns-
pare
nt d
omai
n of
act
ivity
and
the
priv
ate
sphe
re in
its m
oder
n gu
ise
as a
stor
e-ho
use
of se
cret
s. La
te m
oder
nity,
or p
ost-m
oder
nity,
has
evi
dent
ly b
lurr
ed th
is
disti
nctio
n. T
he fo
rtres
s of t
he p
rivat
e sp
here
has
now
bee
n sto
rmed
by
a ho
st
of a
ctiv
ities
and
mec
hani
sms w
hich
in m
oder
n so
ciet
y be
long
ed to
the
publ
ic
sphe
re. C
onve
rsel
y, th
e pu
blic
sphe
re is
no
long
er fr
ee o
f the
irra
tiona
l, em
o-tio
nal,
and
unm
anag
eabl
e si
des o
f life
, whi
ch in
mod
ern
soci
ety
belo
nged
ex
clus
ivel
y to
the
priv
ate
dom
ain.
In p
ost-m
oder
nity,
the
publ
ic h
as b
ecom
e pr
ivat
e an
d th
e pr
ivat
e ha
s bec
ome
publ
ic.
Rich
ard
Senn
ett s
ugge
sts th
at th
ese
proc
esse
s of b
lurr
ing
and
inve
rsio
n
form
the
grea
test
thre
ats t
o th
e pu
blic
sphe
re. H
e ob
serv
es th
at th
e de
clin
e of
th
e pu
blic
sphe
re is
ass
ocia
ted
with
stro
ng te
nden
cy to
war
ds in
divi
dual
izat
ion.
In
our
cul
ture
of c
onsu
mpt
ion,
he
postu
late
s, th
e in
divi
dual
lear
ns to
con
duct
hi
mse
lf le
ss a
nd le
ss li
ke a
‘pub
lic m
an’;
he se
es e
very
thin
g ar
ound
him
as m
er-
chan
dise
. The
pub
lic sp
here
is tr
ansf
orm
ed a
nd re
duce
d to
one
big
shop
ping
m
all,
the
over
ridin
g pu
rpos
e of
whi
ch is
to sa
tisfy
indi
vidu
al d
esire
s. T
he in
divi
d-
urba
n fra
mew
ork.
109 T
he p
ublic
sphe
re a
nd u
rban
ity a
re b
eing
dec
oupl
ed
from
one
ano
ther
. Koo
lhaa
s app
ears
to h
ave
aban
done
d th
e m
oder
nist
notio
n th
at a
rchi
tect
ure
has s
ome
inhe
rent
uto
pian
pow
er to
influ
ence
or s
hape
the
publ
ic sp
here
.
4.2
The
publ
ic sp
here
and
the
new
mas
s med
ia
The
deco
uplin
g of
urb
anity
and
the
publ
ic sp
here
can
also
be
linke
d to
the
role
of
the
new
mas
s med
ia in
the
publ
ic sp
here
. As m
entio
ned
abov
e, m
ass m
edia
su
ch a
s new
spap
ers,
boo
ks, a
nd p
erio
dica
ls fig
ure
prom
inen
tly in
Hab
erm
as’
defin
ition
of t
he p
ublic
sphe
re. T
hey
are,
as i
t wer
e, th
e ve
hicl
es o
f ide
as, o
f cl
aim
s and
cou
nter
clai
ms.
The
pre
senc
e of
the
mas
s med
ia m
akes
it p
ossi
ble
to
diss
emin
ate
new
s to
larg
e gr
oups
of p
eopl
e, th
ereb
y cr
eatin
g op
portu
nitie
s for
th
em to
par
ticip
ate
in p
ublic
deb
ate.
The
mas
s med
ia th
us p
lay
an im
porta
nt
role
in th
e de
velo
pmen
t of t
he p
ublic
sphe
re.
Toda
y, h
owev
er, w
e ar
e co
nfro
nted
with
an
arra
y of
new
med
ia, i
n th
e fo
rm
of in
form
atio
n ne
twor
ks a
nd te
chno
logi
es. W
hat i
s new
abo
ut th
is si
tuat
ion
is
not p
rimar
ily th
at in
form
atio
n te
chno
logi
es u
nder
pin
the
med
ia in
whi
ch p
ublic
de
bate
is c
ondu
cted
, but
that
thes
e te
chno
logi
es a
llow
new
form
s of d
ecen
tral-
ized
dia
logu
e. Y
ocha
i Ben
kler
, for
exa
mpl
e, p
aint
s a p
ictu
re o
f the
pub
lic
sphe
re th
at sh
arpl
y de
viat
es fr
om th
e tra
ditio
nal v
iew
. He
argu
es th
at th
e In
tern
et h
as c
reat
ed th
e co
nditi
ons f
or a
pub
lic sp
here
that
no
long
er h
as a
fix
ed, a
scer
tain
able
loca
tion,
like
the
surfa
ce o
f the
pub
lic sq
uare
or t
he e
dito
ri-al
pag
e of
the
new
spap
er.11
0 In
stead
, the
pub
lic sp
here
com
es in
to b
eing
whe
r-ev
er th
e pu
blic
hap
pens
to b
e. M
oreo
ver,
the
publ
ic m
ay g
athe
r in
diffe
rent
pl
aces
at d
iffer
ent t
imes
– u
sual
ly, a
t tim
es w
hen
a nu
mbe
r of p
artie
s hav
e co
a-le
sced
aro
und
a gi
ven
‘issu
e’. T
hrou
gh a
com
plex
net
wor
k of
con
tact
s and
pee
r-to
-pee
r dis
cuss
ion
grou
ps, a
mul
titud
e of
peo
ple
can
now
aday
s be
mob
ilize
d in
a
shor
t tim
e, a
phe
nom
enon
that
has
bee
n ca
lled
‘adh
ocra
cy’:11
1 ‘W
hile
ther
e is
eno
rmou
s div
ersi
ty o
n th
e In
tern
et, t
here
are
also
mec
hani
sms a
nd p
ract
ices
th
at g
ener
ate
a co
mm
on se
t of t
hem
es, c
once
rns,
and
pub
lic k
now
ledg
e ar
ound
w
hich
a p
ublic
sphe
re c
an e
mer
ge.’11
2
One
oft-
cite
d ex
ampl
e of
this
type
of a
dhoc
racy
are
the
two
‘revo
lutio
ns’
that
took
pla
ce in
Man
ila, t
he c
apita
l of t
he P
hilip
pine
s. D
urin
g th
e fir
st on
e, in
19
86, w
hen
pres
iden
t Mar
cos w
as fo
rced
to fl
ee th
e co
untry
, rad
io w
as a
cr
ucia
l mea
ns o
f ral
lyin
g de
mon
strat
ors.
Dur
ing
the
seco
nd re
volu
tion,
fifte
en
year
s lat
er, i
t was
the
mob
ile p
hone
, and
the
dece
ntra
lized
pee
r-to-
peer
net
-w
orks
, tha
t pla
yed
a ce
ntra
l rol
e. A
s How
ard
Rhei
ngol
d ex
plai
ns in
his
boo
k Sm
art M
obs,
text
mes
sage
s wer
e us
ed b
y op
posi
tion
lead
ers t
o m
obili
ze e
nor-
mou
s am
ount
s of c
itize
ns in
less
than
two
hour
s, re
sulti
ng in
the
resi
gnat
ion
of
Pres
iden
t Estr
ada.
Rhe
ingo
ld a
lso d
escr
ibes
the
role
pla
yed
by o
ther
dec
entra
l-iz
ed g
rass
root
s med
ia: c
ritic
ism
– o
ften
in th
e fo
rm o
f car
icat
ures
of E
strad
a –
was
circ
ulat
ed b
y e-
mai
l, an
d th
e on
line
foru
m E
-laga
da c
olle
cted
som
e 91
,000
si
gnat
ures
for a
pet
ition
opp
osin
g th
e Es
trada
adm
inis
tratio
n.11
3 In
the
book
M
obile
Com
mun
icat
ion
and
Soci
ety,
Man
uel C
aste
lls a
nd h
is c
o-au
thor
s ob
serv
e th
at th
e re
volu
tion
succ
eede
d th
anks
to th
e te
chni
ques
of c
omm
unic
a-tio
n, th
at a
llow
ed c
ompl
icat
ed n
etw
orks
of s
ende
rs a
nd re
ceiv
ers t
o em
erge
, ou
tside
the
cont
rol m
echa
nism
s of t
he st
ate.
114 I
n ot
her w
ords
, thi
s was
an
in-
stanc
e of
adh
ocra
cy, i
n w
hich
the
publ
ic sp
here
resu
lted
from
a sp
onta
neou
s ac
tion,
supp
orte
d by
the
colle
ctiv
e in
telli
genc
e of
the
‘sm
art m
ob’.
045 From the Editors
11
8
Rich
ard
Senn
ett,
quot
ed in
: C
hris
toph
er La
sh, D
e cu
ltuur
va
n he
t nar
cism
e. A
mste
rdam
(D
e A
rbei
ders
pers
) 198
1,
p. 2
4.
119
Fi
rst e
ditio
n: G
eorg
e O
rwel
l, 19
84. L
ondo
n (S
ecke
r and
W
arbu
rg),
1949
.
120
Se
e al
so D
. Sla
ter,
‘Pub
lic/
priv
ate’
, in:
Chr
is Je
nks (
ed.),
C
ore
Soci
olog
ical
Dic
hoto
mie
s.
Lond
on (S
age)
199
8, p
. 8.
12
1
Hen
ri Le
febv
re, ‘
Hum
anis
me
et
urb
anis
me’
, in:
La G
azet
te
tech
niqu
e, n
o. 1
8 (1
963)
, pp
. 2-3
.
122
A
ntoi
ne P
rost,
‘Gre
nzen
en
ruim
te v
an h
et p
erso
onlij
ke’,
in: A
. Pro
st &
G. V
ince
nt (e
ds.),
G
esch
iede
nis v
an h
et p
erso
on-
lijk
leve
n. V
ol. 9
, De
twin
tigste
ee
uw: d
e ve
rand
erin
g va
n
de p
erso
onlij
ke ru
imte
. A
mste
rdam
(Ago
n) 1
994,
p.
119
; Eng
lish
editi
on:
Ant
oine
Pro
st &
Gér
ard
Vinc
ent,
A hi
story
of p
rivat
e lif
e. V
ol. V
, Rid
dles
of i
dent
ity
in m
oder
n tim
es. C
ambr
idge
, M
ass.
(Har
vard
Uni
vers
ity
Pres
s) 1
991.
12
3
Paul
Viri
lio, T
he V
isio
n M
achi
ne. L
ondo
n (B
FI) &
Bl
oom
ingt
on (I
ndia
na
Uni
vers
ity P
ress
) 199
4, p
. 94;
or
igin
al ti
tle: L
a m
achi
ne d
e vi
sion
. Par
is (G
alilé
e) 1
988.
12
4
Gia
nni V
attim
o, T
he Tr
ans-
pare
nt S
ocie
ty. C
ambr
idge
(P
olity
Pre
ss) 1
992,
p. 1
2; o
rig-
inal
title
: La
soci
età
trasp
aren
te.
Mila
n (G
arza
nti)
1989
.
125
Se
e al
so: A
lain
Tour
aine
, Po
urrio
ns-n
ous v
ivre
ens
embl
e?
Paris
(Fay
ard)
199
7, p
. 49.
12
6
Lofla
nd, T
he P
ublic
Rea
lm.
Expl
orin
g th
e C
ity’s
Q
uint
esse
ntia
l Soc
ial T
heor
y.
Haw
thor
ne, N
Y (A
ldin
e de
G
ruyt
er) 1
998.
12
7
Zygm
unt B
aum
an, L
ife in
Fr
agm
ents.
Oxf
ord
(Bla
ckw
ell)
1995
, p. 1
74.
12
8
Mik
e D
avis
, The
Eco
logy
of
Fea
r, Lo
s Ang
eles
and
the
Imag
inat
ion
of D
isas
ter.
N
ew Y
ork
(Met
ropo
litan
Boo
ks)
1998
.
es to
spre
ad m
ore
easi
ly a
nd fo
llow
one
ano
ther
mor
e ra
pidl
y.12
5 As a
resu
lt,
the
publ
ic sp
here
is n
o lo
nger
a c
lear
ly in
telli
gibl
e, u
nam
bigu
ous s
pher
e of
ac
tivity
, but
a d
omai
n ch
arac
teriz
ed b
y di
ssen
t, di
vers
ity, a
nd a
mbi
vale
nce.
To
day,
the
publ
ic sp
here
is a
col
lect
ion
of c
ount
less
littl
e sp
here
s: th
e pa
roch
iali-
satio
n of
the
publ
ic.12
6 It h
as b
ecom
e a
publ
ic la
byrin
th, a
nd w
hoev
er e
nter
s it
imm
edia
tely
enc
ount
ers p
artic
ular
ism
s of r
ace,
sex,
sexu
al id
entit
y, a
ge, e
thni
ci-
ty, a
nd re
ligio
n. In
divi
dual
s who
ent
er th
e pu
blic
sphe
re n
o lo
nger
hav
e in
min
d on
e cl
ear p
atte
rn o
f act
ion
and
expe
ctat
ion,
that
of t
he ‘p
ublic
man
’. ‘W
e ar
e,
as b
efor
e, st
rivin
g fo
r rat
iona
lity,
’ Zyg
mun
t Bau
man
writ
es, ‘
but t
his i
s now
mi-
cro-
ratio
nalit
y (o
r rat
her,
mic
ro-ra
tiona
litie
s – a
s a ru
le a
ctin
g at
cro
ss-p
urpo
ses,
cl
ashi
ng w
ith e
ach
othe
r, re
fusi
ng to
mer
ge o
r so
muc
h as
com
prom
ise)
, whi
ch
cann
ot b
ut “
prod
uce
irrat
iona
lity
at th
e le
vel o
f the
who
le”.
’127 In
divi
dual
s in
th
e pu
blic
sphe
re a
re n
o lo
nger
con
front
ed w
ith w
ell-d
efine
d so
cial
con
vent
ions
lik
e th
e ci
vicn
ess d
escr
ibed
by
Senn
ett.
Whe
n w
e sp
eak
of th
e cu
rren
t deb
ate
on th
e pu
blic
sphe
re, w
e m
ay a
lso
be re
ferr
ing
to a
seco
nd p
heno
men
on, n
amel
y th
e pr
ivat
e ap
prop
riatio
n of
pu
blic
spac
e. T
his t
ype
of p
rivat
izat
ion
is c
arrie
d ou
t by
both
bus
ines
ses a
nd
soci
al g
roup
s, a
nd it
take
s suc
h fo
rms a
s red
-ligh
t dis
trict
s, h
igh-
crim
e zo
nes,
ga
ted
and
guar
ded
com
mun
ities
for t
he w
ealth
y. It
has
led
peop
le to
fear
for
thei
r saf
ety
and
segr
egat
ed th
e us
e of
spac
e, m
akin
g th
e ur
ban
publ
ic d
omai
n le
ss li
veab
le.12
8
Pres
ent-d
ay a
rchi
tect
s are
incr
easi
ngly
con
front
ed w
ith th
ese
form
s of d
iver
-si
ficat
ion
and
priv
atiz
atio
n. T
hey
mus
t ofte
n co
nten
d w
ith p
roje
cts i
n m
argi
nal
urba
n zo
nes,
com
plic
ated
soci
al a
nd p
oliti
cal s
truct
ures
, and
spac
es th
at d
efy
neat
cla
ssifi
catio
n as
pub
lic o
r priv
ate.
The
refo
re, t
he ta
sk o
f the
arc
hite
ct is
, m
ore
than
eve
r, a
soci
al o
ne. I
n or
der t
o ad
dres
s the
se p
rese
nt-d
ay a
rchi
tect
ural
ch
alle
nges
of a
ccom
mod
atin
g an
d re
pres
entin
g th
e pu
blic
sphe
re, t
he p
rese
nt
book
, Arc
hite
ctur
al P
ositi
ons,
exp
lore
s the
vie
wpo
ints
of a
rang
e of
arc
hite
cts
on th
is c
ompl
ex se
t of i
ssue
s.
ual h
as b
ecom
e na
rcis
sisti
c, se
eing
the
wor
ld n
ot a
s an
obje
ctiv
e, fo
reig
n se
tting
but
as a
mirr
or o
r eve
n an
ext
ensi
on o
f the
self.
In o
ther
wor
ds, S
enne
tt be
lieve
s tha
t the
priv
ate
sphe
re h
as in
trude
d to
o fa
r int
o th
e pu
blic
sphe
re,
blur
ring
the
publ
ic-p
rivat
e bo
unda
ry th
at m
ade
a pu
blic
life
pos
sibl
e in
the
fir
st pl
ace.
The
fina
l sta
ge in
this
pro
cess
, Sen
nett
says
, is a
nar
ciss
istic
cul
ture
in
whi
ch th
e pu
blic
has
cea
sed
to e
xist,
or r
athe
r, ha
s los
t its
obje
ctiv
e ch
arac
ter.11
8
Ther
e is
, of c
ours
e, n
othi
ng n
ew a
bout
the
asse
rtion
that
priv
ate
life
is b
eing
su
bjec
ted
to th
e ra
tiona
l con
trol o
f the
wor
ld. T
his p
roce
ss is
dep
icte
d en
igm
ati-
cally
in d
ysto
pian
wor
ks su
ch a
s Geo
rge
Orw
ell’s
cla
ssic
boo
k 19
84,11
9 whi
ch
sugg
ests
that
we
are
head
ing
tow
ards
a so
ciet
y of
tota
l con
trol.
Her
e, th
e as
pect
s of l
ife th
at u
ntil
rece
ntly
cou
ld b
arel
y, if
at a
ll, b
e re
gula
ted
(sex
ualit
y,
deat
h, a
nd e
mot
ion)
will
hav
e be
en e
ither
elim
inat
ed o
r mad
e m
anag
eabl
e.
Ratio
nal p
lann
ing
and
cont
rol b
y th
e pr
esen
t-day
‘bur
eauc
ratic
-cap
italis
t co
mpl
ex’ i
s pen
etra
ting
into
the
priv
ate
sphe
re,12
0 H
enri
Lefe
bvre
des
crib
ed
this
tend
ency
as t
he ‘c
olon
izat
ion
of e
very
day
life’
.121
The
mas
s med
ia a
re a
noth
er m
ajor
fact
or in
the
incu
rsio
n of
the
publ
ic
sphe
re in
to th
e pr
ivat
e. U
ntil
the
early
twen
tieth
cen
tury
, ind
ivid
uals
had
no
choi
ce b
ut to
leav
e th
e pr
ivat
e sp
here
if th
ey w
ishe
d to
par
ticip
ate
in p
ublic
life
. N
ewsp
aper
s and
mag
azin
es w
ere
the
only
mea
ns b
y w
hich
the
publ
ic sp
here
ex
tend
ed in
to th
e pr
ivat
e. W
ith th
e ar
rival
of m
ass m
edia
like
radi
o an
d te
levi
-si
on, ‘
pers
onal
life
was
ope
ned
in sp
ace
and
time
to th
e so
unds
of t
he w
orld
; ou
r who
le p
lane
t now
mak
es it
self
hear
d in
the
mos
t int
imat
e pl
aces
and
at t
he
mos
t int
imat
e m
omen
ts’.12
2
The
med
ia, t
he c
hief
pill
ars o
f the
pub
lic sp
here
, hav
e ac
quire
d a
cent
ral
plac
e in
the
priv
ate
sphe
re, w
here
they
pro
vide
refe
renc
e po
ints,
mod
els,
con
-ve
rsat
ion,
and
com
pany
. The
Fre
nch
philo
soph
er P
aul V
irilio
des
crib
es th
e sh
ift
that
is ta
king
pla
ce w
ith re
gard
to tr
aditi
onal
pub
lic sp
aces
: ‘Th
is p
ublic
imag
e ha
s tod
ay re
plac
ed th
e fo
rmer
pub
lic sp
aces
in w
hich
soci
al c
omm
unic
atio
n to
ok p
lace
. Ave
nues
and
pub
lic v
enue
s are
from
now
on
eclip
sed
by th
e sc
reen
, by
ele
ctro
nic
disp
lays
, in
prev
iew
of t
he “
visi
on m
achi
nes”
just
arou
nd th
e co
rner
. . .
. Rea
lly o
nce
publ
ic sp
ace
yiel
ds to
pub
lic im
age,
surv
eilla
nce
and
stree
t lig
htin
g ca
n be
exp
ecte
d to
shift
too,
from
the
stree
t to
the
dom
estic
di
spla
y te
rmin
al.’12
3
4.4
Div
ersi
ficat
ion
and
priv
atiz
atio
n
The
colla
pse
of th
e w
alls
arou
nd th
e pr
ivat
e sp
here
has
not
onl
y m
ade
it po
ssi-
ble
for t
he lo
gic
and
the
patte
rns o
f the
pub
lic sp
here
to m
ove
in, b
ut h
as a
lso
open
ed th
e w
ay fo
r a m
ovem
ent i
n th
e op
posi
te d
irect
ion,
the
colo
niza
tion
of
the
publ
ic sp
here
by
elem
ents
of th
e pr
ivat
e. H
aber
mas
and
Are
ndt d
escr
ibed
th
e pu
blic
sphe
re a
s a d
omai
n of
act
ivity
in w
hich
indi
vidu
als c
ould
mee
t, ex
-ch
ange
idea
s, e
stabl
ish
busi
ness
es, e
nter
into
agr
eem
ents,
and
com
pete
with
on
e an
othe
r. A
s the
pub
lic sp
here
was
ope
ned
to o
ther
gro
ups i
n th
e tw
entie
th
cent
ury,
the
rang
e of
opi
nion
s rep
rese
nted
ther
e gr
eatly
exp
ande
d. T
he It
alia
n ph
iloso
pher
Gia
nni V
attim
o m
emor
ably
refe
rs to
this
as t
he p
ublic
sphe
re
beco
min
g ‘o
vertr
ansp
aren
t’. H
e ho
lds t
hat t
he in
crea
sing
num
ber o
f diff
eren
t vi
ewpo
ints
in e
ffect
obs
cure
s rea
lity.
124
The
cont
empo
rary
pub
lic sp
here
is c
hara
cter
ised
by
an e
ver g
row
ing
dive
r-si
ty, p
artly
bec
ause
of o
ngoi
ng g
loba
lizat
ion,
whi
ch a
llow
s tre
nds a
nd in
fluen
c-
LECTURE 2CONCEPTS OF CULTURE
Christoph Grafe – Welfare State Culture and its Buildings. The Example of the French Action CulturelleChristoph Grafe – Concrete Rocks on the ThamesDick van Gameren – Revisions of Spaces, chapter 2
‘
32
45
LECTURE 3VIRTUAL REALITIES
Arie Graafland – From embodiment in urban thinking to disembodied data. The Disappearance of AffectKas Oosterhuis – A new kind of building
From embodiment in urban thinking to disembodied data; the disappearanceof affect
Arie Graafland
I want to briefly start with what I consider one of the most important books on the city and its
inhabitants that was written around the nineteen thirties, to be precise between 1927 and 1940,
Walter Benjamin’s Passagen Werk. Most of the important texts Benjamin wrote until his death
in 1940 are offshoots of the Passagen Werk. Rolf Tiedemann writes that if it had been
completed it would have become nothing less than a materialist philosophy of the history of
the nineteenth century. Paris, Hauptstadt des neunzehnten Jahrhundert (1935) provides the
summary of the themes and motifs Benjamin was concerned with in the larger work. It
introduces the concept of ‘ historical schematism’, which was to serve as the basic plan for
Benjamin’s construction of the nineteenth century. Benjamin was the ‘maverick member’ of
the Frankfurt School, as Terry Eagleton qualifies him.1. Benjamin with his astonishing blend
of Marxism, surrealism, Kabbala, Messianic theology and avant-garde aesthetics, belonged to
the fertile Judeo_Marxist current which produced Horkheimer and Adorno. His other
influential work Das Kunstwerk im Zeitalter seiner technischen Reproduzierbarkeit has more
connections with the twentieth rather than with the nineteenth century, Tiedemann writes. I do
not want to go in to these texts, my main concern in this presentation is with the way current
architectural discourse is developing along very different lines of thought. My main argument
will be that with Benjamin we are dealing with a form of urban thinking that rests on
embodied thinking, and that in our times, the beginning of the twenty first century, we are
moving into the direction of a disembodied language due to the development of digital
techniques and ideologies. The effect of all this might be that we are loosing notions of
‘aesthetic affect’ which were so important for the philosophers of the Frankfurt School. The
Frankfurt School was the first to give serious attention to mass culture, to day known as
Cultural Studies.
The books were written a good seventy years ago however. The question remains where are
we now in technology? We would have to look where ideas about technology and society are
at the forefront. There are few organizations in the world that routinely look as far forward as
the Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) in the USA. It regularly thinks –
1 Terry Eagleton, Figures of Dissent, Critical Essays on Fish, Spivak, Zizek and Others, Verso 2003, p 73
1
and funds 20 to 40 years ahead. It has already changed your life, Joel Garreau writes.2 In the
early sixties there was no field of computer science. There were no computer networks and
departments in Universities. But that was also the time that J.C.R. Licklider, director of the
Pentagon’s DARPA organization, envisioned what he called the Intergalactic Computer
Network. By the late sixties they started Arpanet. This was a decade before the first
commercial personal computer. In the 1970s they expanded it into a network. You know it
now by the name of the Internet.
Today DARPA is in the business of creating better humans. They are interested in soldiers
having no physical, physiological or cognitive limitations. This ‘bio-revolution’ is however
only a fraction of DARPA’s overall agenda. There are no other institutions in the world that
are so devoted to high-risk, high return, explicitly world-changing research, according to
Garreau. 3 They are definitely not interested in incremental research. “All of the military’s
airplanes, missiles, ships and vehicles, including the materials and the processes and armour
that went into them, and especially everything with the word stealth as part of its name, has
“DARPA inside”.4 Various ray guns, including laser, particle-beam and electromagnetic pulse
weapons, started with DARPA.
Image Korean Fighter, Stealth airplane
DARPA invests 90 percent of its budget outside the federal government, mainly in
Universities and the industry. Academic groups in MIT, Stanford and Carnegie Mellon made
fundamental contributions to information technology because of DARPA. Architecture
departments play no role in this, they seem to be low-tech.
2 Joel Garreau, Radical Evolution, 3 Joel Garreau, Radical Evolution, p 234 Joel Garreau, Radical Evolution, p 24
2
In an interview with Alan Rudolph, Garreau asks him what he is doing at DARPA. Let me
give you a little bit of my background, so you understand the perspective, he says. “I am a
zoologist, I come from systems taxonomy, physiology, the thinking about populations,
ecology’s, communities and organisms, how they adapt and evolve”.5 He is working now on
everything from multi-legged robots to computerized human eye implants, to brain-machine
interfaces, - the famous telekinetic monkey. In 2002 DARPA funded a team of researchers of
Duke University and the State University of New York. They were working on brain
computer interfaces to give the paralysed control of robot arms. “What’s born here is a
fundamental philosophy that says what if we can first increase the number of interconnections
between living systems and the non-living world – hardware of software – what would
happen”(Rudolph). The result is massive connections between individual neurons inside the
skull of humans and wires that lead to computers. One of the more peaceful results is cochlear
implants, - tiny machines that allow the profoundly deaf to hear by wiring tiny computers
directly to the nervous systems. The next step is retinal implants, - computer eyes-, wired to
the brain of the blind as we will see soon.
Phil Kennedy ‘s research with monkeys had shown that an electrode implanted in the brain
could facilitate communication to the outside world, by picking up a brain signal and
transmitting it to a computer. No one till so far had tried it out on a human. The neurosurgeon
Roy Bakey implanted a device in the motor cortex, the part of our brain that deals with
motion. The patient was put though an intensive training program, “he would stare at a
computer monitor that showed an on-screen keyboard and had a thought-controlled cursor
with which to pick out letters”.6 As the patient imagined moving his hand, the electrode in his
brain picked up the signals of the few neurons near it and broadcast those to the computer.
The computer in turn moved the cursor. A human being was thinking, and the computer was
responding. DARPA got interested since it might give U.S. soldiers the ability to control
tanks, fly planes, and share information purely through thought.7.
If, as many theorists and scholars have claimed over the past decades, modernity finds it
cornerstone in the belief that human progress should be measured and evaluated solely in
terms of the domination of nature, instead of focusing on the transformation of the
relationships between ‘humans’ and ‘nature’, it becomes evident that much has escaped our5 Joel Garreau, Radical Evolution, p 346 Ramez Naam, More than Human, Embracing the promise of biological enhancement, p 1747 Ramez Naam, More than Human, p 178
3
attention in architecture theory. The relationship between humans and nature, which has
without a doubt undergone dramatic changes, boundary dissolutions, and definitional
mutations, has changed in contemporary discourse. It renders the general notions of ‘nature’
and ‘society’, ‘Natur und Gesellschaft’, the central categories of Adorno and Benjamin
obsolete. Donna Haraway, Bruno Latour and Katherine Hayles, among others, have shown in
a rather convincing way how, in their obsolescence, ‘society’ and ‘nature’ become concepts
that are no longer equipped to address their referents. Finding new definitions and
understandings of ‘society’ (Latour, Urry) and ‘nature’ (Haraway, Hayles) is becoming
paramount. The basic idea with these writers is that we are experiencing an increasingly
intimate relationship between objects and subjects, rendering the human and physical worlds
as intertwined and inseparable from each other. Hence, the conventional distinctions between
society and nature, between humans and objects become more complicated. Conceptual fields
evolve similarly to material culture, in part because concept and artefact engage each other in
continuous feedback loops. Conceptual shifts that took place during the development of
cybernetics for instance, display a pattern reminiscent of material changes in artefacts. As
Hayles shows, an artefact materially expresses the concept it embodies, but the process of its
construction is far from passive. The rapid development in bio-sciences has produced many
oppositions and warnings; we are involved in changing the very nature of our ‘selves’ and
‘society’. In 2000 George W. Bush created the President’s Council on Bioethics. Its head Leon
Kass, a University of Chicago professor of bioethics and political conservative opposed
infertility treatments, cosmetic surgery, organ transplantation, and other technologies that in
his view violate the natural order of things. Francis Fukuyama in his book Our Posthuman
Future, also a council member, opposes the improvement of human nature. Ramez Naam in
More than Human takes the opposite stand; “rather than fearing change, we ought to embrace
it, rather than prohibiting the exploration of new technologies, society ought to focus on
spreading the power to alter our own minds and bodies to as many people as possible”.8
Raymond Kurzweil goes quite a bit further down that road.9 The core element here is the
Curve of exponentially increasing technology. This development to him is unstoppable, the
Curve is a force of nature. It is like evolution, a new emerging pattern, the outcome of billions
of small actions. He calls it ‘the Law of Accelerating Returns’, the only possible limit a
complete and catastrophic collapse of civilization or the extinction of the human species, to
8 Ramez Naam, More than human, p 59 see for instance: Ray Kurzweil, The Age of Spiritual Machines, When computers exceed human intelligence,(1999), and Ray Kurzweil, The Singularity is near, When Humans transcend Biology, (2005)
4
Kurzweil no more than a possible footnote in history10. Disruptions like economic depression,
wars and famine do not really have an effect on the Curve, in the end it is a smooth line of
accelerating technology. If stemcell research is slowed down in the United States, then other
countries like China, Korea, Taiwan and Great Britain will pick up and get there first he notes.
That might be overly optimistic, but more important right now is the question: how does this
development relate to architecture? Do we see the same patterns arising in architecture?
In an essay published in Architecture and the Sciences Antoine Picon addresses the question
of the growing number of images and metaphors from mathematics, physics, and molecular
biology that have spread among architects.11 A large number of these images are linked to the
growing importance given to the virtual dimension in the architectural discipline. His main
question is whether we are dealing with a mere rhetorical figure or ‘habit’, as he calls it, or if
it is dictated by more profound reasons. The use of scientific images and metaphors within the
discipline is of course no recent phenomenon. Picon mentions a series of central concepts and
images that originated in different historical settings. What would nineteenth century
architecture have been without the notion of structure, for instance? Structure resulted from
biological sciences, the study of living beings. Moreover, and throughout its history, science
has repeatedly made use of architectural notions. Referring to Nelson Goodman, Picon writes
that architecture, like science, is about how we ‘make’ and conceive worlds; worlds populated
with subjects and objects, where definitions are always historically determined. Important in
his essay is that he develops science and architecture along parallel lines: science and
architecture often meet in their common attempt to shape the categories of visual perception.
And in doing so, they construct the notion of subject and society. Hugh Aldersey-Williams
compares the molecular structure of the element carbon to Buckminster Fuller’s geodesic
domes. ‘The shape of these molecules’, he writes,’proves structurally advantageous at the
scales of chemical bond and human construction’12 The scale of the molecular and the
architectural seem to correspond. Aldersey-Williams suggests that visual motifs might be
persuasive for a design mentality to be helpful in comprehending the miniature three-
dimensional worlds of micro-organisms and molecules. This might be so, but in the near
future we might be able to rearrange atoms into new molecular structures inventing new
materials. The most daring idea in nanotechnology is where we are stacking individual atoms10 Joel Garreau, Radical Evolution, p 9411 Antoine Picon, Architecture, Science, Technology, and the Virtual Realm, in Architecture and the Sciences,Exchanging Metaphors, 2003, Princeton University, p 29312 Hugh Aldersey-Williams, Applied Curiosity, in Design and the Elastic Mind, The Museum of Modern Art, NY,published on the occasion of the exhibition, February 24-May 12, 2008, page 52
5
into any larger thing we want. Richard Phillips Feynman describes a world in which you give
the orders and the physicist synthesizes it. In 1996 Richard Smally got the Nobel prize for
chemistry for hitting a batch a pure carbon with a special laser beam until the atoms
rearranged themselves into a previously unknown molecule – a ball made of 60 atoms that
looked like the kind of geodesic domes pioneered by Buckminster Fuller13. The molecule is
nicknamed the ‘buckyball’ in Fuller’s honour. Buckyballs and their cousins, the nanotube
fibres, have many intriguing properties Garreau writes. They have 60 times the strength of
steel, the weight of plastic, the electrical conductivity of silicon, the heat conductivity of a
diamond and the size and perfection of DNA. Visualization can prove woefully misleading
Aldersey-Williams rightfully remarks. He refers to Heisenberg who felt that ‘visualization
was invalid for quantum phenomena occurring in a scale below the wavelengths of light’14
Also D’Árcy Thompson’s On Growth and From (1917), the brilliant exploration of visual and
structural similarity among natural organisms is occasionally wrong, he argues. His main
argument is that ‘visualization becomes more treacherous the further you travel away from the
human scale’ 15. ‘Beyond the visual, images of science have merely metaphorical power,
typically communicating a sense of progressiveness and optimism through the objects that
adopt them’16. Aldersey-Williams refers to the double helix of DNA that has become an
enduring motif in art, design, and architecture I would add. The DNA played an important
role in the design for the Biocenter competition Peter Eisenman submitted in 1987. The most
striking characteristic of the plan is the literal graphic copying of the four nucleotides in the
plan 17
Later on he got interested in Mandelbrot’s fractal geometry, which for Aldersey-Williams
explains the emergence of a new baroque in contemporary decorative art. Using science for
inspiration is all well and good, he writes, but caution is necessary if larger claims are made
for it. His critique of Charles Jencks who claims that science leads to a more creative world
view is to the point, there is no superior moral authority in science, it can only be an
inspiration, a starting point. After that, design is on its own. In Eisenman the final design
shows traces of the applied research into DNA structures. But at the same time it is always
more than that, I wrote at the time.18 In its final form it has been autonomized, it is no longer
13 Joel Garreau, Radical Evolution, p 11914 Hugh Aldersey Williams, Applied Curiosity, p 5215 Hugh Aldersey Williams, Applied Curiosity, p 5316 Hugh Aldersey Williams, Applied Curiosity, p 5417 Arie Graafland, Architecture in absentia, in Peter Eisenman, Recent Projects, 1989, page 10818 Arie Graafland, Architecture in absentia, p 111
6
the property of the architect; it was never so materially; neither is it so in an immaterial sense.
The same is true for the current interest in Deleuzian conceptions of space, ‘striated’ and
‘smooth’ space conceptions have no moral authority in design practice over contested
conceptions of ‘modern’ space. They can only be starting points in a process that ends
elsewhere, into a different relatively autonomous form. We could ask ourselves whether Joris
Laarman’s Bone Chair (Joris Laarman Studio, the Netherlands 2007) where he explores a
biomimetic approach, is any different from Eisenman’s Biocenter? They both explore
biomimetic possibilities, design solutions even. The former in a building, the latter in a chair.
A building has not more ‘importance’ then a chair when it comes to design, only its economic
value will make the difference. Laarmans used automotive software SKO to design the chair.
As bones grow, areas not exposed to high stress develop less mass, while areas that bear more
stress develop added mass for strength. Using 3-D optimization software to generate form
rather than applying the software to a pre-existing structure, Laarman’s Bone Chair moves
beyond imitation of a biological structure, Aldersey-Williams writes19. The design of the chair
moves on to semi-autonomy, and much like Eisenman shows all the traces of its intentional
starting position.
An even more interesting relationship between science and architecture is unveiled in
Picon’s thesis: similarly to architecture, science is permeated by the virtual, in that is
reducible to neither a set of theoretical results, nor to a collection of experimental data.
Science appears as the productive tension between theory and experiment, or between abstract
knowledge and practice. Hence, the virtual dimension works in both architecture and science.
Picon, like Christine Boyer, traces contemporary virtual reality to the Cold War period,
when a new space was emerging; a space of phenomena that could be visualised exclusively
through the use of screens, maps, and diagrams. These phenomena ranged over a vast amount
of possibilities: the attack of bombers and enemy armies, the state of military supplies, or
economic trends, regardless of whether real or hypothetical.20 These visualizations heralded
the destabilization of form, an important issue in contemporary design. Until then,
architectural form was considered the ultimate result of a process of research. Its beauty was
the beauty that only an end product could entail, built or un-built. Aided or even generated by
computer technologies, digital architectural form can no longer aspire, or pretend to achieve
this status. Digital architecture remains the result of an arbitrary stop in a potentially endless
19 Hugh Aldersey Williams, Applied Curiosity, p 7120 Antoine Picon, Science, Technology, and the Virtual Realm, in Architecture and the Sciences, ExchangingMetaphors, 2003, Princeton University, p 293
7
process of transformation. And with this process, the human body has changed dramatically:
from a modernist bodily image as in Walter Benjamin, to an informational bodiless
videogram as in Greg Lynn’s work. The New City Concept, a project developed for the MoMa
exhibit Design and the Elastic Mind Lynn participated in, the world is mapped onto a ‘folded
virtual manifold’, a seamless world with neither social structure nor conflict.
(http://www.imaginaryforces.com/featured/3/435 ).
This way of thinking is not completely new however. Let me take you forty years back to the
times of Buckminster Fuller and John MaHale. McHale engages with the work of
Buckminster Fuller, a figure he found intriguing. Much like Fuller, McHale was fascinated by
the attachment of artificial limbs usually to overcome some kind of human defect. But
artificial limbs could also amplify and diversify the human organism, passing that apparatus
right into the internal nervous system. This might have been a distant future in the time of
McHale, but today at Duke University, scientists are looking for ways to help amputees and
paralytics by way of implanting electrodes in the brain of a group of monkeys. The monkeys
can move mechanical arms just by thinking about it, as if those robots were parts of their
bodies. In Lisbon, Portugal, there is a group of blind men and woman who can now see. In
place of eyeglasses they wear cameras connected to electrodes implanted in the visual area of
their brains. Some of them had been blind for twenty years or more before the surgery. The
technology that has given them sight could in principle beam images from one person’s mind
to another. We could call genetic engineering a crime against humanity, or see it as wonderful
enhancement, the main issue here is that the limits between interior and exterior are giving
way. Identity questions can be asked even without the new technologies, Ramez Naam writes.
“Neurotechnology doesn’t radically alter the nature of identity – it just brings some of the
limitations of the idea into starker relief. The reality is that we ‘re constantly changing.”21
21 Ramez Naam, More than Human, p 59
8
Buckminster Fuller
John McHale
McHale conceived of technology itself as an organic system. Radio telescopes and radar
systems are often presented as enormous ears and eyes. Parts of our body float above and
around the planet: “eyes, ears and noses on the loose,” as Mark Wigley puts it.22 McHale’s
ideas point towards an artificial body that has become globalised into a vast electronic
network mirroring the internal electricity of the nervous system. The bodily scale collapses,
opening way for a planetary body: a body at the scale of the planet, an ecosystem in which the
distinction between culture and nature cannot easily be made. Such an ecology calls for new
kinds of resource management, which allow addressing uneven distribution of resources, and
combat it with new tactics, new ‘prosthetics’. In this scheme, institutions such as the Nation
State have to be abandoned because they no longer convey the possibility of envisioning new
forms and models for the planetary oykos.
Beyond the futuristic underpinnings, McHale’s argument on prosthetics is, as Wigley
shows, a social argument. The social condition nestles in the extremes of state-of-the-arts
technology. McHale’s extension of Buckminster Fuller’s formulation of the house as a
22 Marc Wigley, p 38
9
rentable and fully serviced facility, the house not as a ‘home’, but as a telephone, is revealing
in this regard. The identity of the house is radically displaced. McHale rejects
homeownership, for starters. But more importantly, in his descriptions the house is rendered
as a prosthetic skin as much as the car becomes a mobile extension of the house. All that is
left of a traditional understanding of ‘house’ is that of a sort of “service pack” that actually
can go anywhere: architecture in restless circulation, architecture in a constant flow. McHale’s
ideas have gained ground in our times, objects have had to become lighter and more elastic,
Paola Antonelli writes.23 The new category of objects designed to provide access to networks
and services are meant, as John Thackara states, to be used, not owned. And yes, Antonelli is
right in stating that today’s technologies leap forward toward portability and miniaturization.
Her plea is for ‘Existenzmaximum’, the opposite of German architectural ideas in modern
architecture. Functions were organized in rooms, rooms within dwellings, dwellings within
buildings, buildings within quarters, quarters within cities. At he 60s and 70s the concept
started to burst at the seams, Archigram just one example of intended change. The home
became more permeable to the outside world, telephone, radio, television entered private
space.
In taking up the western philosophical notions of ‘First’ and ‘Second Nature’ as in
Benjamin, Timothy Luke defines a new concept, called ‘Third Nature’ as the informational
cybersphere/telesphere. Here, digitalization becomes a primary concern, since it shifts human
agency and structure from manufactured matter to a register of informational bits. Human
presence is located in the interplay of the first two modes of nature’s influence: terrestriality
(the earth) and territoriality (the states). On the other hand, ‘Third Nature’ posits itself well
beyond the feasible realm of human consciousness, located more on spheres involving
temporality, over and against the ‘scapes’ implicit in the spatiality of terrestrial and territorial
models. It looks like time today has become a function of speed, as Fredric Jameson argues24.
It is evidently perceptible only in terms of its rate, or velocity as such: “as though the old
Bergsonian opposition between measurement and life, clock time and lived time, had dropped
out, along with that virtual eternity or slow permanence without which Valéry thought the
very idea of a work as such was likely to die out (something he seems to have been confirmed
in thinking).”25
23 Paola Antonelli, All Together Now, in Design and the Elastic Mind, p 15224 Fredric Jameson, The Seeds of Time, p 825 Fredric Jameson, The Seeds of Time, p 8
1
An interesting association might be established between Luke’s understanding of
‘Third Nature’ as informational ‘spheres’ and John Urry’s conception of ‘instantaneous
time’.26 Instantaneous time is related to the new informational and communicational
technologies based on inconceivably brief instants beyond human consciousness. Codes can
be sent over fibre optics instantaneously; there is no longer a shared, stable context that helps
to anchor meaning and guide information, as Katherine Hayles writes.27 In contrast to the
fixity of print, decoding implies that there are no original texts, no first editions, no fair
copies. Something similar seems to be occurring in western architectural design, where
physicality and body are currently also data or codes to be translated into computer
programs. The very notion of ‘urbanity’ as social construct as in Benjamin, as a set of
complex social relations is fading away in recent digital technologies.
The loss of a more fixed and stable‘urbanity’ and the fading of traditional social relations as
parameters to our profession as architects and urbanists are, of course, of no small
significance. They bring questions of action and agency to the fore: how are we to understand
our own actions in relation to nature and society? And how could this translate into possible
architectural and urban solutions?
Both architecture and urbanism are directly involved in this new information environment as a
third nature in digitalized work processes and digital architectures, and their relation to first
and second nature. An important effect of it is what Urry calls ’collage effect’: a phenomenon
in which the ‘event’ has become more important than the urban context in all its socio-
political connotations. This poses questions to the notion of meaning as Picon argues. As an
event architectural form is supposed to find its ultimate justification in what it can achieve he
argues. In referring to Lars Spuybroek’s D-Tower he mentions that the tower in itself has no
meaning, what it does is merely perform, it has neither meaning nor function. It gathers
‘emotional feelings’ from the inhabitants of Doesburg, the city where his tower is located.
26 John Urry Sociology Beyond Societies: Mobilities for the Twenty-first Century. New York: Routledge, 2000 p12627 Katherine Hayles, How We Became Posthuman, Virtual Bodies in Cybernetics, Literature, and Informatics p47
11
Images Spuybroek’s D-Tower, Doesburg
The tower has the same background as Jonathan Harris ‘we feel fine’ organization.
(wefeelfine.org). People often use the Internet to express and share emotions and to connect to
others. The web site We Feel Fine has been harvesting human feelings from blogs since 2005.
Every few minutes the system searches newly posted blogs entries for phrases like “I feel”.
When it finds such a phrase, it records the full sentence and tags the feeling expressed in the
sentence. The site can also extract age, gender, and geographical location of the author,
resulting in a database of several million feelings each day28. Urry’s formulation departs from
a critique against these media, and centres on the argument that the juxtaposition of ‘stories’
reveals that most of them share nothing in common, except their ‘newsworthy’ character.29
Urry’s ‘collage effect’ can be made operative in architecture, where the effect of digital media
quite literally effaces the notions of space and place, dissolving them into neutral data of
‘locations’, while simultaneously reducing all forms of embodiment to digital data and event.
‘Telemetricality’ has replaced the older aesthetic parameters and the notions of beauty and the
sublime in architecture. The growing volatility and ephemerality implicit in telemetricality
have supplanted the unique building (as concept) transforming it into a ‘series’. These series
of possible solutions in rapid prototyping are necessarily the product of an arbitrary stop in the
process. The conceptualisation of, and the relation to Luke’s ‘First’ and ‘Second Nature’ has
been either lost completely, or has been dealt with in a rather superficial method of data
collection. We experience the conceptual reduction of first, second, and third nature into one
28 Jonathan Harris and Sep Kamvar, We Feel Fine, An Exploration of Human Emotion in Six Movements, 2005,Design and the Elastic Mind, p 13629 John Urry, Sociology Beyond Societies: Mobilities for the Twenty-first Century. New York: Routledge, 2000 ,
p 127
1
abstract, autonomous data based concept. This reduction is often the pseudo-architectural
concepts, or insubstantial datascapes used in Dutch architectural offices such as MVRDV, UN
Studio, NOX, or ONL. This is related to “the idealization of architecture as autonomous
form”, the efforts of the profession to define and protect some independent class of work.30
Digitally based architectures as in the 11th International Architecture Exhibition in Venice
(2008) are indeed an ‘Out There’, they are ‘Beyond’ any notion of first and second nature.
Architecture in the Arsenale has become an object of desire, no different from Damien Hirst’s
art forms. ‘Context’, that contested concept in sociology, is not a ‘field of influence’ as these
architectural studios might see it, but instead should be a key element in our efforts to
formulate an urban and architectural theory in a ‘post-societal’ condition.
The contemporary ‘right to the city’ of Lefebvre might be partially fought out over the web,
but political force will need embodiment deployed on the ground, on the streets, rather than on
digital highways. Information, Hayles reminds us, like humanity, cannot exist apart from the
embodiment that brings it into being as a material entity in the world.31. Embodiment is
always instantiated, local, and specific.32 And as such, it encompasses a broad spectrum of
problematic relationships and forces that have to converge at some point in order to form
coherent directionalities for action. As Harvey points out, there is a witches’ brew of political
and environmental arguments, concepts and difficulties surrounding these questions that can
conveniently become the basis for an endless academic, intellectual, theoretical or
philosophical debate. 33 No satisfactory solutions will be reached from this debate unless
adequate ways of translation between different languages, or even more ideally, some sort of
common language is found. This would also entail the establishment of a common ground,
something that Harvey refers to as ‘the web of life’ metaphor, which might indeed be useful in
filtering our actions through the web of interconnections that make up the living world. The
‘computational universe’ that spreads out before us today might quite literally be nothing
more than a ‘cybernetic dream’(Hayles). And enmeshed in lethargy or slumber, our attention
30 William Braham and Paul Emmons, (2002) ‘Upright or Flexible?’, in George Dodds and Robert Tavernor,
Body and Building. Essays on the Changing Relation of Body and Architecture. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT
Press. pp.290--303.
31 Katherine Hayles, How We Became Posthuman, Virtual Bodies in Cybernetics, Literature, and Informatics, 1999, 49
32 Katherine Hayles, How We Became Posthuman, Virtual Bodies in Cybernetics, Literature, and Informatics p196-19733 David Harvey, Spaces of Hope, (2000) p 215
1
might be distracted from the real problems and concerns of our contemporary world. Hayles
stresses something similar: the computational universe turns dangerous when it stops being a
useful heuristic device and transforms into an ideology that privileges information over
everything else like in many ‘digital architectures’.34
Conclusions
If, after surveying the implications of these so-called new technologies and the computational
universes they unlock, on our bodies, on our material realities, and on our cognitive spheres,
we were to reach any form of concluding remarks, we would be forced to phrase these as a
sort of warning. Digital technologies and computerisation are changing the very notion of
‘tool’ or ‘technology’, as Grosz and Hayles remind us, and therefore require a certain degree
of precaution. Architectural design will only become more reliant and dependant on these
‘new’ digital technologies, and this will have as a result that our understandings of ground,
city and body will necessarily have to shift to adapt to them.
Contemporary discourses on dematerialisation will inevitably change our conceptions of
both, the body as a material substrate, and of the ‘message’. Information technologies create
‘flickering signifiers’ -a term that Hayles relates to Lacan’s ‘floating signifiers’, which are
characterised by their tendency toward unexpected metamorphoses, attenuations, and
dispersions.35 This, however, does not imply that computational, or digital virtual reality is
fundamentally different from the virtual reality of writing, drawing, or even thinking, as
Elisabeth Grosz advocates. The virtual is simultaneously the space of the new, the un-thought,
and the unrealized. And it is precisely here that the real challenge for architecture begins: the
‘new’ in architecture is certainly not limited to digital techniques as the hijacking of the term
in ‘digital architecture’ suggests. Just like the cybernetic aspect of the posthuman is not
necessarily related to interventions or alterations to the human body. In architecture the virtual
is present in all its forms, from its processes to its practices, from its concepts and projects to
its expressions and representations. The virtual is an integral part of architecture.
Nevertheless, and in spite of the fact that these are rarely acknowledged in contemporary
architectural theory, there are real and important limitations to this: the capacity of
simulations to approach the sensory and the corporeal is still an impossibility today.36 If we
consider that these corporeal limits and sensory capacities have always been, and continue to34 Katherine Hayles, How We Became Posthuman, Virtual Bodies in Cybernetics, Literature, and Informatics, p24435 Katherine Hayles, How We Became Posthuman, Virtual Bodies in Cybernetics, Literature, and Informatics,
p 29 and 30
1
be, a vital engine for architecture, it seems far too easy and unjustified to simply ignore them
in order to advocate for a ‘new’, digitalised architecture more in tune with other logics than
that of our own ‘slow’, but grounded, materiality.
Laarmans bonechair
36 See for instance: Antonio Damasio, Descartes Error, Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain, 1994, andAntonio Damasio, The Feeling of What Happens, Body and Emotion in the Making of Consciousness, 1999
1
������������� ��������������� ��
��� ������������ ���
����������������������������������� ��������������� ���������������� �������������������������������������
���� �� ��������� ��� � ��� ������� ������� ���� ���������� ����������� �������� � ������������ ��� � !�
����������������"������������ ������������������� ����������������������� ����� ������������������ �� �
!� ��������������� ������������ � ���� �������� �� �������� ������� �������������������������
�������!�������������������� ���������� ���������������������� ������� ��������������������������
��� ��������#���������� ���� � ���� ���� ����$��� ����������������$�� ���������� ������ � �����������
�����$�� ������� ���� ����� ������ ���� ����������� �������� ������ ����� ��� ���� �� ����� ���������"���� �
� ��������������������������������������������������������� �������� ������� ������ ���������������� �
������������� ��������������������� � ����� �������������� ����$������������������������������� �
��� ������� �������������������������������� %���������������������������% ������� ���&��������"�
����������� ���������"��������� �������% ����������������������� �������������������� ������ ������
�� �������!������������������������������ ���������������������� � ������������� ����$���������
��������������������������&������������������� ��������������������������������� �����������������������
����� �&����� �'(� ����� � ���� � ���� ������� ����� � �� � ��� � ����� ���� ��� �� � ������������ � ����������� � !� ����
��� � ���� ������������������������� ��������! ���������������������)(������������� ����� ��������� �
�� �������� ����$�����������������$����"����������������� ������������*�+������ ��,*-�.�/����0��������
��������� � ������������������������������������������� ��������� ��� ������������������� �
�#�������������1� �����0��������2� ��������3�� ��������������� ����������4�5������!�������������������� �
��"�������������� �������� ���������������������!��������� ������� ���� ���������������������������������
�������������� ���� �������������������������� �������� �������� ����$���������!������������������� �
��������6 ������������������������7 �������������������� ��������� ������������������� ������ ��
�����
��) ����������� ������
�����������"�� ��� ��������������������������������� ������������������ �����������������������
���������)(������������ ������������������� �����������89����������������������������������!���������
����� �������� ������ ��$� � ��������� � �������� � �� � � � ��� ��� � � ���� � ��� ��� ����� �������
������������������������������������ �������������������������������������������������������������� ����������� �
������������������� ���� � ������"�� ������������������� ������� ������������������� ����������
������������� ���������"��������� �������������������������������������� ����������������������������� �
���� ��� ��������������&���������������� ���� ���� ������������ ����������������������� �
� ������������������"��������������������������� ������������ ������!���������:���+�!:/��������� ���� �
� ����� � �� ����� � ��� � ������ � ��� � ���� � ��������� � ��������� � � � ����� � 7 ��������� � �� � 7 �����������
� ������� �:�� ����������� � ��� � �� � �� ��� � �������� � �� � ��� ����� ���� ������� � ���� �� � ��� �����
������������ ������ ����������������� ��������� ������������������ ��������������������������
� �������� ��������������������������� �������������� ����������������� ����������������������� �����
�������������� ���������������������!��������������� �������������������������������������������
������������������� ���
����"���������� ��������!�������������� ������� �� ���������� ������������� ������ ��������������������
���������������� �����������������������������"����������������������������� ����������� ������ ���� �
����� ������������������������� �������������������������������������� ����� ��������������������
��������������� ��������������������������������������!������"�������������������������� �������
����������������������� ��������������������������������������������������������� ������������ ������ �
���� ������ ������������������������������������� ����������� ����������������������������������
������������������������������������� ������������������������������� � ����������� �������������
������������������ 6�����������"������ ���������������������������� ������������������������ ���������
����� � ����� ���� ����� ��� � � ���7 ��� � ����%������ �;���� �� ��� ���� ����������� � ������ � �� �� � �������
����������� ��� �� �� � ��� � � ��� � � ����� � !�������� �:�� � +�!:/ � �� � � �� � � ���� � ���� � ��� � ������ �����
�� ������ ����������������������� ��������������������������������������� ������!���������:�� �
����� ���������������������������� ������!��:����
����������� ������� ��������������������� ����������������������������������������� ���������������������
� ����������������������������������������������������������������������������*��������������"��� ������
��������������������������� �����������������03!5������������������������������� ���������������
�������������������� ������������&�������1� ������� ���������4�5�����!����������������� ��� �
�������� ���� ��� ���������������������������������� �� �������������������� ����&�������*�����
����������� ������������ ��������� ����������������������������������� ������ ��������������
����������� ���������"������������������������������������������ �������� ������������������� ������
���"�������������������������������������������� ��6��� �������������
��< 3�������������
������"����������� �������������������� ���� �������������������� �������������������������������������� �
����� ��������� ������� ������������������� �������������������������"�� ��������������=�3�������
������������������������������������ ����� ���������� ���� ��������������������+ ���!:/����������� �
����6 ������������������������ ���������"������������� ���������������������!������������"������������
�����������������������������6�� ��������!������������������������������������������������������������ ���!� �
���������������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������
���������������� ����������"��������������� ���������������� ����������������������� ��� �
���������� ���� ���������"��;��������� ���� ���������"��������� ��������������������������������� �
���� �� ������ ����"�� ���������� ��������� ���������������� �� � ��������� � ������ �������������� � ��
;�����������>�������������������������������"��� ������������������� ��������������������������� �
������������������� ���������������������������������������������������6��������������������2�����������������
����??(����������$������������� ����������������������������� ���������"������ ������ ����������� ����
������������ ���������� ���������� �� ���� � � ������ � ��7 ���� �� � ��� ������ � ��� �= � ���� ��7 � ���������� ���
+:���� ����"��??�/ � ��� � �������������� �� � +:���� ����"��??'/ � � ��������� ���������� �� � +3�--����
:����� � @ � A���� � :����� � )((</� � ������ � �� � �� � ���� � ������� � ���� � �� ���� � �� � � ���
���������� � �� ���2��������� �9� ����� � +0���� �����@����������������/� �2����� �� � +0���� � ���/��
5������ � 8�#��� � +2���� � ����������/ � � � ������� � ��������� � ������� � � � ��������$� � ��� � ��� � ���� ��� � ��
��������� ������*B�������� ������������������������������� ������ ��������������������������������� �� �������
����������??C�+&���� ������/��)(()�+&;��������%1����/����)(('�+9�" �������� ������������/����*�
����������������� ��������������������������������������������������� �����������������������"������������
������������������������������������������������������������"����� �����������������������"�����
� ����������������� ������������������������������ ����3��������������
3��������������������������"����"��&�������"�����������"������������������������������� �� �
������ ����"��� ������ ���������������������������)(�(����������� �����������������������������
������������������������� ����������� ������ �����������������������������"���������������� ��������������� �
��� � �������� �� ���� ��� � ��� �������� ������� � ���"��� � ��� � � ������ � � � ������� � !� � �� � ��� � � �� � ���� � ��
�� ��������������������������� �������������������������� ����������������������� �������� ����������
��������� ����� ���� ���������� ��"��������������� ���� ������� ����� ������ ����� ���!:��������� �
����������� ����� ������������������ ������� ���������������� ������� �����������"����������� �
� �������3������������������������������ ����"�����������"�����������)(����������������� ��
������"�����������3������������������������������ ������� ��������������������������� ������������� �
����� �������� �������������������������� ����� ������� �� �����0���������������������������� �� ��������
��D 4��7 ����������������� �������� ����
����������������������������������������!����������������������������������� ����+� ����������������������
�����������/ ���� ��� ����� ������������� �� ���� ������������ ��� ��������� �� � �� ������ � �����������
�� �������8������������� ��������������� ������������ ��7 ������������������������ ��7 ���������
���������������������������� ����������������� ��7 ��!8�+!��������8����/������������������� ����������
��7 ��!8����������������� ����� �������������������%�����������������������������E������������ �
!���������&������� �������� ��������������������������������������� ������������������ ������������
������ � ��� �� ������� ���� �������������� �0��������� ���������������������� ������ � ���� � �����
� �������� ������������������������������������������������� ������������������������� ��������������
������*� �#���������%8���������???��������������������������� ��������������� �����������������������
���������������� ����������������������������������������������������������� ������� ������������
��"�� ���������������������������������� ����������� �������� ������������"�����������������������
������ �����������������������"������������������������ �������������������������� ������������� �
���������������� ���������� ������������ �������� ������� ����������� ������� ����������� �
���� ������������������������������������ �� ��������������������������� ���������# �����������������
����������������������������# ���������������"���!��������������������������$����������%8���� �#��������� �
���� ������������������������ �������� �6��������'�6�F�G�<(�� �������������������� �������������
�������"������������ ������������������������"������������� ���������������6������ ��������� �
�����$��������� ������������"�����������6������������������ �� �������������� �������������������
�����"��!��������6�� ��������"���������������� �� �������������� ���������� ����������"���������� ����!������� �
��"���������������������������������������������"������ �������������������������� �������������� �
���� ������������� �����������������������$����� ������������������������ �������������
��' �������������%��������������
3� � ��� �������� ��� ��6 ���� ������������ ������ �������� � ��������� � �������� ��������� � ���
���������������������������������������������6�����������������<(���������������������������� � ������
�� ������*"��������������������������������������������� � �������� �������������������������� ���
���"� � ����������� �����������������%�������� ��� ����� �������������������������������������� �����������
������������������������������9 ����$������������������ $$%����������������������������������������
�������������������������%� ����$����%��������������������������������������������� ������������
� ����� ���������������������������������������� ��� �������������� ���������� ��������� �
���� � � 8��������� � ����� ���������� ������ � ��� �� ����� �� � ����������� � ��������� � �������� �������� � �����
����� ���� �������� ���������6�� ������������;6������� �������������������������� ���������� ���
����������������� ������������� ���������������� �������������������� ����� � ����������������������
��"����������������������������������������������������������������� � �����������������������������
��� � ����� � ������ �������������������� ������������������ ���:������������������� � ������ ������
��������� � �� �� � ��������� � ��� �� � *�������� � ����� � ��������� � ��� ������ ���� �� �� ��� ����� ��� �� ���� �
�������������������������������� ������=����� ���������������������������������������� ����� �������
��������������������� ���������� ���������������������������� ��������������������������������� �� ��� �
��������������������������������������������� ���������������������"���������������� ���� �������� �
������ ������������������ ������� � ���������������� ������ ������������������� ����� ���������������
��� ������������������������������������������������������� ���������������������������6����������
��"���������������������������������������%������� ������������������������������������������� �
�������������������������"�������� ��������
��F ���������������������� �
*������������������������ ����������� ������������������������� ��� �����=�!� ����� ��������������������� �
&������������������������� �������������������� ����������� �����������������������!��������� � �
������������� ����������������������������������������� ������������ ���������������������������� �
���������"��������� ����������������������������� ��������*���������������������������������
"������ ���������������������������������������� ��������������"���"������%����������������������% �
���������������������!� ����� ������������ ������������#��������� ��������!��������� ���� ������
�� ��������� ����� ����������������������� ������������ �������������������������������������������#��� �
�������������������������������������������������������� ��������� �����������������������H�&��� �
����������!��� ������� ������������H�&������������������������������ H�&���������������������������
����������� H����������������������������������������������������=�������� ������������ �������������
������ �����������������������H�&������ ������������6�������� �������������������������������
� H�&������������ ��������������������� H��������������=�������������� ��������� ������������H �
&��� � ����� � ��� � � � � � ������ � ��� � ����� � � � � H � 8��������� � ���������� � �� �� � ������ � �� � ���� � �� �
������������� ������ ���������������������������� ��������� ������ ��������������� ������������ �
�����3 ������������������������������������������!���������������������� ������������������������ �
��������������� ��������������������� ����������!H�3������7 ��"��������� ������������������ �#����� �
������"��!��������� ����$�������� ��������� ������������������ ����������������������� ������!� �
� � � ����� ��� � ������ � ����� � �� � � � ����� � � � �� � ��� � ��� � �#���� � ������ � �� � ���� � ���������� � ������ �
�� �����������������"������������������������������������������ ���������������� ���������������������
��������"���������������������������
����� ���������!���������������������� ����������������� �����+������ �������������"���������� �
����/����������������������$������������������ �����+������ �������������"��������������/�����
����������"������������� ����������3������ � �����������"������������ ������������������������������ �
��������� ����$������������������������������ ������������������������������������������ ��������������
�������������������������������������������������� �������������� ����������������������� ����
��C 3������������
�� �������������������� �� ������ ����������������������������6������������!������������� ����� �
����������������������������������������������� ���������� ��������������������������� �
� ���������� �����)������������������������������� ������������� �� ������������ ���������"������ �����
� ������������� ����E������� ����������������� ������E�����������������������������������������������
�� ����������� �����)����������� �������������������� ������������������� ��������� ��������� �
������ ����������� ���������������������������������������������� ������ ����������� ����������
����������� � ����� �������������� � ���� ��� ����� ���� �������� ����������������� ������������ �
�������������������������������������� ������� ������� �����������������������������������!������
����� �������� ������������������������������ ���� ������������������������� ������������������������������
�������� ������������� �� �������� ���������������������������������������������������������!�����������
��������������������������������������������������� ������������� �������������������� ����������������� �
���� ��������4����������������������������������� ������������������������������������� ������������ ��� �
��������������������������3������������������������� ������������ ������������������� ����7 �����������
�������������������������������7 ���� ������������������������������������������������������������� �
���������$�������������!����������6����������� ������ ���������� ��������� ������������������������� �
��������������������������������# ��������������������������������&�"���������������������������������
�������������������������������������������!������������������������������������������� ������ ��
���F�� � ���������� ���
��������������������������������� ��������������������������������� ������ ���������������� �
3���6�� ����������������������� ����������������������� ������������������������������������
��������������������������������������������������������������� ���������$������������������ �����
)�� �����"���� ���������������������� �������������������� �������� ����������� ������� ������ �
������������������������������������ ����� ������� ������������ ������������� ������������ ������� �
������ �� ���� ���� � ��� ���� ���������������� ���� �� ��� ���������������� ������ � ���������������������� �� ��
��������� ���������� ������������������������������������������ �� ������������� ��������� ���������� ����� �
���������������� ��!��������������"����� ������������������������������������ ����������� �������������� �
� �������� �� ���� ������������ ������������������������"�� �����"��������������������������� �
��� �������� ����������� ������������ ��������������+����������� ����<�?�������� ���
��I 3���������!:����������!:
�!:�����������"������� ����� ������ !���������:��� �����<���������������� ��������������� ��� �
� ������� � ������ ���� � �����#��� � �� � ����������� � � ������ ���� ����� � ���������� �� ��������� �J��� �����
�������������������������������������$����������!:������������!:������ ��������������������������� �
���������� ����� ������������������������������������������������ ������� ������������������#��� �
��������9������������� ������������������������������������������������������������� ������
������������������ ���������������������������������� �������������������������������������������
�������� ����������������������������������� ��;6 ������������� ���������� ���=����������������������
�������������������� ���������������������������������� �#�������������������������������� ���� �����������
������!:� ������� ����������������������������������������������������������� ������������������� �����
������������������!:�� ������ ����������������������������������� ���������������������������"���
������������������ �����% ������������������������������������ ������������� ����������������������
�6��������������������������������������������#���������������������������������������������������� �
� ������������������������������������������������������������������������������ �������� ����� �
��������������� ������� ������������ ������������������������������������������������������ �������
���������� � ����� ����� � � ������ �������� � � � � ���������� � ��� ��������� � � ����� � �� ���� ��� ������ ��"��� �
������������������������� �������������������������!�������� ��������"����������������������*B� �
������������������ ���� �����������������������������������������������������������������������
� ����������������������� ����� �� �����������������+ ����(IC/����������������"������������������ ����
� ������������ �������������������� �� ����������������������������������� ������������������������������
� ����������� ���������������� ����� ���� �#��������������������������������� �������������������� ����������"���
�������������������������� ��������������������������"������������������� ������������� ��������������� �
���������� ���������������� ����������������
!� � ��� � ������� �� � ������� ��� �"�� � � � ���� � ���������� ������������������1� �������� ����� ����
������������������������ ����� ������������������������������+1� �����0��������2� /���������
�����$����������������� ��������� ������������������ ��������� ����������������������������"����������� �
�������� ������������ ���8����������������������������������������������������������� ����������� ���� �
������������"������������������ ����������� ��������� �������������� ���� ���������������������������
����� ���������������� ����������������������������� ������������������������������������������������ �
�������������� �������������������������������������� ��������������������������� ��������� �����������
������������������������������������������������������ ������������������ ������ ������������� �����
�������� �� ������������������������� ������ ��������������������� ����������������������� ���������������
������������������������������������������������������� ���������1� ��������������� ��������*���
���� �� ������������������ ��������������� �������!����������"����������������������������������� � ���
������ �������������������#��������������������� �������������� �#������������������������������������ �
������������� �������������� ���7 ���������������������������������*�@�1� ��������������� ��������
���� ������������ ���!:��8���!:�� ������������ ����������������������� � ������������������ �
������������������� ������ ����������!:��������������������7 ������������ ������� ������������
������ �������8���!:�������������������������� �������������������������� ��������������������������� �
���������������� ��� ������������������ ���������������6��������������������������������������� �� ����
����������������������� �����<����������������� � ��������������������������������� �������������
����������������� �� � ��� ������� ������������� ������������������� ��"����� ��������������������������� �
8���!:������������ ��������������������������������������������� ���������6��������1�� ������������ �
�����!�������� ��$��7 ��� ��!:��������������������� ���!:������������������ ����� ����������������
���������������6������������������������������� ����� ���������������������8���!:���� ��������
������������������������������� ��������� � ����� �� ��������!:� ��������� �� � ���������������� ����
����� ��� � ���� ��������������� ������� � ������� ������� ������� �������� ������ �K ��� ��!:����
�� ���� ��� ���� �������� ������������ � ����������� ��������������������������� ���� ������������� �� ���
���������� �� ���������������������������������� �%������������������������������8���!:�� ������ �� �
������������������ ���������7 ��� ��!:��������������� ������������� �� ����
��? ����� ����������5�����
����� �����������������!���������� �������������������� ��������������������������+ � ���������������
8��6��� �:!� � ���������� �)((D/� �&��� � ���� � ���������� � ! �������= �:��� � �� � � �: ��L �0������$��� � ����
���������������������:�����������0����!�������������:�������������������������������������� ��������
�����������������������1���*���������������: ����1���*������������ ���*���������� ���� ���������� ��������� �
:������� ����������������� ����������������������� ����������������� �������� ��������� ������� �
� �#���������������� �������������������������� ��������� ����������������� ��7 ������������������������ �
�� ���������������� ������������������������������������� ����� �������������������������� ������������7 ���
�����������������:����������������� ���*�����8��������������������� �����������=�!����� ����:������� �
���0�����������6�������� ����������� ���� �������������������������%������������������������� �
����������0����������������������������8��������������������������������������������0���������
�� ������� �����������$��:���������������� ��������$������������������� �������������� ��������
�6������ ����������������7 ������� ��� ������������������ �������� ������������������������ ����������� �
������������������*����6����������� ������
����������������� ����������������� ����� ����� �������������������� ������������ �������������
������� ������������� ������������������������� ����������������������������������������������!�
���� �� � ���� � ��� � �� � ������ � ������� � +:����� � �����/� � �� � ��� � �� � ��� � � � � ����� � �����
+��������� ��������� ����M ��������9�����/��� �������������������� �� ������������������������ �������������
���������� ����������������������������# �������6�� ���������� ���� ������������������������������������� �
����� ���������� ������������ ����������������������� ��� ��������!��������������������������������������
������ ���������������� �������������������������� ������ ��!�� ����������������� ������
��������������������������������������&���������%1�����+ �����(���/���������������� ������������
����������� ��������������������� �������� ���� ��������������������������������� �������� ������� �
������������������������� ��+� ���� �� ����/��� �������� ����������� ������ ���������� ���������
����� ����� ����������������������������� ���
���( �N ���������# ��������# �������
! � ������ � ��� ���� ������� ��� ���������� �������������������� � !������� ���"������ ������ ��
������������������ ������������������������������������������������� ���������� �� ����!���������� ��� �
������������� ������ �#����� �������� �������� ��������������������� ����������������������������
�������"����� �������� �������!����7 �������� �������6 ��������������������������������&;�����1��
���������������������� �% ��������� ���������+ ����(IC/����������������&;�����1������������������ �
� ������������������������������������������������������������������������ � ��� ���������� ����� ����
�������N ����������# ���������# ���������!��������������������7 �����������%� ����$���������������� � �� �
��"������������������������������������������������������������!�����������6��!����� ����� ����������$��
����� ���������2������3����������������� �������� ������������������� � � ���� ��������� �����������
���������������������������"�������������������2����B������������������������������� ������ �����������"��
�����������6%��"��� ������������ ���������������� ������������������������ ���������������� �
���� ���������� �5��� ������� ��������������� ������������������ ��((O�������� ���� ������������
����������������� � ��������������������������������� ���������������� ���������������� ������ �
����������������������������� ������������������������������������������ ���������9 ��������:��� �
���������������� ����������������� �������� ��������������������������������������������������������
��������� �� ������ �� ����� � ����������������� ����������������������� � ��� � ��� ��� ���#���� �� � ������
� ��������� ������������������������������ � ����������� ��� ���;��������������6����������������������
����������� ������������������������������������� ������� ����������������������������������� �
���������������������������������������"����� ����� ������ ������ ����� ����5���������������� �������
���������������������"�������������������������������������������� �������� ��6������������������
��������������������������������������� ������������������5������������� ���������������� ���������������
������� ������������������������������6 ���������� �����������������������������5����������������� �
�������������� � ������������������� �������� ����$�����������������������������������������
���� ����������� ����� ��� ���� � �� � �������� ������ � �� � ��� ������ � ������ �9�9� � ��� ������� ���
����� ��� ��7 ������������ ���������������;����� �������� ����� ����������� ��7 ��� ��������� �
��������������������������������������� ���
���� ����9���"����������;��
&������������������������"������������H�:�������������������# ��������� ���������������������=���������"������
����������������������������������������������������������������������������� ���������������"��%����
�����������������������������"������������������ ����������������������"������������������������������
������������������������ ����� ���������� ���������������������� ���� ����������������������� �� �
���� ��������������������������������� ���������"��%������������9���"����������������������"�������� �
�������������������� ���������������������!���� ������������%� ���������������������������7 ��������
������ ������� ��� �����"��%����� ������� � ����� � �" ���� �������� � � � ��� �����"��%���� ������ ����� � �� ���
�� ������ � ������ � ������� � �������� � ������ � �� � �� ��� � � ������� � ������� � ����������� � ����
�����������������������������"����9�9����������&���������������������������� �����������������
��������� � �������� � ��������� � ������ � ��������� � ������ � ������� � �������� � �� � ������� � � � �����
����� ��� ��7 ���� �����������6�� ���� ������%������%������������������������������������%� �����E�
� �����������������������;6���� ����������������������������������������������6������� �������6������ �
��������<��!:������������� ������ ��� ����+� ���� �� ���������� ����/�� ����������� � ���� �
�������������������������7 ��"������������������������������������������������������� ��� �������� �
��%����� �������������������������� ���������������� �������������������������� ���������������������� �
� ������������� ���������� ������������������������������ �����������������������������������������
��������"����������� � ������������������������������������������������ � ������������������
������� ������ ����������������������������!��������*����������� ��� ������������������������������
�����������������������"���������� ���������������� ������������� ��������������������������������������
�������1 ���������������������� ������ ������������������������ ����� �����������������������
� �������� �������� ��������� ��������������������������������������5�B��������!��������������� �
�6�� �� � ����������� �������� ������ ������������������������������������������� ��������"��� �
��� ������������������������� ���� ���� ������������������������������������ ��� ������������������������ ������
������������������ ������ ������������������� ������������������� ���������������� ������� ������
� � � � ���� � ��� � �� � � ��� � � ������ � �� � � � �� � �� ��6 � ���� ������� � �� � � � �� � ��� � ����������
� ���������� ��� ���������������"��������������8� ����������������� �����������"��� ��� �� �
�������6�� �����������������"��� ������������� ������������ ��������������������� ���������� ��������������� �
��������������������������� ����������� ������������������ �������� ������� ������������89��������!� �
������������ ����������� ���������������� ��6�����������������������6 ��������� ������� �����������
����������������������������� �����������6����������6���������6����������6�������6��������
�6���� � � ������ ��� ��6�� �� � ��� ����������������� � ���� � �� ���� ��������� ������ ���� ���� � ��
��������� � ���������������������������������������� ������6�������� ���������������������� � �
9�9� � ��������������������6��������"������� ������������������������� ������"���
���) ������������������������������������
;���� � ��������� � ����������� � �� � ��� � ����� � ���" � ��� � �������� � ����� � � �9�9 ���� ���� ���� �� ��
�� ������������� �������������������������;6�� ������� ����� �������������������������"����� �
����&�����9 ������������������������������� ���2�����)((I�������#����������������� ��������!����
� �#���� ������������������������������� ������������������������� �������� �#�������� ���������9;� �
�#��� � �� �� � ���� � !� ���� � ������������ ����������������� ���� ������� � ����� ��������� � ��� �� ��� �������
�� ��������������� �������������� �� ��������� ������"������������������"����������� ��6����������� �
��������������� ����������������������������� � ������������"����������� ��������������������
�� � ��"��� � ��� � � � �� � ��� � � ��� � ����� � ����� � ��� � � � ����� � �� � �����"� � � � ��� � 9�9 � ���� � � ����� �
� ����$���������� ���������"�������������������������������������������������� �����������������"�� �
����� �������������������������������������������������������������������"��������� ��������������#��
������������� ���������������������������� ����������������������������������������� ���� ��������
��������������� ������� ���������������������� ���������������������������������� ������������������ �
��������������������� �#�������� ���������������������������������������6 ��������������������������
���������������������"������������ ������H�3��������������������������������������������������
���� ���� � ��� ����� ��� � �������� ����� � ��� ���������� �� � ��� � ���� � � � ������ � ������ � ����� � ���� ���� ����
��������������� �������!����� �"�������������������������� ��������������������������� ����������������� �
�������������������������"������������ ��� �������������� ��������������������������"������������� �
��� ��������������������������� ���� ����� ������������������������������������������������� ���������
��� � �� ���������� ���� � ����� ��������������� ������� ������ ������ �� � ��"���� ������� ��������� � �� � ��� �
����������� � � � ��� � �������� � �� � ��� ����� � � �� � �� � �� � � �������� � �� � ���� � ��� ���������� � ������
��������������������������������� ���� ������� ���������� �� �"����������������9�9� � �����
��� �������������� ��� �� � ���� ������ � ���������� ������� � ������� ����� ��� ������� �� ��"�� ��� �
��� �������������������������������� ���"��������������������������������������������� ��������� ������
�� �������������� ��=������������"�������������������������������������������������������������� �
�6���������� ��������������������� ��������������������������������������� � ������������������ �
��� ��������������������������������������� ������������������� ������ ��������������# ���������������# �� �
���������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������ �
���� �� � � ���� ���� � �� ����������� � ����� � �� ��� � �� ����� ������� � �� ��= ���� � � ���� �� �� ����
�� ��� � � ������� � �������� � ��� � �� ����� � � �� � �� � ������������ � ���� ��� � ��� � ������� � ��� �� ���� �
���� ��������� ������������ ��������!�����������������!�������� ������ ��������!� ������������������� �
���������������((O���������� ������������������������� ��� ��� ������� ��� �����������������
�� ��������� �����������"����������� ���� � ���������������������� ����������������"�� ��������
� ������������6���������������1��� ��������������� ����H�!�������� ����������������������������������
���������������������������� �������� ��������������������"�� ���������������6 ������������� � ����������� �
������ ���������������������������������������"�� ������������ ������ �������������������!������ ���������� ���� �
���������� � ����� � ��� � ��������� � ��� ��������� � � � ��� � �#��� � ���� ��� � �� � ��� � ���������� � ��� � ���������� �
�������������������������� ������������� ���������� ������� ������� ����� ����� ���������� ���� � ! ������ �
��������������� ��������������� ����������������������������������� ���� �����������������������"� �
����������� �������������������������������������� ����������������9�9� � ������������������ �
����������������������������� ������������������������������������ ��������������%��������%� �����
���������� ����� � ���)(�(
+ �� ������������=��"�!���������������������� ����������������������������)(�(������
8 ��������/
LECTURE 4BUILDING PROCESSES & PRODUCTION
Kees Kaan en Henri van Bennekom – The context of the archi-tectural design process
MSc1 lecture Materialisation – fall 2010
The context of the architectural design process
IntroductionThe theme of the 2010 Architectural Biennale in Venice is “People meet in Architecture.” The culturalcomponent is implicit. Architecture is made by people for people under specific conditions and forspecific places.Even though globalization appears unstoppable, it is precisely local forces that shape and determinethe design development of an architectural idea. The local conditions from which an initiativeoriginates and under which an architectonic idea evolves have a definitive impact on the ultimateresults of our built environment and therefore upon architecture.
Global design versus local designThe discussion of global versus local, domestic versus foreign, unique versus generic, has alwaysbeen a subject within architectural discourse. Since travelling became easier and the accessibility andexchange of information increased, we have seen this discussion gaining momentum. In the protestsagainst globalization we can observe an increasing fear that a global tide of unprecedented scalethreatens to eventually overwhelm the local domestic conditions, and as a result an increasing desireto express local values seems to arise. We, however, are not looking for a theory on local versusglobal or a discussion on anti-globalization. Rather, we are trying to understand the influence of localculture, in order to get a keener understanding of the architectural design process. Architectonic work originates in a world where everyone has access to the same worldwide web, thesame international architectural literature, and the same CAD software. Professional information isvery accessible and the media funnel and focus the attention of designers on each other. Architecturehas become fashionable and sensitive to hypes. This implies that ever more, purely design productsare often based on similar architectural references, knowledge, means and presentation techniques.Designers (architects and students) from Delft, Zurich, Melbourne or Shanghai have access toidentical media and tools, which on an academic level is making design products comparable and partof the same global language. In practice, however, a building is designed with a particular aim, at aunique location, by a unique group of people. There are many interested and involved parties arounda design and building project. This makes architecture suffused in local features: demand,(pre)conditions, production factors, use, and politics. As a result of all of these conditions, the designtakes on its meaning. The design and the built result are mainly the outcome of the forces, values andrules of the game in that specific society. The various regional traditions and rules, regional developments, innovations and sustainabilityaspects, the local role of commissioning a project, the role of architects, the geographical conditions,local craftsmanship, and the local role of finance, commerce and politics have ensured for a greatdiversity in buildings and building cultures.
Recognizing and understanding the factors that determine a design enable us to anticipate and makebetter designs, to find an appropriate answer to the question at hand. All the real buildings, the onesthat are actually built, are a product of contemporary local circumstances. No matter how global theorientation of the architect or client, building is the reproduction of culture pur sang. Opinions on howarchitecture should be made are susceptible to place and time, and so to a cultural context. (Also see quotations from Mies van der Rohe in the paragraph: ‘modern architecture in the light ofcultural landscape’’).
The architectural experienceA complete architectural experience cannot exist on paper alone, because it would lack reality’senrichment. Only when an idea or design is developed in confrontation with blunt reality does it attainauthenticity: its form is connected to its process of creation; it is genuine, of undisputed origin. This bydefinition means a design has a particular relation among people, things and places. We all know that what makes the experience architectural, can only be fully sensed when visiting thebuilding. We all somehow know this ecstatic feeling provoked by true architecture. We perceive notonly an underlying idea, but we see, smell and feel that the idea was tested against reality. People
have actually realized ideas, by putting materials together, within their own means and meanings.Without this feature we would not have architecture that touches and enters us.
Idea and design processThe thought that an architect first has to have a brilliant idea or concept, so that upon elaboration adesign with architectural quality will automatically follow, is extraordinarily naïve. Obtaining an idea isnot the most important milestone in the design process. Neither research nor analyses lead to anarchitectural design; they are tools in the design process. Amongst other viewpoints, one could imagine an architectural design as a fusion of a choice oftypology, a choice of style, and a plan development. The typology expresses itself in the spatialconfiguration and organization of the plan. Style, just as in neo-classicism and modernism,determines the picture, the composition and the choice of material. Style is not necessarily bound toplace or time and can be freely chosen in accordance to one’s own insight or convictions. And still, nodesign has been made yet! This is where the design process is needed, the process of “designdevelopment.” This is a process in which insights are continually progressing and the proposal is evergaining in refinement. The process involves the input of end-users, civil servants, draftsmen,legislators, investors, advisors, specialists, lawyers and contractors. The architect plays a central rolein balancing and combining the various interests, while the idea continues to gain form.
Materialisation and Design DevelopmentWithin the Chair of Materialisation, the appreciation of this design process is the main educationalgoal. The design process cannot be viewed apart from technical knowledge, local means ofproduction, and organization of the building process. We do not underestimate the importance of theidea, conceptualization or theorization. However, for didactic reasons we put the emphasis on thedesign itself, the road that leads from a brilliant idea to a great building. We focus on the designdevelopment of an idea into detailed plans. It is exactly in that process, where much inspiration,solutions and design input are to be found. The sorting out, exchanging, processing of and giving feedback regarding design information,combined with switching between the various involved disciplines, design data and design tools (as iscommonly done in practice) is a distinctive approach within the design studios of the chair ofMaterialisation. The art of choosing the most appropriate design input at the right moment is what weattempt to pass on to our students
The practiceA good number of Dutch architectural offices are staffed by a conglomeration of European architectsand draughtftsmen and -women. At the same time, these offices are increasingly finding cross-borderwork. In that context, we are becoming continuously aware of the enormous cultural differences indesign and construction. This is extremely interesting, but it is also of essential importance to be ableto capitalize on it. Only when an idea is confronted by a concept or a task with its own scope andpreconditions, can a specific answer appear. If there is no scope or limitation nor an actual startingpoint, then you yourself as the architect have “to want something,” in order to escape the ‘paperdimension.’But actually, then there is more need for an artist than an architect. Scope and limitation lead to aspecific design, with identity and character, in contrast to theoretical designs that have a much moreacademic nature. It is precisely the scope, limitation and cultural context that make a design intoarchitecture. The architectural solutions that are made under preconditions are educational,intelligent, and innovative. For design solutions without these preconditions, you have to tap into a“will of your own,” which leads to an introspection and capriciousness that lead nowhere.
In practice, a smooth design process combines sound design research with timely requests for inputfrom advisors, clients, users, and builders.. In a good design process, the architectural and technicalingredients from the entire design team are well used, tuned and thoroughly developed. This does notonly generate a design advantage, but above all design inspiration. So, on the one hand, thissystematic approach ensures for a more smooth, flexible and anticipating design process, where thedesign issues to solve become problem-solvers instead of problems to be solved. On the other hand, working up a design provides a lot of inspiration, ideas, and possible solutions tothe designer. As such, the design obtains a clear, logical and coherent architectural expression: Thedesign takes shape.
.HistoryThe notion of the influence of local and cultural conditions and circumstances to the design and thebuilt environment is not new. Vitruvius had already discussed in his treatise (‘De architectura libridecem’) the proper placement of buildings. He spoke of natural relations between the qualities of aplace and the health of its residents. Sensibly he suggested the avoidance of low, hot and wet placesfor their potentially unhealthy conditions and recommended those with plenty of sunlight and fresh air.He also discussed other philosophical, ethical and social issues - subjects that have relevance to thearchitect’s work - besides the origin of building, building materials, the architect’s education, etc.
Even earlier, during the Hellenic period, known for its model of democratic government, the word‘Oikumene’ was introduced, which is translated as ‘inhabited land or world' and refers to the notion ofcommunity, an occupied place, a collection of households, fields, orchards, and improved landscapestaken together. It shows that the local situation and its mutually influencing circumstances werealready acknowledged as a coherent, meaningful unity in which architectural cultivation took place.
The Romans, known for their imperial, territorial management, were only able to do so bydistinguishing local needs and habits from their own imperial needs, and leaving much of those localvalues intact. Their regionalization referred to both a network of roads connecting its provinces to thecentral cities and the practice of governance, in which locals were allowed to maintain some localexpressions, beliefs and rituals as long as their allegiance and taxes were returned to the capital city.Simultaneously, Roman classicism spread throughout Europe, and became a recognizable style. Justas we see with neo-classicism: the style is the same everywhere, yet the execution is still local.
Schinkel, more or less a self-educated Berlin architect (1781-1841), is most known for his remarkabledesign for ‘his’ Bauakademie. The building is a great example of how the conditions and possibilities oftime and place determined the design process. Even the ideas and knowledge that Schinkel broughtback from his travels to Italy and England were transformed into an architectural language that wasadapted to the Berlin situation of that time. In its syntheses of functionality, structure, construction,material-use, and symbolism, the building had a driving influence toward modern architecture.
The Crystal Palace (Joseph Paxton) was built to house the Great Exhibition of 1851. It was a cast-ironand glass building originally erected in Hyde Park, London, England. Built with local interest, means,and methods, its construction was made possible by the industrial revolution, improved possibilities ofmetal working, extra workers from France, and the repetition provided by the design.Exhibitors from around the world gathered in the Palace's 92,000 m2 of exhibition space to displayexamples of the latest technology developed in the industrial revolution. As such, the building could beseen as the 1st building offering physical space for an exchange of knowledge and thus to a process ofglobalization. Adam Caruso addresses this: … “but that does not mean that we have to accept asituation of total relativism that says that everything is of the same value. Such a position, of ‘anythinggoes’, is where the global practice of architecture is today. Maybe I am a bit nostalgic. The idea ofquality cannot be defined in the absence of values. The pressures of globalization have resulted in anarchitecture that has become generalized and increasingly universal. Office buildings in the City ofLondon aspire to be as tall and glossy as those in Shanghai. There has also been a surprisingconvergence in the production of those architects whose practices have a global reach. Theirbuildings hover ambivalently over their physical sites and display a formal exhibitionism that hasbecome commonplace. This contemporary condition, of a culturally displaced architecture, had its firstemphatic expression in the Great Exhibition of 1851 and in Joseph Paxton’s infinite anddematerialized Crystal Palace.”
At the end of the 19th century in Chicago, a convergence of circumstances led to a unique situationand a gigantic boom in construction. In this period the “Chicago School” came into being. The GreatFire, the economic boom, and the industrial revolution provided for a boost in construction and designproduction, which literally raised the height of the city. The High Rise was born, with Adler and Sullivanas leading figures.
Modern architecture in light of cultural landscape, examplesThe language of today’s modern architecture was born and defined in the time of Le Corbusier,Gropius and Mies van der Rohe. Le Corbusier was rather universally talented: architect, painter,sculptor and city planner, with the vision of a poet. Just as Mies van der Rohe, he felt more or less
banished from his country at the beginning of his career for his ideas. From their sheear fanaticismand obsession they most certainly rose to the surface in the sea of mediocrity. Le Corbusier laid downhis vision of the connection between contemporary architecture and contemporary constructionpossibilities in five points (free-standing pilotis, independence of skeleton and wall, the open floor plan,the open façade, and the roof garden). For Le Corbusier, in France, construction basically meant sculpting with reinforced concrete.His project for La Tourette, a Dominican Order priory in a valley near Lyon, is considered one of themore important buildings of the late Modernist style. In its architectural descriptions we read: “If thereis harmony, it is in the finishes that in their roughness and near-brutality betray some empathy with thelife of a monk.” La Tourette is considered to initiate an architectural style called ‘Brutalism’. But LeCorbusier did not purposely design ‘brute’. There are reasons to assume that it really is nothing morethan the result of local production techniques and traditions that gave the concrete this less plane andsmooth texture, which led to the admired and coincidentally characteristic appearance of the building. Le Corbusier acknowledged the influence of a developing society. He was one of the first to designurban plans based on increased car-use, and to anticipate the growing possibilities of industrializationinto his architectural designs.
Le Corbusier: “A great epoch has begun. There exists a new spirit. Industry, overwhelming us like a flood which rollson towards its destined end, has furnished us with new tools adapted to this new epoch, animated bythe new spirit. Economic law unavoidably governs our acts and our thoughts. The problem of thehouse is a problem of the epoch. The equilibrium of society today depends on it. Architecture has forits first duty, in this period of renewal, that of bringing about a revision of values, a revision of theconstituent elements of the house. Mass-production is based on analysis and experiment. Industry onthe grand scale must occupy itself with building and establish the elements of the house on a mass-production basis. We must create the mass-production spirit. The spirit of construction mass-production houses. The spirit of living in mass-production houses. The spirit of conceiving mass-production houses. If we eliminate from our hearts and minds all dead concepts in regard to thehouses and look at the question from a critical and objective point of view, we shall arrive at the“House-Machine”, the mass-production house, healthy (and morally so too) and beautiful in the sameway that the working tools and instruments which accompany our existence are beautiful.”
Le Corbusier’s designs for the Unité d’Habitation (1947-1952), the late modern counterpart of themass-housing schemes of the 1920s and programmed to house 1600 people, seem to function quitesuccessfully under the Mediterranean sunlight. For the 1957 IBA Berlin, the concept of the United’Habitation was exported and built as a kind of manifesto for a new way of dwelling. In Berlin, it neverbecame such a success as in southern France, plausibly due to the absence of this Mediterraneansunlight (geographical factor), an almost too perfect construction (building traditions), and the fact thatthe manifesto of the Unite did not match with Berlin habits of living (societal demands).
Mies van der Rohe believed that architecture at its best can be nothing more than a reflection of thedriving and sustaining forces of an epoch, and he considered construction “the truest guardian of thespirit of the times because it is objective and is not affected by personal individualism or fantasy.”’
He wrote in his 1924 essay ‘Baukunst und Zeitwille’ (Architecture and the will of time):"Baukunst ist raumgefaßter Zeitwille. Lebendig. Neu. Nicht das Gestern, nicht das Morgen, nur dasHeute ist formbar. Gestaltet die Form aus dem Wesen der Aufgabe mit den Mitteln unserer Zeit”.“Architecture is always the spatial realisation of the will of time, nothing else”…“One will have to understand that each architectural style is connected to the age it works in and that itcan only manifest itself in actual tasks and using the means available in its own time. That has neverbeen otherwise”.“The function of education’, he said, is to lead us from irresponsible opinion to truly responsiblejudgment; and since a building is a work and not a notion, a method of work, a way of doing, shouldbe the essence of architectural education.”
ConclusionThe architectural design process is subject to local circumstances and local partners, which to somemeasure can be recognized in the built result. It is, therefore, interesting to see how the designs fromarchitects operating internationally differ in character per location.
During the double lecture this notion will be illustrated through the works of Schinkel, Adler, Sullivan,Le Corbusier and Mies van der Rohe. Their architectural classics all have in common that they are amix of an authentic idea, embedded in a local context. The examples in the lectures are illustrations ofthe fact that not only the architect determines the design, but also the cultural landscape. Knowledgeof which gives the architect a better command of the design process.
ir. H.A. van Bennekom, prof. ir. Kees Kaanconcept text Sept 2010
General footnote: Some sentences are taken from!Vincent!B.!Canizaro!(ed.), Architectural!Regionalism:!"Collected!Writings!on!Place,!Identity,Modernity,!and!Tradition:!“Architecture!and!Regionalism,!(New!York:!Princeton!Architectural!Press)”,!Vincent!B.!Canizaro,!ed.2007.!!This!preliminary!essay!is!meant!for!educational!reasons!only.!In!the!final!version!of!this!essay!footnotes!will!be!mentionedaccordingly.
Tekstfragmenten uit: “De Keuze / The Choice”, inaugural speech 2008, prof. ir. Kees Kaan
“Ever since I graduated, here, at the Delft University of Technology in 1987 I have been mainlyinvolved in designing for building. After seven years of imaginary projects I wanted one thing and onething only: to design in order to build, designs that were thicker than paper. [….]
Education
The academic environment is determined by theory which enables students to develop conceptually.The relationship to the building practice is virtually non-existent which shouldn’t be a problem as longas one is aware of this reality and the student isn’t prevented from choosing to get acquainted with thepractice. However, it is a little awkward if graduates do not understand the design process. That iswhere my mission in this faculty is situated.The academic design is a laboratory model in which the context and the simplified project environmentis many times simpler and can be set more unequivocally in preconditions.The interaction between participants – the supervisors at the university – is predictable and theinclination is to follow the personal thought processes of the students. I can assure you – clients don’tdo that. The low level of time pressure and the lack of concrete input do not lead to sharp choices butto a multitude of personal options.
Project learning tends to aim for personal self-development instead of the acquisition of design skills.Cooperation, both disciplinary and interdisciplinary, which is essential in practice, is practiced far toolittle. Students are still being educated to become creative solo performers. The reality is muchrougher, more unpredictable, dynamic, and impossible to control or to freeze. It is impossible toenforce a controlled, linear design process in logical steps. One has to deal with politicalunpredictability, the client who appears in various guises, the unattainability of certain technologies,and the invisible end-user.
I have noticed that the academic world has a dramatically different image of the practice from thereality of that practice.
"In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is."I quote here the legendary American baseball player from the 1950s, Yogi Berra.
It is the observation of a fact of life that in itself should not be a problem, but requires recognition. Forthat reason I take the opportunity of this public lecture to share with you a few reflections taken fromthe reality of that practice.
[….]
“The field covered by architecture seems to be without boundaries. Architecture is present everywhereand in spades, and as a result the subject of public debate. The profession has a long tradition.Depending on the stance taken by the observer either this tradition or the latest fashion in building isdominant. It remains a fact, however, that commissions emerge from the societal desire to build. Inpractice, an architect uses his personal interpretation of his profession but within the framework of thecommissions and the societal context that is a direct reflection of the political culture. In theNetherlands the latter for a long time had been based on the search for consensus.
It is very tempting – especially given the developments in the practice – to label oneself as anarchitect with a specific trademark or specialty. The use of an extreme style makes you more easilyrecognizable as an expert or an extravagant designer. Deriving such a trademark from a discipline inthe periphery seems innocent and obvious enough but it leads us further away from the core businessof our profession and our own building culture.1
Architects like to perceive themselves as boosters of innovation. This is the most inappropriate self-image of our profession. Since our profession is among the slowest developing possible, trendsettingor being ahead of social changes is a contradictio in terminis. The time required by a building project –from the initial contact between client and architect until final occupation – is long. By its very naturearchitecture is a slow profession. Much slower than many fundamental societal changes and muchslower than technological changes.”
[….]
Physiognomy
When the physiognomy of a building is in balance, its appearance will correspond to the character,function, and essence of the building.
The beauty of this concept is that it allows us to look differently at buildings and thus assess themdifferently. Physiognomy is not about trying to attain a certain style or aesthetics but a strong presenceof that which is of lasting value. Beauty in the conventional sense is irrelevant. A building that iscorrect in its physiognomy might very well be unattractive as long as its appearance and charactercorrespond. In order to achieve this we have to follow consistently the conceptual and programmaticpath. The architectural design is rid of all elements that do not contribute to the conceptual essence ofthe project. What remains is the most direct representation in a more intense form of the fundamentalidea behind the project.
Therefore, this necessarily means the absolute mastery over the construction, materialisation, anddetailing, over understanding ‘the building process’ itself.
Building
The knowledge of – and mastery over – the use of materials is invaluable. After all, the design comesinto being in the material; it becomes irreversible and definitive. Architectural design is not a graphicactivity but thinking in terms of material and space. In terms of what is, what may emerge, and whatshould be made.Materialisation is not an afterthought but part on the concept.
Not only is the choice of materials essential if a design finds its final form in materials, but its mutualconnections and encounters or conversions play an important role as well. These details say/reveal alot about the building. They may be utterly unpretentious or expressively sophisticated. There arecosmetic details that embellish and enliven a building, making it more pleasant, touchable, and
1
comfortable, and there are strategic details that are essential for the expression of the idea – if thesefail, there will be no physiognomy and thus no architecture.
[….]
The Choice
Making choices is one of the most common and essential things we do in our profession, but thisshould not be confused with making choices from options which is – in essence – precisely theconsequence of having postponed making the fundamental choice. The essence in making a choice isnot found in the range of possibilities from which a choice can be made – which are sometimeslimited, then limitless – but in the source from which the choice is made. Making choices as anarchitect means developing a vision and making decisions based on that vision. The choice is adecision out of which actions follow.
We may observe how the architectural world can be traced historically, we may observe that thecircumstances within which the architect works have changed fundamentally recently, and we mayobserve that we will have to make strategic choices based on these changing circumstances. We maytake a position in the debate that will then evoke the same again, and we may then conclude thatnothing has changed during all those years that the discussion on form has been held.
The main thing we owe to our profession is to take ourselves and our work seriously. The buildings wearchitects design are not meant to glorify ourselves, nor the intellectual wellbeing of the academicworld. We have the responsibility to be aware of the consequences of our buildings. It really matters, itis not theoretical.
I am convinced of the point of view that architecture emerges from building, from approaching theobstinacy of materials, people, and time correctly. Building the Dutch embassy in Africa – in Maputo,the capital of Mozambique – was the ultimate test of this approach. What a joy the building processturned out to be! It was not the process that proved obstinate in Maputo, but the materials and theexecution. Yet these latter two also gave me the most pleasure during the building process.
Developing an integral architectural vision, understanding and taking responsibility for the entiredesign with all its implications both as far as detail is concerned and in the societal arena:’The joy of travelling to the essence of building!’ That, for me, is the choice.”
To read more on this subject:
- Hans Kollhoff: The myth of the construction, and the architectonic. From: ‘Der Mythos der Konstruktion und das Architektonische’, in: Hans Kollhoff et al., Über Tektonik in der Baukunst. Wiesbaden (Vieweg) 1993,pp. 9-19. Translation from the German language door: Bookmakers, Kevin Cook, Nijmegen, te vinden in ‘Kleur in de hedendaagse architectuur:projecten / essays / tijdlijn / manifesten’, 'Susanne Komossa, Kees Rouw, Joost Hillen, Amsterdam SUN 2009' . Essay also to be found onBlackboard, MSc1 MADD.- Wendell Berry: The Regional Motive – A Continuous Harmony; Essays Cultural andAgricultural, 1972, from the book: “Architecture & Regionalism”, Vincent B. Canizaro, ed. 2007. Essay also to be found on blackboard,MSc1 MADD.- Paul Ricoeur: Universal Civilization and National Cultures; History and Truth, 1965, from the book:“Architecture & Regionalism”, Vincent B. Canizaro, ed. 2007. Essay also to be found on blackboard, MSc1 MADD.
LECTURE 5AUTONOMY VS ENGAGEMENT
Lara Schrijver – OMA as tribute to OMU: Exploring Reso-nances in the Work of Koolhaas and UngersHenk Engel – Theo van Doesburg and the Deconstruction of the Art of Building
OMA as tribute to OMU: exploringresonances in the work ofKoolhaas and Ungers
Lara Schrijver Faculty of Architecture, TU Delft, The Netherlands
This article explores the resonance between the work of Rem Koolhaas and that of OswaldMathias Ungers. It has been suggested that the roots of OMA lie in Berlin, which this articleexpands upon. The ideas of Koolhaas and Ungers exhibit important parallels throughout theperiod from 1968–1978, when Koolhaas was a student and later a colleague of O.M. Ungers,beginning with Koolhaas’s admission to Cornell in the Autumn of 1972. This period was aformative period in the work of Koolhaas, where many of his ideas on architecture andits relationship to the city took shape. Exploring a number of ideas and projects in theperiod from 1968–1978 (from his studies at the Architectural Association through to histime working with Ungers), this article argues that, contrary to popular belief, the formaltools of architecture play a central role in the work of Koolhaas.
IntroductionIn Architecture 2000 and Beyond, Charles Jencks
positions Oswald Mathias Ungers and Rem Koolhaas
on two sides of a large white gap (Fig. 1). Whilst
Ungers is embedded between words such as ‘the
city’, ‘rationalism’, ‘post-modern classicism’, all cate-
gorised under ‘post modern’, Koolhaas is settled
among ‘generic architecture’, ‘post-humanism’ and
categorised under ‘deconstruction’. Although there
are clearly differences between them, the two archi-
tects also share much more than a period of time on
opposite sides of a gap. In fact, Fritz Neumeyer has
suggested that the roots of OMA lie in Berlin.1
Although Neumeyer refers in particular to the pre-
sence of Berlin in the early work of OMA, beginning
with Koolhaas’s student project ‘The Berlin Wall as
Architecture’, the role of Ungers as mentor and col-
league should not be neglected. Koolhaas’s first
encounter with the work of Ungers was through
the publication of the studios directed by Ungers at
the TU Berlin, which approached the city of Berlin
systematically through design projects.2 Koolhaas’s
interest eventually led to his admission to Cornell in
the Autumn of 1972, in order to study with Ungers.
The position Jencks allots the two architects seems
to be basedmore on their writings and affinities than
on their architecture. It follows a common percep-
tion of Koolhaas, in which the design is treated as
the result of programming and scenarios rather
than of an interest in the architectural object. In con-
trast, Ungers is embedded among colleagues with a
deep interest in the formal language of architecture.
This categorisation belies a specific resonance
between the work of Koolhaas and Ungers that
centres on the importance of giving form to their
ideas.3 What the diagram does reveal, however, is
the difficulty in assessing the work of Koolhaas and
OMA. Should we focus on the writings of Koolhaas,
and his sound-bite statements on architecture, such
as ‘no money no details’? Should we turn to the ana-
lyses that result from his teaching, such as the shop-
ping guide and the studies of Lagos? Should we
instead examine the buildings themselves, ignoring
the declarations that accompany them? Is Koolhaas
235
The Journalof ArchitectureVolume 13Number 3
# 2008 The Journal of Architecture 1360–2365 DOI: 10.1080/13602360802214927
Downloaded By: [University of Technology Delft] At: 10:11 2 July 2010
236
OMA as tribute toOMU: exploring
resonancesLara Schrijver
Figure 1. Charles
Jencks, diagram:
‘Evolutionary tree 2000’
(excerpt from the
diagram in Architecture
2000 and Beyond, p. 5).
Downloaded By: [University of Technology Delft] At: 10:11 2 July 2010
237
The Journalof ArchitectureVolume 13Number 3
Figure 1. (Continued.)
Downloaded By: [University of Technology Delft] At: 10:11 2 July 2010
an architect, or has he continued his early career of
writing scenarios, merely shifting his focus from
storyboards to buildings? An informative period is
to be found early in his career, when he was in
close contact with Ungers. Examining the work of
Koolhaas from 1968–1978, and tracing the parallel
and converging trajectory of Ungers at this same
time, may help illustrate the interest of Koolhaas in
how his ideas take shape in projects and buildings.
Preludes (1968–1972)Rem Koolhaas began studying architecture in the
legendary year of 1968. At the Architectural
Association (AA) in London, he encountered the
quintessential 1960s’ culture of ‘rice-cooking
hippies’ who believed it was more important to
‘free your mind’ than to learn drafting techniques.
Where Koolhaas had hoped to learn a craft, he
instead found himself in a school where the
student-teacher relationship was ostensibly one of
equality. As Koolhaas would later say, this environ-
ment was perhaps more fruitful for him than he
could have imagined, since it forced him to be extre-
mely clear about what he expected from architecture
in opposition to the dominant mode of thought at
the AA.4
In the summer of 1971, he visited Berlin as part of
his studies at the AA. One of the few traditional
elements of the programme, the ‘Summer Study’
was intended to be a documentation of an existing
architectural object. Rather than investigate the
more typical architectural or arcadian project, Kool-
haas took a trip to Berlin to examine the wall separ-
ating East from West, by then already ten years old.
Although he appeared to stray from the assignment
with his unconventional choice of object, his exam-
ination of it was precisely what was required: a care-
fully articulated analysis of the wall as architecture.
Reflecting on the architectural presence of the wall
and speculating on its formation in a retrospective
text from 1993, he questioned the direct correlation
between architectural form and its significance.
His choice of project and subsequent interpretation
prefigure many of the questions he later struggles
with. In his recollection, it confronted him with the
question of architectural form versus the event,
with an heroic scale, with the tension between its
totality and the separate elements that created it,
with the various disguises along its length from
intensely symbolic to ‘casual, banal’, with the lively
character of an object without programme. In his
own words, it confronted him with ‘architecture’s
true nature’, which he defines in a series of five
‘reverse epiphanies’, which it is tempting to consider
as a counterpoint to Le Corbusier’s five points
towards a new architecture.5
Rather than Le Corbusier’s description of ‘archi-
tectural facts that imply a new kind of building’
(which could then lead to new forms of dwelling),
the statements on the Berlin wall reveal the limits
of what architecture can achieve coupled with a sen-
sitivity to the pure fact of its presence. First, he con-
cluded that architecture was inevitably more about
separation and exclusion than about the liberation
he was taught. Architecture certainly had power,
but contrary to what his teachers believed, it was
not a power of political and social emancipation.6
Next, in a series of four revisions of accepted
truths in architecture, he concluded that the
beauty of the wall was proportional to its horror;
238
OMA as tribute toOMU: exploring
resonancesLara Schrijver
Downloaded By: [University of Technology Delft] At: 10:11 2 July 2010
that there was no causal relationship between form
and meaning; that importance and mass could not
be equated; and that the wall represented an under-
lying ‘essential’ modern project that was neverthe-
less expressed in infinite, often contradictory,
deformations.7
The accompanying photographs support the
tension between programme and form, and demon-
strate architecture as simultaneously impotent and
omnipotent. Some images show everyday life
somehow defying the wall, where a bride and her
groom look over the concrete blocks and through
the barbed wire to see people waving to them
(family left behind? friends?). Or the passing of an
object (a bag?) between the chain-link fence and
the barbed wire (Figs. 2, 3). Other images are
more ominous, with antitank crosses in the fore-
ground, and just the lower bodies of two soldiers
marching in the background — the glint of their
guns still visible; yet here, the crosses become aes-
thetic (Koolhaas describes them as ‘an endless line
of Sol LeWitt structures’), a compositional element
that expresses the ambivalence written out in the
text (Fig. 4). The series of photographs, as a story-
board of events along the wall, already hints at the
later introduction of the scenario as a guiding
force in creating architecture (Figs. 5, 6).
The text on the Berlin wall reflects a number of
issues that have remained central throughout his
work. The optimism of the 1960s about architecture
239
The Journalof ArchitectureVolume 13Number 3
Figure 2. Rem
Koolhaas, The Berlin
wall as architecture
(‘Field Trip’, SMLXL,
p. 223).
Downloaded By: [University of Technology Delft] At: 10:11 2 July 2010
‘seemed feeble rhetorical play. It evaporated on the
spot’, manifesting the powerlessness of architec-
ture. The wall as absence demonstrated the power
of nothingness, which could incorporate more
than any object ever could: ‘in architecture —
absence would always win in a contest with pre-
sence’. And perhaps the most fundamental: the
tension between the appearance of the wall and
the message it was communicating, why he
‘would never again believe in form as a vessel for
meaning’. The project, when presented at the AA,
raised some questions, not the least of which was
posed by Alvin Boyarsky: ‘Where do you go from
here?’8 The answer, oddly, was a departure for
Cornell University in Ithaca, New York, to study
with Ungers. If Koolhaas’s belief in the connection
between form and meaning were irrevocably
severed, then at the very least he must have been
determined to explore this disconnection.
Oswald Mathias Ungers had been exploring the
problem of form and composition in architecture
since at least 1963, when his publication ‘Die Stadt
als Kunstwerk’ drew parallels between the rules of
composition in architecture and in urban design.
The article is an early manifestation of his steadily
increasing interest in morphology.9 This interest
stood in opposition to many of his colleagues,
particularly those of Team X, who were deeply
240
OMA as tribute toOMU: exploring
resonancesLara Schrijver
Figure 3. Rem
Koolhaas, The Berlin
wall as architecture
(‘Field Trip’, SMLXL,
p. 223).
Downloaded By: [University of Technology Delft] At: 10:11 2 July 2010
engaged with the political ramifications of architec-
ture. In contrast, Ungers refused to entertain the
idea that architecture as such could be political. His
work resonated more with the ideas of Aldo Rossi
than with those of Team X.10 Just before Koolhaas
began studying architecture in 1968, Ungers was
still lecturing on the rich array of building forms
and types in architectural history to his students at
the TU Berlin.11 At the time, the students were
arguing in the halls about reconfiguring the structure
of the university, while Ungers was trying to teach
them the foundations of their discipline. In 1967,
during a conference on architectural theory that
Ungers had organised, students protested about
the studies of architecture with signs stating ‘Alle
Hauser sind schon, hort auf zu bauen!’12 In 1968,
while Koolhaas was suffering through the abstract
musings of his teachers at the AA, Ungers moved
to the United States, escaping the increasingly
aggressive political activism of the students.13 In
the September of 1972, Koolhaas was to make a
similar move: fleeing his final studio at the AA with
Peter Cook, he went to study with Ungers at
Cornell. The inverted trajectories of Koolhaas, as a
student wanting to be taught a discipline in an acti-
vist environment, and Ungers, as a teacher trying to
impart knowledge to his students interested only in
social upheaval, converged in Ithaca, New York.
241
The Journalof ArchitectureVolume 13Number 3
Figure 4. Rem
Koolhaas, The Berlin
wall as architecture
(‘Field Trip’, SMLXL,
p. 224: copyright Rem
Koolhaas, 1972).
Downloaded By: [University of Technology Delft] At: 10:11 2 July 2010
Early formations (1972)In the end it is a pity that in this historical process,
everybody has been concentrating on Rem
Koolhaas for his smartness and not for his ability
as a good architect.
Elia Zenghelis (Exit Utopia, p. 262)
Koolhaas became known for his writings before he
began to build. The texts have engendered many
interpretations, perhaps even more so than his build-
ings. In some ways the texts might be considered
intentionally mystifying, insofar as they offer general
thoughts on architecture and the conditions that
form it, more than on Koolhaas’s intentions in a
project. Somehow (because the writings appear
more accessible perhaps?) there seems to be an
idea that Koolhaas relegates architectural form to a
secondary status, that he almost ‘forgets’ to address
it. This idea of ‘forgetting’ form does in fact derive
from some of the well-known texts of Koolhaas
such as ‘Bigness’ and Delirious New York.14 These
are texts that explore the various contemporary con-
ditions that surround architecture, that offer concep-
tual transformations without being explicit about the
formal rules of architecture. In the work of Koolhaas,
urban form becomes urban condition. In Delirious
New York, the city that was built without recourse
to (theories of) architecture, can now only be under-
stood through the retroactive manifesto, which
reveals the underlying logic of congestion and the
vertical schism, to name but two ‘conditions’. The
242
OMA as tribute toOMU: exploring
resonancesLara Schrijver
Figure 5. Rem
Koolhaas, The Berlin
wall as architecture
(‘Field Trip’, SMLXL,
p. 229: copyright Rem
Koolhaas, 1972).
Downloaded By: [University of Technology Delft] At: 10:11 2 July 2010
size, form and typology of the New York block is not
the primary focus, but rather the presence of the grid
as a strategy to contain difference, allowing for
variety in the architectural infill. Yet the images
accompanying the book also express a fascination
with the crystallisation of the urban conditions into
concrete and specific architectural forms, as well as
with the explosion of different forms not governed
by architectural coherence (Figs. 7, 8).
To Zenghelis, the explicit preference for concep-
tual underpinnings more than form has everything
to do with Koolhaas’s professional background.
As scriptwriter Rem magnified the importance of
the programme in architecture. Already estab-
lished from Modernism’s outset in one form,
amplified by Team X in another, the notion of
the plan as scenario became central to the
work of OMA, growing in importance to the
point where it became a bureaucratic tyranny.
In the present predicament — and in retrospect
— it is easy to recognise the shortcoming
involved in neglecting the quintessence of form.
Despite our radical drives we were allergic to
the label of ‘formalism’ — the most misused,
despotic and callous misrepresentation of
meaning exploited by institutional modernism,
in its calculating and opportunistic abuse of the
‘ism’ classification.15
243
The Journalof ArchitectureVolume 13Number 3
Figure 6. Rem
Koolhaas, The Berlin
wall as architecture
(‘Field Trip’, SMLXL,
p. 229: copyright Rem
Koolhaas, 1972).
Downloaded By: [University of Technology Delft] At: 10:11 2 July 2010
Yet does this in fact mean that form is forgotten? It
would seem that the texts and statements are also
misleading. Although the constraints and conditions
through which architecture is built do deeply
concern Koolhaas, the evidence also seems to indi-
cate that architectural form and composition
concern him no less.16 The carefully selected photo-
graphs accompanying his work show an eye for the
graphic and compositional quality not only of archi-
tecture, but also of objects and events (Figs. 9, 10).
His concerns in architectural design are complex,
they cannot be captured within a simple scheme
of form versus function, nor do his designs represent
political or moral ideas in a direct manner. In many
cases, the projects are an assemblage of contradic-
tory elements, which are nevertheless carefully
orchestrated combinations.
Therefore, despite his own misgivings about
addressing the notion of form, the early work of
Koolhaas, from his period at the AA in London
(1968–1972) through to the completion of Delirious
New York in 1978, contains an undercurrent
of architectural form embedded in an exploration
of the urban condition. To reveal this undertone of
interest in the formal aspects of architecture, the
work of Ungers is helpful, since he explicitly
addresses many of the concerns that we can find
implicitly present in the work of Koolhaas. Rather
244
OMA as tribute toOMU: exploring
resonancesLara Schrijver
Figure 7. ‘Crude clay
for architects’:
rendering by Hugh
Ferriss (as published in:
Rem Koolhaas, Delirious
New York, p. 115;
image courtesy
of the Avery Library,
New York – Hugh Ferris
Collection of Drawings).
Downloaded By: [University of Technology Delft] At: 10:11 2 July 2010
than obscuring these questions, Ungers addresses
them directly and tries to explore them very specifi-
cally in both text and object. From investigating the
city as a ‘work of art’ in 1963 to his installation in
the exhibition ‘Man transForms’ in 1976, Ungers
reflected directly on the techniques and instruments
of architecture itself.17 In other words: an explora-
tion of the work of Ungers and Koolhaas as comp-
lementary oeuvres reveals a position that neither
equates architecture with the political (as the more
‘engaged’ architecture of the 1960s did), nor
denies any possibility of social impact for architecture
(as the debates on ‘autonomy’ centring around the
work of Eisenman did). Instead, both Ungers and
Koolhaas are aware of the societal constraints that
architecture operates within, and both demonstrate
interests in social issues (such as the promise of the
collective, the contemporary condition of the metro-
polis, the simply factual need for housing), yet they
operate within the discipline of architecture and
the tools that are available to it (which here I am,
for the sake of argument, allowing to be encom-
passed under the larger category of ‘form’). Regard-
less of personal ideas, they remain aware of the limits
of architecture.18
Towards a notion of form (1972–1975)As noted, insofar as Koolhaas addresses formal
issues in architecture, he typically does so indirectly.
His own writing emphasises the conditions within
which architecture is construed, but many analyses
of his work also focus on the programme, the scen-
ario, the event and the analysis of urban conditions.
While he primarily redirects the reader’s gaze to
urban and ephemeral conditions, this does not
reflect a lack of interest in architectural form.
When he is searching for new words, new means
to address architecture, it is not because he is
looking for something formless, but rather that he
is looking for a way to address the forms that are
there but have remained ‘unseen’ by architecture.
His ‘retroactive manifesto’, Delirious New York,
struggles against the traditional vocabulary of archi-
tecture. It attempts to address New York from a new
perspective, hoping to reveal what is already there.
245
The Journalof ArchitectureVolume 13Number 3
Figure 8. Coney Island
Globe Tower (as
published in: Rem
Koolhaas, Delirious
New York, p. 72).
Downloaded By: [University of Technology Delft] At: 10:11 2 July 2010
Here too, his encounter with the Berlin wall is visible:
approaching it as an object of study, he began to
discover as built reality the incredible architectural
and urban ramifications of an object like the wall.
This could not be comfortably analysed within
the boundaries of the architectural tradition, but
required a different mode of addressing it, like story-
boards and collages. Similarly, the New York grid as
an ordering mechanism at the scale of the city was
revealed by studying the architectural results of an
‘accidental’ plan.
The confrontation between architecture as idea
and as built reality also made him explicitly sceptical
of the revolutionary potential claimed for architec-
ture in the 1960s. The difficulty in the ideological
positions of the late 1960s caused to some degree
a rift between the formal and the programmatic in
architecture.19 This was to give rise to the highly
autonomous architecture of Eisenman on the one
hand, and the socially programmed architecture of
Van Eyck on the other. Koolhaas found his space
to think, write and design in the relative calm of
246
OMA as tribute toOMU: exploring
resonancesLara Schrijver
Figure 9. ‘Reality of the
RCA slab’ (as published
in: Rem Koolhaas,
Delirious New York,
p. 232).
Downloaded By: [University of Technology Delft] At: 10:11 2 July 2010
Ithaca, where at least some questions of form were
being made explicit in the work of Ungers and his
colleague Colin Rowe.20 His ideas on architecture
could begin to settle within this sphere of influence
of Rowe, Ungers, and perhaps also Eisenman to
some degree.21 The place itself had some influence
— there was something about the amnesia of
New York, the naıvete of American architecture
which was simply built reality without a traditional
master plan. This allowed Koolhaas to look for
what there already was, to explore the endless
potential of the city as it stood. Here, New York rep-
resented the result of building without the weight of
the (political) manifestoes being designed in Europe.
The various applications of architectural form —
composition, detailing, massing, materialisation —
were not part of a grand ideology, but instruments
to be used. Architecture was something to be
made, not thought.
The tension between form and programme
remains continually visible, and by making this so
explicit, the question of form is often relegated to
the background. Although Fritz Neumeyer acknowl-
edges ‘the absolute sensual delight’ of the work, he
simultaneously argues that the significance of the
work somehow takes precedence over its physical
247
The Journalof ArchitectureVolume 13Number 3
Figure 10. ‘Rendezvous
with destiny’ (as
published in: Rem
Koolhaas, Delirious
New York, p. 142).
Downloaded By: [University of Technology Delft] At: 10:11 2 July 2010
248
OMA as tribute toOMU: exploring
resonancesLara Schrijver
Figure 11. Rem
Koolhaas, ‘The Baths’
(from: R.L. Koolhaas
and E. Zenghelis with
M. Vriesendorp and
Z. Zenghelis, ‘Exodus, or
the voluntary prisoners
of architecture’ [project,
1972]: copyright held
by the preceding named
individuals, 1972).
Downloaded By: [University of Technology Delft] At: 10:11 2 July 2010
form.22 In a sense, this indicates a shortcoming in
the vocabulary of criticism itself, since the signifi-
cance seems to derive precisely from the architec-
tural language. It is sensual (thanks to Madelon
Vriesendorp’s drawings) and brutal (in its employ-
ment of such monstrous late-modern archetypes
as the Berlin wall). Neumeyer does note that the
work of OMA responded to a condition found in
Berlin that immediately provokes an understanding
of an architectural ‘beyond’: ‘not yet perceived by
aesthetic criteria, the source of a new art.’23 He
argues that this is an historic change in perspective
that was part of the turn to modernity, best visible
in the writing that turns to the ‘wrong’ side of archi-
tecture, visible in the work of the engineers more
than the architects. Here, a new set of parameters
invokes a dramatic shift in architecture — the intro-
duction of concrete, glass curtain walls, spindly steel
structures all indicative of a ‘new kind of architec-
tural beauty to come’.
249
The Journalof ArchitectureVolume 13Number 3
Figure 12. Rem
Koolhaas, ‘The
Allotments’ (from:
R.L. Koolhaas and
E. Zenghelis with
M. Vriesendorp and
Z. Zenghelis, ‘Exodus, or
the voluntary prisoners
of architecture’ [project,
1972]: copyright held
by the preceding named
individuals, 1972).
Downloaded By: [University of Technology Delft] At: 10:11 2 July 2010
It is this tension that Koolhaas finds himself strug-
gling with. In his ambivalence towards the tra-
ditional notions of architectural form, he tried to
write a book that does not use any literal architec-
tural criteria, Delirious New York. As he states in
an interview with Franziska Bollerey: ‘And this is
why I wrote a book without literal architectural cri-
teria. There is no mention of beautiful, ugly, tall,
250
OMA as tribute toOMU: exploring
resonancesLara Schrijver
Figure 13. ‘1909
theorem’: cartoon of
skyscraper (as published
in: Rem Koolhaas,
Delirious New York,
p. 83).
Downloaded By: [University of Technology Delft] At: 10:11 2 July 2010
low, white. . . Nothing about appearances.’24 As
those before him, he is conscious of a shift, of some-
thing that he cannot as yet describe. He concen-
trates on avoiding traditional descriptions of
architecture, on writing a manifesto for something
that was built (unreflectively) in accordance with
the spirit of its time. It is this aspect of his work
that Neumeyer perceives as in accordance with
modernity. Koolhaas does indeed turn precisely to
the ‘wrong side of architecture’. It is, however, not
the heroically engineered side of modernity, but a
perhaps even more unforgivable side in the wake
of the late 1960s: one of hedonism, of mass
culture not as cheerful pop but as absolute reality
(Figs. 11, 12). In the process, Koolhaas manages to
describe the ineffable tensions in such concepts as
the ‘lobotomy’ and the ‘vertical schism’, both of
which allow the existence of distinct realities and
absolute opposites within the same skin (Fig. 13).
In the condition of the skyscraper, when the form
disengages itself from the programme and mani-
fests itself as an undeniable presence of architec-
ture, it creates a new condition that is strong
enough to encompass the complexity of everyday
reality.
In the meantime, Ungers had been working along
a similar line, but not with formal considerations as
an undercurrent or with form as a counterpoint to
programme, but rather as a direct line of inquiry in
his understanding of architecture. Like Koolhaas,
Ungers struggled with the extremely politicised
view of architecture on the European mainland in
251
The Journalof ArchitectureVolume 13Number 3
Figure 14. ‘Protection’ –
plan of an ideal city,
Georg Rimpler, 1670
(O.M. Ungers,
Morphologie/City
Metaphors, pp. 30–31:
image courtesy of
Verlag der
Buchhandlung Walther
Konig, Cologne).
Downloaded By: [University of Technology Delft] At: 10:11 2 July 2010
the late 1960s. Unlike his students, he believed that
building beautiful houses was an important task, and
that one must take it seriously as an architect. This
does not preclude thinking about more than only
architectural questions, but it does indicate the
limits of agency available to an architect. In an inter-
view, Koolhaas notes an undertone of political issues
in the work of Ungers, that nevertheless remains
only that: ‘So in fact you also say in every work,
that there are formal and morphological solutions
for these things, but not social ones.’25 In reply,
Ungers confirms a position towards that of the
autonomy of art and architecture: ‘I believe that
the social problems of architecture cannot be
resolved. We do not have the instruments for this.
They can only solve architectural problems. In
the same way, art cannot solve societal issues.’26
Koolhaas resists this, questioning whether there is
not some moral position embedded in the architec-
ture. Although Ungers concurs that he has a
personal moral principle, he describes it as separate
from the architectural.
Utilising forms (1976–1978)Ungers expands upon his interest in morphology and
the role of form in his 1982 publication Morpholo-
gie/City Metaphors. The publication was based on
his installation for ‘Man TransForms’ in 1976 at the
Cooper-Hewitt National Design Museum in New
York, with an essay that was developed to explore
more extensively ideas of image, analogy and meta-
phor, and their place in human thinking. In the essay
252
OMA as tribute toOMU: exploring
resonancesLara Schrijver
Figure 15. ‘Parallelism’
– urban city for
Magnitogorsk, Mart
Stam, 1929 (O.M.
Ungers, Morphologie/
City Metaphors,
pp. 34–35: image
courtesy of Verlag der
Buchhandlung Walther
Konig, Cologne).
Downloaded By: [University of Technology Delft] At: 10:11 2 July 2010
he declares that form is necessary to human kind to
bring order to the world, and that to do so he/she
employs imagination together with thought.
Ungers attributes a strong significance to the role
of vision and imagination as the guiding principle
upon which consciousness comprehends the
world. Analysis may be necessary to understand
various parts of our reality, yet to Ungers it is detri-
mental when taken too far, since it tends to also
reduce everything to a chaotic mass where every-
thing is of equal importance. The need for specificity
and distinction is served by the imagination and by
sensuous perception. In other words, Ungers
allows the formal to be more than ‘decoration’,
and also more than a singular expression of an
underlying idea. He employs the concepts of meta-
phor, analogy, symbols, models to suggest that
there is a space between the intention of the
designer and the reception of the user that is pro-
ductive in itself. It is the gap that Koolhaas sees
in the presence of the Berlin wall, which Ungers
here conceptualises as the very foundation of the
architectural discipline.
In the book, as in the exhibition, this idea of the
importance of forms and images is further explored
through juxtapositions of two images and a word,
which create a new whole (Fig. 14). Each group con-
sists of an urban plan as the architectural image; a
reference photograph, which is not part of the orig-
inal design, but an associative image based primarily
on formal similarities; and the word as a description
of the conceptual content (Figs. 15, 16). To Ungers,
this circumscribes a more complex reality than the
typical architectural and urban analyses, which
253
The Journalof ArchitectureVolume 13Number 3
Figure 16. ‘Appen-
dages’ – satellite town,
Unwin 1928 (O.M.
Ungers, Morphologie/
City Metaphors,
pp. 56–57: image
courtesy of Verlag der
Buchhandlung Walther
Konig, Cologne).
Downloaded By: [University of Technology Delft] At: 10:11 2 July 2010
explore the quantitative or functional aspects of
planning. Instead, his assemblages describe not
only the object (the plan itself), but also ‘the concep-
tual reality — the idea, shown as the plan — the
image — the word.’27
After the exhibition, this exploration of the role of
form in human thinking is set aside. However,
aspects of formal coherence and urban morphology
do play a small but significant role in the 1977
Berlin summer academy on the ‘City within the city’.
As a design proposition, the ‘City within the city’ is
not dependent on a single architectural or urban
gesture, but rather offers a framework within which
differences can exist and be cultivated.28 Although
the project was focused on a broader problematic
of urban redevelopment for a shrinking population,
it makes a subtle appeal to architectural form in its
selection of the ‘islands’ of Berlin that would be sal-
vaged. The choice of urban islands is to be guided
by the ‘degree of clarity and comprehensibility of
the existing basic design principles’, although these
spaces should not be established ‘on the basis of a
particular taste or aesthetic conceptions’.29 These
comments remain little more than a suggestive dis-
tinction between some idea of ‘pure form’ as valuable
and a ‘particular taste’ which is dismissed. Although
these comments are not clarified, thematerial accom-
panying thesis 6 does recall the mechanisms of the
image groups in Morphologie/City Metaphors: in
addressing an area of Berlin such as Kreuzberg, a sug-
gestion is made for a reference project, in this case
Manhattan, and the ‘city island’ is given form in
254
OMA as tribute toOMU: exploring
resonancesLara Schrijver
Figure 17. Kreuzberg
as city ‘island’ (as
published in ‘Cities
within the City’, Lotus,
19, p. 89: copyright
O.M. Ungers; image
courtesy of Ungers
Archiv fur
Architekturwissenschaft,
Cologne).
Downloaded By: [University of Technology Delft] At: 10:11 2 July 2010
between the plan and the reference project (Fig. 17).
The series of images is not as diverse as those pub-
lished inMorphologie/CityMetaphors, but it contains
a similar mechanism of juxtaposition that appeals to
more than the urban plan itself.
Contradictions and oxymoronsThe test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to
hold two opposite ideas in the mind at the same
time, and still retain the ability to function.
F. Scott Fitzgerald, as quoted in Delirious
New York, p. 162.30
The acknowledgement and incorporation of contra-
dictions is a theme that runs throughout the work of
both Ungers and Koolhaas. In part, this interest in
conflicting ideas is a response to an increasingly het-
erogeneous reality that architecture is simply con-
fronted with. Yet both architects not only refer to
this as a cornerstone of the metropolitan condition,
but also employ a specific concept to harness
and utilise these contradictions in their designs. For
Koolhaas, it is the oxymoron, while for Ungers, it is
the coincidentia oppositorum. Ungers borrows the
notion of the coincidentia oppositorum from the
mediaeval philosopher Nicholas of Cusa (Nikolaus
von Kues), to identify a ‘coincidence of antitheses
and not their overcoming’. Recalling the composite
images in Morphologie/City Metaphors, ‘[t]hese
contradictions do not shut themselves up in their
antithetical nature, but are integrated into an all-
inclusive image.’ To Ungers, this allows a new
vision for architecture, one that releases itself from
255
The Journalof ArchitectureVolume 13Number 3
Figure 17. (Continued.)
Downloaded By: [University of Technology Delft] At: 10:11 2 July 2010
the obligation of unity. ‘A new dimension of thought
is opened up if the world is experienced in all its con-
tradictions, that is in all its multiplicity and variety, if
it is not forced into the concept of homogeneity that
shapes everything to itself.’31 While his colleagues
sketched a world of architectural unity, the coinci-
dentia oppositorum gave Ungers a way to conceptu-
alise plurality and use it in a formal sense. In a similar
fashion, the oxymoron, as a combination of contra-
dictory words, allows a simultaneous presence of
incongruous realities. As an intellectual construc-
tion, it allows for the diversity of urban life to flourish
within the confines of a specific architectural con-
tainer.32 Both concepts situate architecture as a stra-
tegic intervention within the plurality of the
contemporary city that does not attempt to create
a formal unity in order to smooth over
contradictions.
For both Koolhaas and Ungers, the texts and the
projects offer different ways of exploring their
ideas. The form they give their buildings cannot
be examined as completely separate from the
‘expression of a spiritual content’ (to recall
Ungers’s early definition of form), yet it is also not
a direct extrapolation of their ideas. Conversely,
the texts are not simply explanations of the projects,
but form a parallel trajectory of intellectual explora-
tion. In text, Ungers explores specific issues of archi-
tectural form such as proportion and order.33 Yet he
also experiments with visual metaphors and analo-
gies in Morphologie/City Metaphors by creating
composite images that explore the role of form in
the conceptual structuring of the world. Koolhaas
actively sought a new vocabulary to interpret an
existing city in Delirious New York, while he also
employs techniques such as the storyboard to
compose specific visualisations of the potential reali-
ties of architecture.
The projects of OMA tend to call attention to
oppositions rather than subdue them.34 The role of
form in the work of OMA is not about the autonomy
of form as an experimental drive within the limits of
the discipline, taking no account of possible external
realities. Rather, as Neumeyer notes, it uses an
‘aggregation of metropolitan life in ever-changing
configurations . . . with a daring programme in a
conventional (even boring) architecture’. This metro-
politan condition then breathes new life into archi-
tecture. In the context of the late 1960s, Ungers
and Koolhaas counter the dominant debate by utilis-
ing conflicting ideas. Rather than extrapolate the
political directly into their architecture and give it a
physical form, they explored the formal autonomy
of architecture while attempting to understand its
cultural ramifications in the meantime.
This is also where we find a distinction between
Koolhaas and his former partner Elia Zenghelis. ‘He
distances himself from the proliferation of meta-
phors in Exodus, when it should really have been
concerned with pure architecture and its autonomy.
Koolhaas does not fully subscribe to this; for him,
there is a kind of social programme underlying
Exodus: “At the very least, there is a sort of over-
wrought insistence on collectivity”‘, which seems
to derive from his admiration of Soviet constructivist
projects.35 Zenghelis, in the end, does retreat further
into a notion of autonomy, holding the conviction
that the only way forward for architecture is to
focus on form, which in this case seems to be
primarily visual in that it should undergo an
256
OMA as tribute toOMU: exploring
resonancesLara Schrijver
Downloaded By: [University of Technology Delft] At: 10:11 2 July 2010
‘iconographic re-articulation’. Koolhaas, on the other
hand, by maintaining and cultivating the oppositions
he sees as part of the metropolitan condition, creates
architectural strategies that remain flexible through-
out urban transformations. His use of the oxymoron
as a design tool — the clash of inherent contradic-
tions — clears out a space of architectural specificity
that stands its ground because it does not offer a
direct link between form and meaning.
To return to an earlier thought then: ‘I would
never again believe in form as the primary vessel
of meaning’. This statement does not allude to the
problem of form as a ‘vessel for meaning’, as
much as it dismisses the simplicity with which Kool-
haas’s architectural education equates specific forms
with specific (political and social) consequences.
Instead, he implies that the systematic exploration
of various architectural forms is necessary to under-
stand the contemporary metropolis. The Office for
Metropolitan Architecture finds its metropolitan
character in the presence of opposing ‘realities’,
and uses architectural specificity in order to encou-
rage the multiplicity of urban forms. The freedom
implied in the ideas of the contradictio in opposi-
torum and the oxymoron, becomes a tool in which
formally antithetical spaces are driven to the
extreme. The manner in which the two architects
employ these concepts does differ slightly: where
Ungers uses the contradictio in oppositorum on a
primarily formal level (almost as a compositional
technique) it becomes more of a strategic condition
for Koolhaas — the oxymoron allows him a freedom
of design by creating a framework rather than a
specific formal ‘style’. The main distinction
between Koolhaas and Ungers is in their final treat-
ment of the conflicting realities they attempt to
house within their designs. Koolhaas more readily
accepts the beauty of reality ‘as is’, while Ungers
still tries to unveil the potential beauty he sees in
it.36 Yet despite these evident differences in their
work, they share a similar interest in the formal
tools of architecture and their ability to incorporate
and to enhance contradictions, which in turn
contributes to the capacity of architecture to
remain significant over time.
Notes and references1. F. Neumeyer, ‘OMA’s Berlin : The Polemic Island in the
City,’ Assemblage, 11 (1989), pp. 36–52.
2. J. Cepl, Oswald Mathias Ungers: Eine intellektuelle Bio-
grafie (Cologne, Verlag der Buchhandlung Walther
Konig, 2007). Cepl traces the presence of the Veroffen-
tlichungen zur Architektur in London to James Stirling,
referring to an earlier publication by Gerhard Spangen-
berg, ‘Oswald Mathias Ungers als Lehrer und Archi-
tekt’, Der Architekt, no. 9 (September, 1987),
pp. 417–421. Cepl does note that some accounts
suggest that Leon Krier brought them to the attention
of Stirling (p. 295, and note 495).
3. In an early manifesto on architecture written together
with Reinhard Gieselmann, Ungers calls architectural
form ‘the expression of spiritual content’: O.M.
Ungers, R. Gieselmann, ‘Towards a New Architecture’
(1960), in, Ulrich Conrads, ed., Programs and Manifes-
toes on 20th-Century Architecture (Cambridge, Mass.,
MIT Press, 1970 [orig., Frankfurt, Verlag Ulstein,
1964]), pp.165–166.
4. ‘There is more profit to be had from an education that
one does not agree with: it enforces competence. In
isolation, you continually need to found and argue
your opinions.’ (‘Man profitiert mehr von einer Unter-
weisung, mit der man nicht ubereinstimmt: Das
257
The Journalof ArchitectureVolume 13Number 3
Downloaded By: [University of Technology Delft] At: 10:11 2 July 2010
zwingt zu tuchtigen Reflexen. Isoliert muß man seine
Standpunkte dauernd begrunden.’) ‘Die erschreck-
ende Schonheit des 20. Jahrhunderts,’ Arch!, 86
(August, 1986), pp. 34–43.
5. As this is a retrospective text, no doubt these five
‘reverse epiphanies’ have been formulated a little
more persuasively in accordance with the ideas that
have engaged OMA over the past twenty years. Never-
theless, in earlier comments on the Berlin wall, he also
notes the tensions and contradictions along the wall,
when he refers to the ‘bizarre, spontaneous meaning
and credibility that emanate from this place. . . . On
my walks through Berlin I encountered on the one
hand a deeply striking ambiance . . . And on the
other I discovered many little objects along these
neglected “terrains vagues”, these unbelievable
spaces of freedom, which stood in their places with a
great self-evidence.’ Rem Koolhaas in conversation
with Franziska Bollerey, Bauwelt, 17/18 (1987),
pp. 627–633.
6. This theme will return in his 1972 project ‘Exodus, or
the voluntary prisoners of architecture’, where a form
of Berlin wall encloses those who are ‘strong enough’
to inhabit his project.
7. ‘Field trip, A(A) Memoir’, in SMLXL, pp. 215–232. The
22 years that passed between the project presentation
and the writing of the memoir perhaps explains the
misattribution of the publication Architecture: Action
and Plan to Peter (and Alison) Smithson. In fact, it
was written by the other Peter at the AA, Peter Cook.
8. Ibid. p. 231
9. ‘The City as a Work of Art’, excerpt, in, Joan Ockman,
ed., Architecture Culture 1943–1968 (New York,
Columbia Books of Architecture / Rizzoli, 1993), pp.
362–364. An important observation is made by
Jasper Cepl in his extensive study of Ungers, where
he notes that Ungers was so driven to morphology
that he in essence considered everything scaleable:
Jasper Cepl, O.M. Ungers, eine intellektuelle Biografie
(Cologne, Verlag der Buchhandlung Walther Konig,
2007), p.141. This point forms a crucial distinction
from the approach of Koolhaas, and is visible for
example in Ungers’s competition entry for Roosevelt
Island in 1975, which is a miniature Manhattan.
10. Rossi introduced thework of Ungers to Italy inCasabella,
244 (1960). Ungers organised a Team X meeting in
Berlin in 1965, but even then the differences were
visible. Ungers’s sympathy lay more with the rationalist
approach to urban and architectural form that was
present in the Italian circles surrounding Rossi. The
most dramatic gesture from the side of Team X is rep-
resented by Aldo van Eyck’s fuming ‘Letter to Mathias
Ungers from another world’, in Spazio e Societa, 8
(1979), where he declares Ungers as being completely
at odds with everything that Team X stands for.
11. The Berlin lectures of 1964–65 were recently published
in Archplus, 179 (July, 2006). These lectures also illus-
trate the strong morphological interest of Ungers.
12. See ‘Oswald Mathias Ungers im Gesprach mit Rem
Koolhaas und Hans Ulrich Obrist,’ Arch!, 179
(2006), pp. 6–11, and E. Muhlthaler, ‘Lernen von
O.M. Ungers: Die Berliner Lehrzeit,’ in, E. Muhlthaler,
ed., Lernen von OMU, catalog (Berlin, Arch! and TU,
2006), p.28.
13. According to Cepl, student unrest was not the sole
problem for Ungers at the time, who was feeling
increasingly at the mercy of his clients, and the
demands placed upon him. However, the last confer-
ence Ungers organised at the TU Berlin, Architek-
turtheorie in 1967, ended in student protests and
descended into chaos: J. Cepl, O.M. Ungers, eine intel-
lektuelle Biografie, op. cit., p. 228.
14. As is discussed later, he wrote Delirious New York
without using any typical architectural terms – this
was an experimental side to the book: the desire, in
a sense, to redefine how we speak and think about
258
OMA as tribute toOMU: exploring
resonancesLara Schrijver
Downloaded By: [University of Technology Delft] At: 10:11 2 July 2010
architecture. Rem Koolhaas in conversation with
Franziska Bollerey, Bauwelt, 17/18 (1987), pp. 627–
633. ‘Bigness’ revolves around an urban condition of
scale that transcends formal tools, about a condition
that creates something new.
15. Elia Zenghelis, in, Martin van Schaik, Otakar Macel,
eds, Exit Utopia: Architectural Provocations 1956–
1976 (Munich, Prestel, 2005), p. 261. According to
Zenghelis, they both feared the label ‘formalism’
being applied to their work, with its connotations of
a cavalier disregard for reality. Considered in the light
of the debate on architectural autonomy, this fear
was perhaps somewhat justified.
16. Although he does not offer a precise definition of
‘form’, he does, for example, state that ‘the process
of translation from concept to pure form interests
us’. Rem Koolhaas in conversation with Franziska
Bollerey, Bauwelt, op. cit., pp. 627–633.
17. Man transForms, exhibition at Cooper-Hewitt, 1976.
Later, Ungers published his installation with an
accompanying essay on images and metaphors, as
Morphologie/City Metaphors (Cologne, Walther
Konig, 1982).
18. ‘People can inhabit anything. And they can be miser-
able in anything and ecstatic in anything. More and
more I think architecture has nothing to do with it.
Of course that’s both liberating and alarming.’ (inter-
view, Wired magazine, July, 1996): see http://
www.wired.com/wired/archive/4.07/koolhaas.html)
19. This was particularly strong in the Netherlands, where
ideological battle lines were drawn in the magazines
and at the TU Delft, not least by Aldo van Eyck.
Perhaps Koolhaas’s background made him more
aware of the flaws in this ideological rift.
20. Koolhaas remarks that Rowe and Ungers share
many of the same ideas, which no doubt they would
have contested at the time. Yet this remark may
signify a correspondence in their work that is as
yet under-recognised. ‘Die erschreckende Schonheit
des 20. Jahrhunderts,’ Arch! 86 (August, 1986),
pp. 34–43.
21. Koolhaas worked on the manuscript for Delirious
New York with a fellowship at the Institute for Archi-
tecture and Urban Studies in 1973, where Peter
Eisenman was director.
22. F. Neumeyer, ‘OMA’s Berlin : The Polemic Island in the
City,’ op. cit., pp. 36–52: quotation from p. 43.
23. ibid., pp. 36–52: quotation from p. 44.
24. ‘Und so habe ich ein Buch geschrieben, in dem wort-
wortlich architektonische Kriterien fehlen. Kein ein-
ziges Mal ist die Rede von schon, haßlich, hoch,
niedrig, weiß. . . Nichts uber das Außere.’ Rem
Koolhaas in conversation with Franziska Bollerey, op.
cit., pp. 627–633: quotation from pp. 628–629.
(See also ‘Die erschreckende Schonheit des 20. Jahr-
hunderts,’ op. cit., p. 42.)
25. ‘Und eigentlich sagen Sie auch in jeder Arbeit, dass es
fur diese Dinge formal und morphologisch Losungen
gibt, aber nicht sozial.’: ‘Oswald Mathias Ungers im
Gesprach mit Rem Koolhaas und Hans Ulrich Obrist’,
Arch!, 179 (2006), pp. 6–11: quotation, p. 10.
26. Ibid.:’Ich bin der Meinung, dass die sozialen Probleme
von Architektur nicht gelost werden konnen. Wir
haben keine Mittel dazu. Sie konnen architektonische
Probleme losen. Genauso kann Kunst die gesellschaf-
tlichen Fragen nicht losen.’
27. O.M. Ungers, Morphologie/City Metaphors, op. cit.,
p. 14.
28. For a more specific elaboration on the idea of the City
within the City, see my article ‘The Archipelago City:
Piecing together collectivities’, OASE, 71 (2006),
pp. 18–36.
29. ‘Cities within the City’, thesis 5, in Lotus, 19, pp. 82–97.
30. In the original 1963 text ‘The Crack-Up’, the phrase is
actually ‘opposed ideas’ rather than ‘opposite ideas’
(Oxford Book of 20th Century Quotations, 113:6).
259
The Journalof ArchitectureVolume 13Number 3
Downloaded By: [University of Technology Delft] At: 10:11 2 July 2010
The continuation of the essay seems particularly
suitable to the two architects being discussed here:
‘One should, for example, be able to see that things
are hopeless and yet be determined to make them
otherwise.’
31. Lotus Documents (Quaderni di Lotus) no. 1, ‘Architec-
ture as theme’, O.M. Ungers (Milan, Gruppo Editoriale
Electa, 1982).
32. This is already intimated in the idea of the ‘vertical
schism’, which depends on architectural specificity
to allow for the ‘instability of a Skyscraper’s definitive
composition’: R. Koolhaas, Delirious New York (Rotter-
dam, 010 publishers, 1994 [orig. 1978]), p. 107.
33. See, for example, O.M. Ungers, ‘Ordo, fondo etmesura:
The Criteria of Architecture’, in, Henry A. Millon, ed.,
The Renaissance from Brunelleschi to Michelangelo:
The Representation of Architecture (London, Thames
and Hudson, 1994), pp. 307–317.
34. Fritz Neumeyer was attuned to this encompassing
ambivalence of the work between pairs of oppositions
in his article ‘OMA’s Berlin’, Assemblage, 11, noting
the references to the ‘shocking beauty of the 20th
century’, the ‘minimal architectural interventions’
(with reference to Leonidov) combined with the ‘absol-
ute sensual delight’ in OMA’s early projects (p. 43), and
that the 1989 Paris world exposition was ‘a field of pro-
gramme . . . realised in its purest form, almost without
architectural intervention.’
35. Hilde Heynen, ‘The Antinomies of Utopia. Superstudio
in context’, in, V. Bijvanck, ed., Superstudio: The Mid-
delburg lectures (De Vleeshal and Zeeuws Museum,
2005), pp. 61–74.
36. ‘AuchwennsiebeidedieRealitat anerkennenunddaraus
Kraft schopfen, ist doch Koolhaas eher bereit, dich dies,
so wie sie ist, schon zu sehen, wahrend Ungers immer
noch daran liegt, sie nach seinem Bilde umzuformen zu
dem, was in ihr steckt’: Jasper Cepl, O.M. Ungers, eine
intellektuelle Biografie, op. cit., p. 347.
BibliographyF. Bollerey, ‘. . .immer wieder eine Mischung von Verfuhrung
und Ungenießbarkeit ins Spiel bringen’, interview with
Rem Koolhaas, Bauwelt, 17/18 (1987), pp. 627–633.
J. Cepl, O.M. Ungers, eine intellektuelle Biografie
(Cologne, Verlag der Buchhandlung Walther Konig,
2007).
A. van Eyck, ‘A message to Mathias Ungers from a different
world’, in Spazio e Societa, 8 (1979), pp. 63–64.
H. Heynen, ‘The Antinomies of Utopia. Superstudio in
context’, in, V. Bijvanck, ed., Superstudio: The Middel-
burg lectures (Middelburg, De Vleeshal and Zeeuws
Museum, 2005), pp. 61–74.
H. Klotz, ed., O.M. Ungers: 1951–1984, Bauten und Pro-
jekte (Braunschweig, Vieweg, 1985).
R. Koolhaas, N. Kuhnert, P. Goulet, ‘Die erschreckende
Schonheit des 20. Jahrhunderts’, Arch! , 86 (1986),
pp. 34–43.
R. Koolhaas, ‘Weird Science: Excerpts fromaDiary’, in SMLXL
(Rotterdam, 010 publishers, 1995), pp. 604–661.
R. Koolhaas, ‘Field trip, A(A) Memoir’, in SMLXL (Rotter-
dam, 010 publishers, 1995), pp. 212–233.
R. Koolhaas, interview, Wired (July, 1996), see http://
www.wired.com/wired/archive/4.07/koolhaas.html
R. Koolhaas, Delirious New York (Rotterdam, 010 publishers,
1994 [orig: New York, Oxford University Press, 1978]).
E. Muhlthaler, ‘Lernen von O.M. Ungers: Die Berliner Lehr-
zeit’, in E. Muhlthaler, ed., Lernen von OMU, catalog
(Berlin, Arch! and TU Berlin, 2006), p. 28.
F. Neumeyer, ‘OMA’s Berlin : The Polemic Island in the City’,
Assemblage, 11 (1990), pp. 36–52.
‘OswaldMathias Ungers imGesprach mit Rem Koolhaas und
Hans Ulrich Obrist’, Arch! , 179 (2006), pp. 6–11.
P. Riemann, ‘OMU and the Magritte Man’, in, E. Muhlthaler,
ed., Lernen von OMU, catalog (Berlin, Arch! and TU
Berlin, 2006), pp. 176–177.
L. Schrijver, ‘The Archipelago City: Piecing together collec-
tivities’, OASE, 71 (2006), pp. 18–36.
260
OMA as tribute toOMU: exploring
resonancesLara Schrijver
Downloaded By: [University of Technology Delft] At: 10:11 2 July 2010
O.M. Ungers, ‘Architecture as theme’, Lotus Documents
(Quaderni di Lotus), no. 1 (Milan, Gruppo Editoriale
Electa, 1982).
O.M. Ungers, Morphologie / City Metaphors (Cologne,
Walther Konig, 1982).
O.M. Ungers, ‘Ordo, fondo et mesura: The Criteria of Archi-
tecture’, in, Henry A. Millon, ed., The Renaissance
from Brunelleschi to Michelangelo: The Represen-
tation of Architecture (London, Thames and Hudson,
1994), pp. 307–317.
E. Zenghelis, ‘Text and Architecture: Architecture as Text’,
in, Martin van Schaik, Otakar Macel, eds, Exit Utopia:
Architectural Provocations 1956–1976 (Munich,
Prestel, 2005), p. 255–262.
261
The Journalof ArchitectureVolume 13Number 3
Downloaded By: [University of Technology Delft] At: 10:11 2 July 2010
LECTURE 6THE ARCHITECTURAL COMPOSITION OF GREAT BUILDINGS
Susanne Komossa – The Double-Faced Nature of ColourMichiel Riedijk – Giant Blue Shirt at the Gasoline Station. Pop Art, Colour, and Composition in the Work of Venturi, Rauch and Scott BrownMichiel Riedijk – The Parachutist in the China Shop. On Stirling
LECTURE 7BUILDING PLACES
Dirk van den Heuvel – Another Sensibility. The Discovery of ContextTony Fretton – On Siza
OASE 76
cut t
hrou
gh th
e ea
rth,
from
the
ruin
to th
e re
tain
ing
wal
l wit
h th
e tu
nnel
, to
the
con-
stru
ctio
n si
te in
the
bott
om –
ther
e is
als
o a
sect
ion
from
left
to ri
ght t
hat e
xten
ds fr
om
the
arti
fici
al o
r man
-mad
e to
the
appa
rent
ly n
atur
al a
nd b
ack
agai
n to
the
arti
fici
al.
And
all
this
revo
lves
pre
cise
ly a
roun
d th
e ce
ntra
l poi
nt o
f th
e im
age.
MP
: Rin
g R
oad
(Fin
deq/
Ceu
ta):
Per
haps
dee
p hi
stor
y, re
veal
ed in
the
pres
ence
of
the
arch
aic
mon
umen
t, su
ch a
s is s
ugge
sted
by
Gri
d II
, or i
n th
e cu
t thr
ough
th
e ea
rth
in S
ecti
on I
I (X
iam
en) i
s eve
n m
ore
impo
rtan
t tha
n th
e hi
stor
ies,
fo
rms a
nd a
rran
gem
ents
of a
rchi
tect
ure
that
cla
im to
be
so c
entr
al to
its m
akin
g an
d re
inve
ntio
n. In
look
ing
at R
ing
Roa
d (F
inde
q/C
euta
), I
can’
t avo
id b
eing
aw
are
of a
pre
-his
tori
c or
a-h
isto
ric
dim
ensi
on to
the
mak
ing
of th
e w
orld
, of
arc
hety
pes t
hat t
rans
cend
typo
logi
es, w
hich
are
des
tine
d to
repe
at th
em-
selv
es. O
r per
haps
, in
look
ing
at th
e w
orld
, we
are
dest
ined
to re
peat
them
, or
find
them
, in
mak
ing
phot
ogra
phs,
and
in m
akin
g pi
ctur
es.
BP
: The
re a
re m
any
thin
gs to
say
abo
ut th
is p
ictu
re M
ark,
like
how
it is
a p
ivot
al
pict
ure
for m
e, it
s sm
okin
g ru
bble
and
deb
ris
and
the
rati
onal
whi
te b
lock
s on
top
of
it. I
t is
our f
utur
e an
d ou
r his
tory
, and
we
are
stuc
k so
mew
here
in th
e m
iddl
e. B
ut I
thin
k yo
u sa
y it
ver
y w
ell,
and
we
shou
ld s
top
the
inte
rvie
w w
ith
your
rem
ark
on th
is
phot
ogra
ph, t
his
pict
ure.
It is
a b
eaut
iful
end
.
BA
S P
RIN
CE
N &
MA
RC
PIM
LO
TT
18
EE
N A
ND
ER
E
SE
NS
IBIL
ITE
IT –
D
E O
NT
DE
KK
ING
VA
N
DE
CO
NT
EX
T
AN
OT
HE
R S
EN
SIB
ILIT
Y –
TH
E D
ISC
OV
ER
Y
OF
CO
NT
EX
T
DIR
K V
AN
DE
N H
EU
VE
L
CO
NT
EX
T \
SPECIFICITY
21
CO
NT
EX
T \
SPECIFICITY
OASE 76
1.
In e
en le
zing
aan
de
bouw
kund
efac
ulte
it v
an
de
TU
Del
ft, i
n he
t kad
er
va
n ee
n re
eks
lezi
ngen
over
de
kwes
tie
van
de
co
ntex
t, 2
0 se
ptem
ber
20
07.
2.
Ung
ers
was
des
tijd
s
vo
orzi
tter
van
het
be
st
uur v
an d
e Sc
hool
of
A
rchi
tect
ure,
en
orga
ni-
se
erde
jaa
r 197
1–19
72
ee
n ze
er u
itge
brei
d
se
min
ar o
ver T
eam
10.
Zie
ook
: Max
Ris
sela
da
en
Dir
k va
n de
n H
euve
l
(r
ed.)
, Tea
m 1
0 19
53-8
1.
In
Sea
rch
of a
Uto
pia
of
th
e P
rese
nt,
Rot
terd
am
20
05, p
. 180
.3.
T
ypos
crip
t uit
197
2 u
it
he
t Sm
iths
ons-
arch
ief,
waa
rvan
het
gro
otst
e
de
el is
ver
wer
kt in
de
publ
icat
ie W
itho
ut
R
heto
ric u
it 1
973.
Tw
ee
no
ten
bij d
e oo
rspr
onke
-
lijk
e te
kst i
n he
t arc
hief
luid
en a
ls v
olgt
Noo
t 1:
O
ok in
‘Een
voo
rtga
and
expe
rim
ent’
(A.A
.)
A
-dos
sier
s (?
) 197
5
‘A
rchi
tect
uur a
ls
st
eden
bouw
’ het
gro
ot-
st
e de
el v
an d
it e
ssay
gepu
blic
eerd
in W
.R.
ok
t. ’7
3’. N
oot 2
:
‘(G
ebas
eerd
op
een
lezi
ng g
ehou
den
op d
e
tr
opis
che
afde
ling
van
de A
.A. i
n 19
69, e
n
la
tere
, op
deze
lezi
ng
ge
base
erde
lezi
ngen
,
geho
uden
in A
&M
, Ric
e
en
Cor
nell
, Tex
as in
1972
)’.
4.
Typ
oscr
ipt 1
972;
Smit
hson
s be
wer
ing
wor
dt b
eves
tigd
doo
r een
verk
lari
ng v
an é
én
pa
gina
, ges
chre
ven
door
hem
zelf
en
gepu
blic
eerd
in T
he A
rchi
tect
ura
l
A
ssoc
iati
on J
ourn
al v
an
ja
nuar
i 196
1, g
etit
eld
‘Edu
cati
on fo
r Tow
n
B
uild
ing’
, waa
rin
opdr
acht
en v
oor ‘
stud
ies
na
ar “
bouw
en in
cont
ext”
’ bes
chre
ven
staa
n.
1.
In a
lect
ure
at th
e
Fa
cult
y of
Arc
hite
ctur
e,
D
elft
Uni
vers
ity
of
T
echn
olog
y, a
s pa
rt o
f a
seri
es o
n th
e th
eme
of
co
ntex
t, 2
0 Se
ptem
ber
20
07.
2.
Ung
ers
was
then
cha
ir
of
the
Scho
ol o
f
A
rchi
tect
ure,
and
dur
ing
the
win
ter a
nd s
prin
g of
the
acad
emic
yea
r 197
1-
19
72, h
e or
gani
sed
a ve
ry
ex
tens
ive
Tea
m 1
0
se
min
ar; s
ee a
lso:
Max
Ris
se la
da a
nd D
irk
van
den
Heu
vel (
eds.
),
T
eam
10
1953
-81.
In
se
arch
of
a U
topi
a of
the
pr
esen
t (R
otte
rdam
: NA
i
Pub
lish
ers,
200
5), 1
80.
3.
Typ
escr
ipt f
rom
the
Smit
hson
arc
hive
, mos
t
of w
hich
is in
tegr
ated
in th
e Sm
iths
on
pu
blic
atio
n W
itho
ut
R
heto
ric o
f 19
73; t
wo
note
s at
tach
ed to
the
or
igin
al te
xt in
the
arch
ive
read
as
foll
ows:
note
1: A
lso
in ‘A
Con
tinu
ing
Exp
erim
ent’
(A.A
.) A
-fil
es (?
) 197
5
‘Arc
hite
ctur
e as
tow
n
buil
ding
’ mos
t of
this
essa
y pu
blis
hed
in W
.R.
O
ct. ’
73’ a
nd n
ote
2:
‘(
Bas
ed o
n a
talk
giv
en
in
the
A.A
. tro
pica
l
depa
rtm
ent i
n 19
69, a
nd
su
bseq
uent
lect
ures
base
d on
that
talk
giv
en
at
Tex
as A
.&M
., R
ice,
and
Cor
nell
in 1
972)
’.4.
Ib
id.,
Sm
iths
on’s
cla
im
is
sub
stan
tiat
ed b
y a
one-
page
sta
tem
ent a
utho
red
by h
imse
lf a
s pu
blis
hed
in th
e A
rchi
tect
ura
l
A
ssoc
iati
on J
ourn
al o
f
Ja
nuar
y 19
61, c
alle
d
‘E
duca
tion
for T
own
Bui
ldin
g’ w
hich
desc
ribe
d as
sign
men
ts
fo
r ‘“
cont
ext o
f
bu
ildi
ng”
stu
dies
’.
Toe
n ik
mid
den
jare
n v
ijft
ig d
ocee
rde
aan
een
arc
hite
ctu
uro
plei
din
g w
erd
het l
eerp
lan
va
n d
e sc
hool
op
een
hee
l een
vou
dige
man
ier
gere
orga
nis
eerd
om
een
aan
zet t
e ge
ven
tot
wat
ik d
esti
jds
‘con
text
uee
l den
ken’
noe
mde
: dat
iets
nie
uw
s m
oet w
orde
n d
oord
acht
bi
nn
en d
e co
nte
xt v
an b
esta
ande
pat
ron
en. I
n d
e co
nte
xt v
an d
e pa
tron
en v
an m
ense
lijk
sa
men
leve
n g
aat h
et d
an o
m g
ebru
iksp
atro
nen
, bew
egin
gspa
tron
en, p
atro
nen
van
ru
st,
stil
te, l
awaa
i, e
nzo
voor
t, v
an v
orm
, voo
r zo
ver
we
die
bloo
t ku
nn
en le
ggen
; het
on
twer
p va
n e
en g
ebou
w o
f gr
oep
gebo
uw
en, z
o w
erd
onde
rwez
en, k
on n
iet b
uit
en e
en c
onte
xt
om w
orde
n o
ntw
ikke
ld.4
Daa
r moe
t wel
bij
wor
den
aang
etek
end
dat d
e te
rm ‘c
onte
xt’ i
n di
e ja
ren
niet
pr
ecie
s he
tzel
fde
inhi
eld
als
toen
het
beg
in ja
ren
zeve
ntig
wee
r opd
ook
in d
e ge
schr
ifte
n va
n de
Sm
iths
ons.
In d
e ja
ren
vijf
tig
wer
d he
t ide
e va
n co
ntex
t in
ver
band
geb
rach
t met
het
bio
logi
sche
idee
van
een
‘mil
ieu’
of
‘om
gevi
ng’
ings
of
the
Smit
hson
s in
the
earl
y 19
70s.
In
the
1950
s, th
e id
ea o
f co
ntex
t was
con
nect
ed
to th
e bi
olog
ical
idea
of
‘env
iron
men
t’, t
o an
id
ea o
f ‘e
colo
gica
l urb
anis
m’,
and
of
cour
se,
to th
e co
ncep
t of
‘hab
itat
’, w
hich
sco
urge
d th
e C
IAM
deb
ates
and
ult
imat
ely
led
to it
s de
mis
e.
By
the
1970
s, h
owev
er, c
onte
xt h
ad c
ome
to
mea
n hi
stor
ical
con
text
in th
e fi
rst p
lace
, whi
le
bein
g re
fash
ione
d as
typo
-mor
phol
ogic
al o
r-th
odox
y. It
was
link
ed to
the
new
issu
e of
urb
an
rene
wal
that
gre
w to
dom
inat
e th
e ag
enda
of
poli
tici
ans,
arc
hite
cts
and
urba
n pl
anne
rs, a
nd
it w
as a
ppro
pria
ted
and
refa
shio
ned
by a
nti-
mod
erni
sts
who
wou
ld s
oon
advo
cate
the
new
w
ind
of p
ostm
oder
nism
from
the
mid
-197
0s
onw
ard.
His
tori
cal c
onte
xt w
as to
be
the
med
icin
e ag
ains
t the
per
ceiv
ed lo
ss o
f id
enti
ty
and
sens
e of
pla
ce.
H
owev
er, f
ierc
e di
sput
e ab
out t
he is
sue
of
loss
of
iden
tity
and
a s
ense
of
plac
e un
der t
he
thre
at o
f m
oder
nisa
tion
was
not
new
in it
self
. A
lrea
dy a
t the
reun
ion
cong
ress
of
CIA
M in
19
47, A
ldo
van
Eyc
k fa
mou
sly
laun
ched
his
at
tack
on
rout
ine
func
tion
alis
m a
nd th
e ps
eu-
do-r
atio
nali
st d
ogm
a of
the
Fun
ctio
nal C
ity,
w
hich
wer
e th
en a
bout
to b
e de
ploy
ed to
bui
ld
the
larg
e-sc
ale
wel
fare
sta
te p
roje
cts
in W
est-
ern
Eur
ope.
Ali
son
and
Pete
r Sm
iths
on to
o,
wou
ld c
onsi
sten
tly
emph
asis
e th
e im
port
ance
23
IN
LE
IDIN
GV
olge
ns Á
kos
Mor
aván
sky
houd
t het
con
text
deba
t in
de a
rchi
tect
uur z
ich
para
-do
xaal
gen
oeg
niet
bez
ig m
et e
mpi
risc
h on
derz
oek
naar
de
real
itei
t waa
rin
ar
chit
ecte
n w
erkz
aam
zijn
, maa
r met
het
sche
ppen
van
iden
tite
iten
en
fict
ione
le
verh
alen
.1 In
dit e
ssay
wor
dt g
etra
cht e
nkel
e va
n di
e ve
rhal
en te
ont
rafe
len
en
te la
ten
zien
wel
ke p
arad
oxen
een
rol s
pele
n. D
e w
orte
ls v
an h
et c
onte
xtde
bat
wor
den
door
gaan
s in
Ital
ië g
esit
ueer
d, m
aar i
k zo
u de
focu
s will
en v
ersc
huiv
en
naar
het
Bri
tse
disc
ours
zoa
ls d
at z
ich
vana
f he
t ein
de v
an d
e ja
ren
veer
tig
heef
t ont
wik
keld
, en
mee
r in
het b
ijzo
nder
naa
r de
posi
tie
van
Ali
son
en P
eter
Sm
iths
on e
n C
olin
Row
e. O
ok d
e ja
ren
zeve
ntig
en
de o
pkom
st v
an h
et p
ost-
mod
erni
sme
mak
en d
eel u
it v
an h
et w
eb d
at ik
in k
aart
wil
bre
ngen
. Hie
rmee
w
orde
n en
kele
van
de
para
digm
atis
che
span
ning
en d
ie z
ich
voor
doen
bin
nen
het d
isco
urs
over
de
mod
erne
arc
hite
ctuu
r zic
htba
ar g
emaa
kt, s
pann
inge
n di
e no
g al
tijd
nie
t zij
n op
gelo
st e
n oo
k de
hui
dige
arc
hite
ctuu
rpra
ktij
k en
-kri
tiek
bl
ijve
n pl
agen
.
V
AN
DE
JA
RE
N V
IJF
TIG
TO
T D
E J
AR
EN
ZE
VE
NT
IGIn
197
2 hi
eld
Pete
r Sm
iths
on o
p ui
tnod
igin
g va
n T
eam
10-
coll
ega
Osw
ald
M
athi
as U
nger
s ee
n le
zing
aan
Cor
nell
Uni
vers
ity.
2 Sm
iths
ons
lezi
ng w
as
geti
teld
‘Arc
hite
ctur
e as
Tow
nbui
ldin
g. T
he S
low
Gro
wth
of
Ano
ther
Sen
si-
bili
ty’,
3 en
hij s
teld
e er
kw
esti
es in
aan
de
orde
als
his
tori
sche
con
tinu
ïtei
t en
vern
ieuw
ing
en d
e m
anie
r waa
rop
de te
chno
logi
e st
eden
en
gem
eens
chap
pen
tran
sfor
mee
rt, e
n da
arm
ee d
e pr
emis
sen
van
de s
tede
nbou
w. E
en v
an d
e do
or
hem
geh
ante
erde
ker
nbeg
ripp
en w
as ‘c
onte
xt’,
des
tijd
s, b
egin
jare
n ze
vent
ig,
een
vrij
mod
ieus
ond
erw
erp,
en
tot d
at m
omen
t nog
nie
t ech
t exp
lici
et d
oor d
e Sm
iths
ons
gebr
uikt
in h
un g
esch
rift
en. T
och,
zo
bew
eerd
e Sm
iths
on:
IN
TR
OD
UC
TIO
NÁ
kos
Mor
aván
szky
has
sta
ted
that
the
con-
text
deb
ate
in a
rchi
tect
ure
is p
arad
oxic
ally
pr
eocc
upie
d w
ith
the
forg
ing
of id
enti
ties
an
d fi
ctio
nal n
arra
tive
s, a
nd n
ot w
ith
an
empi
rica
l inv
esti
gati
on o
f th
e ac
tual
real
ity
in w
hich
arc
hite
cts
are
oper
atin
g.1 T
his
essa
y ai
ms
to u
nrav
el s
ome
of th
ose
narr
ativ
es a
nd
to d
emon
stra
te th
e pa
rado
xes
at p
lay.
Usu
ally
, th
e co
ntex
t deb
ate
and
its
orig
ins
are
situ
ated
w
ithi
n It
aly,
but
I’d
like
to s
hift
the
focu
s to
the
Bri
tish
dis
cour
se a
s de
velo
ped
ther
e fr
om th
e la
te 1
940s
onw
ard,
mos
t not
ably
to th
e po
si-
tion
s of
Ali
son
and
Pete
r Sm
iths
on a
nd C
olin
R
owe.
The
197
0s a
nd th
e ri
se o
f pos
tmod
erni
sm
are
also
par
t of
the
web
to b
e m
appe
d.
In s
o do
ing
som
e of
the
para
digm
atic
tens
ions
at
wor
k w
ithi
n th
e di
scou
rse
on m
oder
n ar
chi-
tect
ure
wil
l bec
ome
clea
r, te
nsio
ns th
at a
re s
till
un
reso
lved
and
hau
ntin
g cu
rren
t arc
hite
ctur
al
prac
tice
and
its
crit
ique
.
F
RO
M T
HE
195
0S T
O T
HE
197
0SIn
197
2 Pe
ter S
mit
hson
del
iver
ed a
lect
ure
at
Cor
nell
Uni
vers
ity
at th
e in
vita
tion
of
Tea
m
10 fe
llow
Osw
ald
Mat
hias
Ung
ers.
2 Sm
iths
on’s
lect
ure
was
titl
ed: ‘
Arc
hite
ctur
e as
Tow
nbui
ld-
ing.
The
Slo
w G
row
th o
f Ano
ther
Sen
sibi
lity’
,3 ad
dres
sing
issu
es o
f hi
stor
ical
con
tinu
ity
and
rene
wal
and
the
way
tech
nolo
gy tr
ansf
orm
s ci
ties
and
thei
r com
mun
itie
s, a
nd h
ence
the
prem
ises
for c
ity
plan
ning
. One
of
the
key
no
tion
s he
use
d w
as th
at o
f ‘c
onte
xt’,
by
then
in
the
1970
s qu
ite
a fa
shio
nabl
e to
pic,
and
unt
il
then
not
qui
te e
xpli
citl
y us
ed b
y th
e Sm
iths
ons
in th
eir w
riti
ngs.
Yet
, Sm
iths
on c
laim
ed:
Whe
n I
was
teac
hin
g in
a s
choo
l of
arch
itec
ture
in
the
mid
-fift
ies
the
scho
ol’s
syl
labu
s w
as r
eorg
anis
ed
in a
ver
y si
mpl
e w
ay to
indu
ce w
hat I
then
cal
led
‘con
text
thin
kin
g’ –
that
a n
ew th
ing
is to
be
thou
ght
thro
ugh
in th
e co
nte
xt o
f th
e ex
isti
ng
patt
ern
s. I
n
the
con
text
of
the
patt
ern
s of
hu
man
ass
ocia
tion
, pa
tter
ns
of u
se, p
atte
rns
of m
ovem
ent,
pat
tern
s of
st
illn
ess,
qu
iet,
noi
se a
nd
so o
n, p
atte
rns
of fo
rm,
in s
o fa
r as
we
can
un
cove
r th
em; a
nd
it w
as ta
ugh
t th
at a
des
ign
for
a bu
ildi
ng,
or
buil
din
g gr
oup,
co
uld
not
be
evol
ved
outs
ide
of c
onte
xt.4
Yet
, it m
ust b
e no
ted,
too,
that
the
term
con
text
in
thos
e ea
rly
year
s di
dn’t
impl
y qu
ite
the
sam
e th
ing
that
it d
id w
hen
it re
appe
ared
in th
e w
rit-
DIR
K V
AN
DE
N H
EU
VE
L22
CO
NT
EX
T \
SPECIFICITY
OASE 76
5.
Opg
emer
kt m
oet w
orde
n
da
t dit
ver
klar
inge
n
ac
hter
af z
ijn,
ged
aan
in
he
t kad
er v
an d
e IL
AU
D
‘s
umm
er s
choo
ls’ d
ie
G
ianc
arlo
De
Car
lo
ge
orga
nise
erd
heef
t en
die
gepu
blic
eerd
zij
n in
de IL
AU
D-j
aarb
oeke
n
en
in a
nder
e IL
AU
D-
ui
tgav
es. E
en e
erst
e
bl
oem
lezi
ng v
an d
eze
Smit
hson
teks
ten
in h
et
E
ngel
s is
Ital
ian
T
hou
ghts
, Sto
ckho
lm,
19
93.
6.
Gep
ubli
ceer
d in
, o.a
.
Ali
son
Smit
hson
(red
.), T
he E
mer
gen
ce o
f
T
eam
10
out o
f C
IAM
,
Lon
den
1983
, Joa
n
O
ckm
an (r
ed.)
,
Arc
hite
ctu
re C
ult
ure
19
43–1
968,
New
Yor
k
19
93 (2
005)
, p. 1
83.
7.
Pete
r Sm
iths
on, T
eam
X
in
Ret
rosp
ect,
man
us-
cr
ipt,
ged
atee
rd 1
okt
o-
be
r 199
3, h
erzi
en m
aart
1994
, okt
ober
199
5, a
pril
1999
en
mei
200
1, 1
0
pa
gina
’s. O
nder
stre
pin-
gen
als
in o
rigi
neel
.
Een
du
chti
ge e
n la
ngd
uri
ge b
esch
ouw
ing
acht
eraf
van
het
man
ifes
t bre
ngt
de
hoof
d-ri
chti
ng
aan
het
lich
t waa
rop
de in
span
nin
gen
van
Tea
m 1
0 n
aar
mij
n m
enin
g in
de
eers
te p
laat
s ge
rich
t war
en, n
amel
ijk
in é
én w
oord
: spe
cifi
cite
it. H
et D
oorn
Man
ifes
to
– da
t ach
tera
f ge
zien
de
opri
chti
ngs
verk
lari
ng
van
Tea
m 1
0 is
gew
eest
– v
erle
gt d
e n
adru
k va
n d
e ‘v
ier
fun
ctie
s’ v
an d
e C
IAM
naa
r ‘m
ense
lijk
sam
enle
ven’
. In
de
twee
de
para
graa
f va
n h
et M
anif
est s
taat
: ‘O
m d
it m
ense
lijk
e sa
men
leve
n te
beg
rijp
en, m
oete
n
we
elke
gem
een
scha
p be
scho
uw
en a
ls e
en s
peci
fiek
tota
al c
ompl
ex.’
In
het
man
usc
ript
w
as h
et w
oord
tota
al o
nde
rstr
eept
, maa
r he
t was
het
woo
rd s
peci
fiek
dat
in h
et d
enke
n
van
Tea
m 1
0 cr
uci
aal z
ou b
lijk
en.7
Dez
e ev
enw
icht
ige
pogi
ng o
m d
e ge
schi
eden
is v
an T
eam
10
te h
erzi
en, g
eeft
ee
n be
knop
te a
anw
ijzi
ng v
an h
et tr
ajec
t dat
de
Smit
hson
s do
or d
e ja
ren
heen
heb
ben
afge
legd
met
bet
rekk
ing
tot d
e re
lati
e tu
ssen
arc
hite
ctuu
r en
st
eden
bouw
. Dit
traj
ect h
ield
ond
er m
eer
in d
at z
e vo
ortd
uren
d he
en e
n w
eer
scha
keld
en tu
ssen
de
kwal
itei
t van
het
geh
eel e
n he
t spe
cifi
eke,
en
dat z
e de
to
tali
sere
nde
en u
nifi
cere
nde
conc
epte
n va
n C
IAM
en
de g
ener
atie
arc
hite
cten
va
n he
t her
oïsc
he ti
jdpe
rk v
an h
et m
oder
nism
e ac
hter
zic
h li
eten
. In
het g
eval
va
n de
Sm
iths
ons
en v
an T
eam
10
in h
et a
lgem
een
leid
t het
bel
ang
dat w
ordt
clas
sed
as a
‘pos
tmod
erni
st te
rm’,
and
par
tly
‘as
belo
ngin
g to
the
peri
od o
f la
te m
oder
nism
’,
bein
g ‘w
holl
y di
rect
ed to
war
ds th
e di
scou
rse
of m
oder
nism
’.9
Fo
rty
iden
tifi
ed th
e It
alia
n m
agaz
ine
C
asab
ella
Con
tinu
ità
and
its m
id-1
950s
edi
tori
als
by E
rnes
to R
oger
s as t
he m
ain
sour
ce o
f ori
gin
for t
he d
ebat
e on
con
text
, eve
n th
ough
Rog
ers
pref
erre
d th
e te
rm a
mbi
ente
(env
iron
men
t), r
athe
r th
an co
ntes
to (c
onte
xt).
10 L
ooki
ng a
t the
con
text
de
bate
the
term
s con
text
and
env
iron
men
t are
us
ed a
s if i
nter
chan
geab
le, s
omet
imes
wit
h co
nfus
ing
effe
cts.
11 C
lear
ly, t
he p
ost-
war
Ital
ian
deba
te in
gen
eral
is p
roba
bly
the
fore
mos
t cr
ucib
le in
whi
ch th
e re
conc
eptu
alis
atio
n of
con
text
was
dev
elop
ed a
s a
crit
icis
m o
f m
oder
n ar
chit
ectu
re a
nd u
rban
pla
nnin
g. F
orty
al
so m
enti
ons t
wo
prot
égés
of E
rnes
to R
oger
s,
Vitt
orio
Gre
gott
i and
his
pub
licat
ion
Il T
er-
rito
rio
dell
’Arc
hite
ttur
a, a
nd A
ldo
Ros
si a
nd h
is
L’A
rchi
tett
ura
dell
a C
ittà
, bot
h fr
om 1
966.
Wit
h re
spec
t to
the
maj
or It
alia
n co
ntri
buti
on a
nd it
s pa
rtic
ular
pra
ctic
e of
urb
an st
udie
s, o
ne m
ay a
lso
poin
t to
Save
rio
Mur
ator
i and
Car
lo A
ymon
ino,
or
wit
h re
fere
nce
to th
e T
eam
10
disc
ours
e, th
e pa
tien
t wor
k of
Gia
ncar
lo D
e C
arlo
.
5.
It s
houl
d be
not
ed th
at
th
ese
are
retr
ospe
ctiv
e
st
atem
ents
mad
e in
the
cont
ext o
f th
e
IL
AU
D s
umm
er s
choo
ls
or
gani
sed
by G
ianc
arlo
De
Car
lo, a
nd p
ubli
shed
in th
e IL
AU
D y
ear b
ook
seri
es a
nd o
ther
ILA
UD
publ
icat
ions
. A fi
rst
co
mpi
lati
on o
f th
ese
Smit
hson
text
s in
Eng
lish
is: I
tali
an
T
hou
ghts
(Sto
ckho
lm,
19
93).
6.
Pub
lish
ed in
var
ious
plac
es, a
mon
g ot
hers
in: A
liso
n Sm
iths
on
(e
d.),
The
Em
erge
nce
of
T
eam
10
out o
f C
IAM
(Lon
don:
The
Arc
hite
ctur
al
A
ssoc
iati
on, 1
983)
;
repr
inte
d in
: Joa
n
O
ckm
an (e
d.),
A
rchi
tect
ure
Cu
ltu
re 1
943-
19
68 (N
ew Y
ork:
Col
umbi
a B
ooks
of
Arc
hite
ctur
e, R
izzo
li,
19
93, 2
005
edit
ion)
, 183
.7.
Pe
ter S
mit
hson
, Tea
m X
in
Ret
rosp
ect,
man
uscr
ipt,
date
d 1
Oct
ober
199
3,
re
vise
d M
arch
199
4,
O
ctob
er 1
995,
Apr
il 1
999
an
d M
ay 2
001,
10
page
s.
U
nder
lini
ng a
s in
orig
inal
.8.
A
dria
n Fo
rty,
Wor
ds a
nd
B
uil
din
gs. A
Voc
abu
lary
of
M
oder
n A
rchi
tect
ure
(Lon
don:
Tha
mes
&
H
udso
n, 2
000)
.9.
Ib
id.,
132
-135
.10
. Ib
id.,
132
.11
. F
orty
poi
nts
in th
is
re
spec
t to
the
Am
eric
an
ed
itio
n of
Ald
o R
ossi
’s
T
he A
rchi
tect
ure
of
the
C
ity,
pub
lish
ed in
198
2.
T
he s
hift
from
‘env
iron
men
t’ (o
r som
e-ti
mes
‘sur
roun
ding
s’) t
o ‘c
onte
xt’,
to w
hich
Fo
rty
refe
rs, i
s ch
arac
teri
stic
of
the
form
atio
n of
the
cont
ext d
ebat
e. It
can
be
gros
sly
if re
-du
ctiv
ely
defi
ned
by a
shi
ft fr
om th
e po
siti
vist
25
(env
iron
men
t), e
en ‘e
colo
gisc
h ur
bani
sme’
, en
uite
raar
d m
et h
et c
once
pt v
an
‘hab
itat
’, d
at d
e C
IAM
-deb
atte
n te
iste
rde
en u
itei
ndel
ijk
tot d
e on
derg
ang
van
CIA
M z
ou le
iden
. In
de ja
ren
zeve
ntig
had
con
text
inm
idde
ls p
rim
air d
e be
te-
keni
s va
n hi
stor
isch
e co
ntex
t gek
rege
n, h
oofd
zake
lijk
in d
e vo
rm v
an e
en ty
po-
mor
folo
gisc
he o
rtho
doxi
e. C
onte
xt w
erd
verb
onde
n m
et s
tads
vern
ieuw
ing,
de
nieu
we
opga
ve d
ie d
e ag
enda
van
pol
itic
i, a
rchi
tect
en e
n st
eden
bouw
kund
igen
in
toen
emen
de m
ate
dom
inee
rde,
en
aang
egre
pen
door
de
anti
mod
erni
sten
, die
zi
ch v
anaf
het
mid
den
van
de ja
ren
zeve
ntig
al s
poed
ig s
terk
maa
kten
voo
r de
nieu
we
win
d va
n he
t pos
tmod
erni
sme.
His
tori
sche
con
text
moe
st a
ls re
med
ie
dien
en te
gen
het w
aarg
enom
en v
erli
es a
an id
enti
teit
en
plaa
tsbe
sef.
O
p zi
ch w
as h
et fe
lle
deba
t ove
r de
kwes
tie
van
iden
tite
itsv
erli
es e
n ee
n ve
rmin
derd
pla
atsb
esef
ten
gevo
lge
van
mod
erni
seri
ng tr
ouw
ens
niet
nie
uw.
Al t
ijde
ns h
et re
ünie
cong
res
van
CIA
M in
194
7 la
ncee
rde
Ald
o va
n E
yck
zijn
ve
rmaa
rde
aanv
al o
p ro
utin
eus
func
tion
alis
me
en h
et p
seud
o-ra
tion
alis
tisc
he
dogm
a va
n de
Fun
ctio
nele
Sta
d, d
ie a
an d
e ba
sis
lage
n va
n de
gro
otsc
hali
ge
verz
orgi
ngss
taat
proj
ecte
n di
e to
en in
Wes
t-E
urop
a op
sta
pel s
tond
en.
Ook
Alis
on e
n Pe
ter S
mit
hson
zou
den
cons
eque
nt b
lijve
n be
nadr
ukke
n ho
evee
l be
lang
ze
hech
tten
aan
het
beg
rip
cont
ext,
waa
rbij
ze
term
en h
ante
erde
n al
s ‘p
laat
sspe
cifi
cite
it’ e
n be
nadr
ukte
n da
t ‘ee
n ge
bouw
all
eree
rst s
chat
plic
htig
is
aan
zij
n co
ntex
t’.5 Z
elf
date
erde
n ze
dit
eng
agem
ent m
et c
onte
xt a
l in
het
Doo
rn M
anif
esto
uit
195
4, d
at o
ok b
eken
dsta
at a
ls d
e ‘S
tate
men
t on
Hab
itat
’.6
In a
ante
keni
ngen
ach
tera
f ov
er T
eam
10
en h
et m
anif
est –
aan
teke
ning
en d
ie
Pete
r Sm
iths
on in
de
jare
n tu
ssen
199
3 en
200
1 vo
ortd
uren
d bl
eef h
erzi
en –
vin
den
we
zijn
kar
akte
rise
ring
van
dez
e op
kom
ende
gev
oeli
ghei
d:
they
att
ache
d to
the
issu
e of
con
text
, spe
akin
g of
‘spe
cifi
city
-to-
plac
e’, a
nd ‘t
he b
uild
ing’
s fi
rst d
uty
is to
its
cont
ext’
.5 The
y th
emse
lves
w
ould
dat
e th
is c
once
rn fo
r con
text
as
earl
y as
th
e D
oorn
Man
ifes
to o
f 19
54, a
lso
know
n as
St
atem
ent o
n H
abit
at.6 I
n re
tros
pect
ive
note
s on
Tea
m 1
0 an
d th
e m
anif
esto
, not
es w
hich
Pe
ter S
mit
hson
kep
t rev
isin
g be
twee
n th
e ye
ars
1993
and
200
1, w
e fi
nd h
is c
hara
cter
isat
ion
of
this
em
ergi
ng s
ensi
bili
ty:
A lo
ng-
afte
r-af
tert
hou
ght o
n th
is M
anif
esto
rev
eals
w
hat I
now
bel
ieve
to b
e th
e m
ain
dir
ecti
on o
f T
eam
X
’s e
ffor
t, in
a w
ord,
tow
ards
par
ticu
lari
ty. T
he
Doo
rn M
anif
esto
– w
hich
, see
n r
etro
spec
tive
ly, i
s th
e fo
un
din
g st
atem
ent o
f T
eam
X –
shi
fts
the
em-
phas
is a
way
from
the
‘fou
r-fu
nct
ion
s’ o
f C
.I.A
.M.
onto
‘hu
man
ass
ocia
tion
s’. I
n it
s se
con
d pa
ragr
aph
the
Man
ifes
to s
ays
‘To
com
preh
end
thes
e hu
man
as
soci
atio
ns
we
mu
st c
onsi
der
ever
y co
mm
un
ity
as
a pa
rtic
ula
r to
tal c
ompl
ex.’
The
wor
d u
nde
rlin
ed in
th
e m
anu
scri
pt w
as to
tal,
bu
t it w
as th
e pa
rtic
ula
r th
at w
as to
be
crit
ical
to T
eam
X th
ough
t.7
Thi
s ba
lanc
ed a
ttem
pt to
revi
se th
e hi
stor
y of
Tea
m 1
0 gi
ves a
succ
inct
indi
cati
on o
f the
traj
ecto
ry tr
avel
led
by th
e Sm
iths
ons
wit
h re
gard
to th
e re
lati
on b
etw
een
arch
itec
ture
and
ur
ban
plan
ning
as
was
dev
elop
ed b
y th
em o
ver
the
year
s. A
mon
g ot
her t
hing
s th
is tr
ajec
tory
m
eant
a c
onti
nuou
sly
mov
ing
back
and
fort
h be
twee
n th
e qu
alit
y of
the
who
le a
nd th
e sp
ecif
ic,
and
leav
ing
behi
nd th
e to
tali
sing
and
uni
fyin
g co
ncep
ts o
f CIA
M a
nd th
e ge
nera
tion
of m
od-
ern
arch
itec
ts o
f th
e he
roic
per
iod.
How
ever
, in
the
case
of
the
Smit
hson
s, a
nd T
eam
10
in
gene
ral,
the
valu
e as
att
ache
d to
spe
cifi
city
-to-
plac
e an
d co
ntex
t-bu
ildi
ng le
ads
to q
uite
the
oppo
site
of
a hi
stor
ical
ly g
roun
ded,
typo
-mor
-ph
olog
ical
ort
hodo
xy. I
t wou
ld b
ring
a
re-a
ppre
ciat
ion
of fu
ncti
onal
ism
.
M
OD
ER
NIS
T P
RA
CT
ICE
AN
D
P
OS
TM
OD
ER
NIS
T C
RIT
IQU
ET
he a
mbi
guit
y of
inte
ntio
n an
d m
eani
ng
surr
ound
ing
the
term
con
text
and
its
part
icul
ar
usag
e is
touc
hed
upon
by
Adr
ian
Fort
y in
his
W
ords
and
Bui
ldin
gs. A
Voc
abu
lary
of
Mod
ern
A
rchi
tect
ure
.8 For
ty in
clud
ed ‘c
onte
xt’ a
s on
e of
the
entr
ies
in h
is ‘v
ocab
ular
y’, p
artl
y as
an
elem
ent o
f th
e ‘f
irst
sub
stan
tial
cri
tiqu
e of
m
oder
nist
pra
ctic
e’, f
or w
hich
it a
lso
mig
ht b
e
DIR
K V
AN
DE
N H
EU
VE
L24
CO
NT
EX
T \
SPECIFICITY
OASE 76
8.
Adr
ian
Fort
y, W
ords
an
d
B
uil
din
gs. A
Voc
abu
lary
of
M
oder
n A
rchi
tect
ure
,
Lon
den
2000
. 9.
Id
em, p
. 132
-135
.10
. Ide
m, p
. 132
.11
. Fo
rty
verw
ijst
in d
it
ve
rban
d na
ar d
e A
me-
rika
anse
uit
gave
van
Ald
o R
ossi
, The
Arc
hite
c-
tu
re o
f th
e C
ity,
uitg
egev
en in
198
2.12
. Ik
den
k da
t het
Fra
nçoi
se
C
hoay
was
die
voo
r het
eers
t de
term
‘cul
tura
-
lism
’ in
de c
onte
xt v
an d
e
herz
ieni
ng v
an d
e m
o-
de
rne
sted
enbo
uw
ge
brui
kt h
eeft
, maa
r in
het g
eval
van
de
Sm
iths
ons
moe
t voo
ral
ge
dach
t wor
den
aan
het w
erk
van
Ray
mon
d
W
illi
ams.
13.
Met
nam
e he
t wer
k va
n
de
Sch
otse
bio
loog
en
soci
aal h
ervo
rmer
Patr
ick
Ged
des
verd
ient
verm
eldi
ng a
ls e
en
be
lang
rijk
e in
vloe
d,
oo
k op
het
CIA
M-
di
scou
rs; z
ie V
olke
r M.
W
elte
r, ‘I
n-be
twee
n
sp
ace
and
soci
ety.
On
som
e B
riti
sh ro
ots
of
T
eam
10’
s ur
ban
thou
ght
in
the
1950
s’, i
n:
R
isse
lada
en
Van
den
Heu
vel,
op.
cit
. (no
ot
2)
, p. 2
58-2
63.
van
Gia
ncar
lo D
e C
arlo
het
ver
mel
den
waa
rd.
D
e ve
rsch
uivi
ng v
an ‘o
mge
ving
’ (of
som
s ‘m
ilie
u’) n
aar
‘con
text
’ waa
r F
orty
aan
ref
eree
rt, i
s ke
nmer
kend
voo
r de
ont
wik
keli
ng v
an h
et c
onte
xt-
deba
t. Z
e is
gro
fweg
, zij
het
wat
sim
plif
icer
end,
te o
msc
hrij
ven
als
een
ver-
schu
ivin
g va
n po
siti
vism
e na
ar c
ultu
rali
sme.
12 N
och
het p
osit
ivis
me,
noc
h he
t cul
tura
lism
e ve
rteg
enw
oord
igt e
chte
r ee
n ho
mog
een,
hel
der
afge
bake
nd
stan
dpun
t.
De
term
‘mil
ieu’
ver
raad
t onm
idde
llij
k de
bio
logi
sche
en
ecol
ogis
che
oor-
spro
ng v
an h
et c
onte
xtde
bat e
n de
inhe
rent
pos
itiv
isti
sche
tend
ens
erva
n.13
A
nder
zijd
s ka
n m
en d
e te
rm n
iet t
ot d
eze
spec
ifie
ke in
terp
reta
tie
bepe
rken
; he
t fei
t dat
de
Ital
iane
n de
term
‘am
bien
te’ g
ebru
iken
in p
laat
s va
n ‘c
onte
sto’
is
daa
r een
dui
deli
jk b
ewij
s va
n. O
ok h
et g
ebru
ik v
an d
e te
rm ‘c
onte
xt’ i
s ve
rre
van
ondu
bbel
zinn
ig. C
hris
toph
er A
lexa
nder
, die
vol
gens
For
ty d
e ee
rste
aut
eur
was
die
zij
n be
toog
str
uctu
reer
de r
ond
de te
rm c
onte
xt in
zij
n ‘N
otes
on
the
Synt
hesi
s of F
orm
’ uit
196
4, h
ante
erde
de
term
in ra
dica
al p
osit
ivis
tisc
he
en u
nifi
cere
nde
zin,
hee
l and
ers
dan
late
r, in
de
jare
n ze
stig
en
zeve
ntig
, ga
ngba
ar z
ou w
orde
n. A
lexa
nder
s be
toog
, waa
rin
wor
dt g
espr
oken
van
dem
onst
rate
that
hum
ans
cons
truc
t an
‘env
i-ro
nmen
tal i
mag
e’ o
f th
e ci
ty. L
ynch
thin
ks o
f th
is im
age
as b
eing
con
stit
uted
by,
as
wel
l as
reci
proc
ally
con
stit
utin
g id
enti
ty, s
truc
ture
an
d m
eani
ng.
T
hese
cat
egor
ies
of id
enti
ty, s
truc
ture
an
d m
eani
ng, i
nclu
ding
the
reci
proc
al is
sues
of
read
ing
and
‘leg
ibil
ity’
as
brou
ght u
p by
L
ynch
, bet
ray
the
stru
ctur
alis
t doc
trin
es th
at
dom
inat
ed th
e ar
chit
ectu
re d
isco
urse
of
the
1960
s an
d 19
70s.
Her
e, c
onte
xt is
der
ived
from
, or
at l
east
con
nect
ed w
ith
conc
epts
from
lin-
guis
tics
and
sem
iolo
gy. A
s su
ch it
s gr
owin
g us
-ag
e in
arc
hite
ctur
al d
isco
urse
in th
e 19
60s
was
pa
rt o
f th
e cr
itiq
ue o
n or
thod
ox m
oder
n ar
chi-
tect
ure
and
its
Inte
rnat
iona
l Sty
le a
esth
etic
s as
bei
ng to
o ab
stra
ct a
nd d
evoi
d of
mea
ning
. A
s w
e kn
ow th
is w
ould
be
a m
ain
poin
t of
depa
rtur
e fo
r Rob
ert V
entu
ri’s
Com
plex
ity
and
Con
trad
icti
on o
f 19
66, a
nd th
e m
uch
late
r boo
k by
Cha
rles
Jen
cks,
The
Lan
guag
e of
Pos
t-M
oder
n
Arc
hite
ctu
re o
f 19
77.18
It
is a
t thi
s po
int t
hat w
e ha
ve, o
nce
agai
n,
arri
ved
at th
e un
reso
lved
pre
dica
men
t as
de-
fine
d by
For
ty w
hen
he s
tate
d th
at c
onte
xt
coul
d be
cla
ssif
ied
eith
er a
s a
last
mod
erni
st
12.
I thi
nk it
was
Fra
nçoi
se
C
hoay
who
was
the
firs
t
to u
se th
e te
rm
cu
ltur
alis
m in
the
cont
ext
of
the
revi
sion
of m
oder
n
ur
ban
plan
ning
, but
wit
h
re
gard
to th
e w
ork
of th
e
Sm
iths
ons,
one
has
to
th
ink
of th
e w
ork
of
R
aym
ond
Will
iam
s.13
. In
par
ticu
lar,
the
wor
k of
the
Scot
tish
bio
logi
st a
nd
so
cial
refo
rmer
Pat
rick
Ged
des s
houl
d be
men
tion
ed h
ere
as b
eing
a m
ajor
infl
uenc
e, a
lso
wit
h re
gard
to th
e C
IAM
disc
ours
e; se
e V
olke
r M.
W
elte
r, ‘I
n-be
twee
n sp
ace
an
d so
ciet
y. O
n so
me
B
riti
sh ro
ots o
f Tea
m 1
0’s
ur
ban
thou
ght i
n th
e
19
50s’
, in:
Ris
sela
da a
nd
V
an d
en H
euve
l, T
eam
10,
op. c
it. (
note
2),
258
-263
. 14
. C
hris
toph
er A
lexa
nder
,
Not
es o
n th
e S
ynth
esis
of
For
m (C
ambr
idge
,
MA
: H
arva
rd U
nive
rsit
y
Pre
ss, 1
964)
, 15-
16.
15.
See
also
Col
in R
owe,
As
I
was
Say
ing.
Rec
olle
ctio
ns
an
d M
isce
llan
eous
Ess
ays,
edit
ed b
y A
lexa
nder
Car
agon
ne (C
ambr
idge
MA
: MIT
Pre
ss, 1
996)
,
Vol
ume
III,
‘Urb
anis
tics
’.16
. Fo
rty,
Wor
ds a
nd B
uild
ings
,
op. c
it. (
note
8),
134
-135
.17
. O
f cou
rse,
her
e w
e sh
ould
also
mak
e m
enti
on o
f the
sem
inal
tran
spar
ency
essa
y R
owe
wro
te
to
geth
er w
ith
Rob
ert
Sl
utzk
y, ‘T
rans
aren
cy:
L
iter
al a
nd P
heno
men
al’,
in: C
olin
Row
e, T
he
M
athe
mat
ics o
f th
e
Id
eal V
illa
and
Oth
er E
ssay
s
(Cam
brid
ge, M
A: M
IT
P
ress
, 197
6), p
aper
back
edit
ion
1982
, 159
-183
, in
whi
ch th
e no
tion
of
fi
gure
-gro
und
was
depl
oyed
as w
ell,
but
in
qu
ite
a di
ffer
ent w
ay.
18.
For a
n ea
rly
exam
ple
one
mig
ht a
lso
poin
t to
the
anth
olog
y M
eani
ng in
A
rchi
tect
ure,
as e
dite
d by
Cha
rles
Jen
cks a
nd
G
eorg
e B
aird
(New
Yor
k:
G
eorg
e B
razi
ller,
196
9).
27
gehe
cht a
an p
laat
sspe
cifi
cite
it e
n bo
uwen
in c
onte
xt e
chte
r to
t pre
cies
het
te
geno
verg
este
lde
van
een
hist
oris
ch g
efun
deer
de, t
ypom
orfo
logi
sche
ort
ho-
doxi
e, n
amel
ijk
tot e
en h
erw
aard
erin
g va
n he
t fun
ctio
nali
sme.
M
OD
ER
NE
PR
AK
TIJ
K E
N P
OS
TM
OD
ER
NE
KR
ITIE
KD
e am
bigu
ïtei
t in
inte
ntie
en
bete
keni
s waa
rmee
de
term
con
text
en
zijn
spec
ifie
ke
gebr
uik
zijn
om
geve
n, w
ordt
doo
r Adr
ian
Fort
y aa
nges
tipt
in z
ijn W
ords
and
B
uild
ings
. A V
ocab
ular
y of
Mod
ern
Arc
hite
ctur
e.8 F
orty
nam
‘con
text
’ op
als l
emm
a in
zijn
‘lex
icon
’, e
nerz
ijds a
ls e
lem
ent v
an d
e ‘e
erst
e su
bsta
ntië
le k
riti
ek v
an d
e m
oder
ne p
rakt
ijk’,
zod
at m
en h
et o
ok e
en ‘p
ostm
oder
ne te
rm’ z
ou k
unne
n no
e-m
en, a
nder
zijd
s als
‘beh
oren
d to
t het
tijd
perk
van
het
laat
-mod
erni
sme’
, ‘ge
heel
ge
rich
t op
het d
isco
urs v
an h
et m
oder
nism
e’.9
Fo
rty
wee
s he
t Ita
liaa
nse
tijd
schr
ift C
asab
ella
Con
tin
uit
à en
de
reda
ctio
nele
ar
tike
len
van
Ern
esto
Rog
ers
uit h
et m
idde
n va
n de
jare
n vi
jfti
g aa
n al
s de
be
lang
rijk
ste
bron
van
het
deb
at o
ver c
onte
xt, o
ok a
l geb
ruik
te R
oger
s li
ever
de
term
‘am
bien
te’ (
mil
ieu/
omge
ving
) dan
‘con
test
o’ (c
onte
xt).
10 B
ij n
ader
e be
scho
uwin
g bl
ijke
n in
het
con
text
deba
t de
term
en c
onte
xt e
n om
gevi
ng d
oor
elka
ar g
ebru
ikt t
e w
orde
n, m
et s
oms
verw
arre
nde
gevo
lgen
.11 H
et w
as v
oora
l di
t ver
schu
iven
de, n
aoor
logs
e It
alia
anse
deb
at d
at d
e sm
eltk
roes
is g
ewee
st
waa
rin
de re
conc
eptu
alis
erin
g va
n he
t ide
e va
n co
ntex
t wer
d on
twik
keld
als
kr
itie
k op
de
mod
erne
arc
hite
ctuu
r en
sted
enbo
uw. F
orty
noe
mt o
ok tw
ee
prot
égés
van
Ern
esto
Rog
ers,
Vit
tori
o G
rego
tti e
n di
ens
publ
icat
ie Il
terr
itor
io
dell
’Arc
hite
ttu
ra e
n A
ldo
Ros
si e
n di
ens
L’A
rchi
tett
ura
del
la c
ittà
, bei
de u
it 1
966.
M
et b
etre
kkin
g to
t de
Ital
iaan
se b
ijdr
age
en m
et n
ame
de r
ol d
ie s
tede
nbou
w-
kund
ige
stud
ies
daar
in s
peel
den
zijn
ook
Sav
erio
Mur
ator
i en
Car
lo A
ymo-
nino
, of,
met
bet
rekk
ing
tot h
et d
isco
urs
van
Tea
m 1
0, h
et g
edul
dige
wer
k
to th
e cu
ltur
alis
t.12
How
ever
, her
e to
o, n
eith
er
posi
tivis
t nor
cul
tura
list r
epre
sent
hom
ogen
eous
, cl
earl
y ou
tlin
ed p
osit
ions
. The
term
‘env
iron
-m
ent’
imm
edia
tely
exp
oses
the
biol
ogic
al, a
nd
ecol
ogic
al o
rigi
ns o
f th
e co
ntex
t deb
ate,
and
it
s in
here
ntly
pos
itiv
ist i
ncli
nati
ons.
13 Y
et, a
t th
e sa
me
tim
e, o
ne c
anno
t lim
it th
e te
rm to
th
is p
arti
cula
r int
erpr
etat
ion,
wit
h th
e It
alia
ns
usin
g am
bien
te in
stea
d of
con
test
o, a
s a
clea
r ex
ampl
e. T
he u
sage
of
cont
ext,
too,
is fa
r fro
m
uneq
uivo
cal.
Chr
isto
pher
Ale
xand
er, w
ho
acco
rdin
g to
For
ty w
as th
e ve
ry fi
rst a
utho
r to
str
uctu
re h
is a
rgum
ent b
y op
erat
iona
lisi
ng
the
term
in h
is N
otes
on
the
Syn
thes
is o
f F
orm
of
1964
, wou
ld u
se it
in a
mos
t rad
ical
ly p
osit
ivis
t an
d un
ifyi
ng w
ay, q
uite
unl
ike
its
subs
eque
nt
usag
e in
the
1960
s an
d 19
70s.
Spe
akin
g of
‘g
ood
fit’
, and
‘ada
pted
ness
’, A
lexa
nder
’s
argu
men
t is
unam
bigu
ousl
y ne
o-D
arw
inia
n.14
A
fina
l sou
rce
men
tion
ed b
y F
orty
are
th
e te
achi
ngs
of C
olin
Row
e. R
owe
ran
the
so-c
alle
d U
rban
Des
ign
stud
io a
t Cor
nell
U
nive
rsit
y fr
om 1
963
unti
l 198
8. T
he w
ork
of th
e st
udio
was
a m
ajor
exa
mpl
e of
ear
ly
inve
stig
atio
ns in
to ‘c
onte
xtua
lism
’ and
‘con
-te
xtua
list
’ des
ign
prac
tice
.15 A
ccor
ding
to
For
ty, R
owe
had
mai
nly
a ‘f
orm
al’ i
nter
est
in th
e is
sue
of c
onte
xt, a
nd th
e re
lati
onsh
ips
betw
een
obje
cts
and
spac
es, w
here
as R
oger
s w
ould
iden
tify
con
text
wit
h th
e ‘d
iale
ctic
al
proc
esse
s of
his
tory
’ as
‘man
ifes
ted
thro
ugh
arch
itec
ture
’.16
O
ne o
f R
owe’
s pr
efer
red
refe
renc
es fo
r fo
undi
ng h
is a
rgum
ent f
or a
con
text
ual d
esig
n pr
acti
ce w
as G
esta
lt th
eory
. Row
e w
ould
refe
r to
this
theo
ry in
rela
tion
to th
e so
-cal
led
fig-
ure-
grou
nd p
heno
men
on, w
hich
he
wou
ld u
se
to re
ad a
nd a
naly
se c
ity
map
s an
d th
e re
cipr
o-ca
l con
figu
rati
ons
of o
pen
spac
es a
nd b
uilt
vo
lum
es.17
In o
ther
pos
itio
ns, t
oo, w
e fi
nd th
is
refe
renc
e to
Ges
talt
theo
ry. A
gain
in A
lexa
nder
, bu
t mos
t not
ably
in K
evin
Lyn
ch. L
ynch
wou
ld
wri
te th
e m
ost e
labo
rate
thes
is o
n vi
sual
per
-ce
ptio
n of
the
city
wit
h hi
s st
ill f
amou
s T
he
Imag
e of
the
Cit
y of
196
0. L
ynch
’s b
ook
is fu
lly
dedi
cate
d to
und
erst
andi
ng th
e w
ay p
eopl
e
visu
ally
per
ceiv
e th
e bu
ilt e
nvir
onm
ent.
T
hrou
ghou
t the
boo
k he
dis
ting
uish
es fi
ve
elem
ents
for a
naly
sing
bui
lt e
nvir
onm
ents
and
th
eir ‘
imag
e’: p
aths
, edg
es, d
istr
icts
, nod
es
and
land
mar
ks. U
sing
em
piri
cal r
esea
rch
tech
niqu
es, m
ainl
y in
terv
iew
s, h
e se
eks
to
DIR
K V
AN
DE
N H
EU
VE
L26
CO
NT
EX
T \
SPECIFICITY
OASE 76
14.
Chr
isto
pher
Ale
xand
er,
N
otes
on
the
Syn
thes
is o
f
F
orm
, Cam
brid
ge, M
A,
19
64, p
. 15-
16.
15.
Zie
ook
Col
in R
owe,
in:
A
lexa
nder
Car
agon
ne
(r
ed.)
, As
I w
as S
ayin
g.
R
ecol
lect
ion
s an
d
M
isce
llan
eou
s E
ssay
s,
C
ambr
idge
, MA
, 199
6,
de
el II
I, ‘U
rban
isti
cs’.
16.
Fort
y, o
p. c
it. (
noot
8),
p. 1
34-1
35.
17.
Nat
uurl
ijk
moe
ten
we
hier
ook
het
invl
oedr
ijke
essa
y ov
er tr
ansp
aran
tie
verm
elde
n da
t Row
e
sa
men
met
Slu
tzky
sc
hree
f, w
aar h
et
co
ncep
t van
figu
ur e
n
ac
hter
gron
d oo
k w
erd
inge
zet,
maa
r op
een
heel
ande
re m
anie
r. Z
ie
‘T
rans
pare
ncy:
Lit
eral
and
Phe
nom
enal
’, in
:
Col
in R
owe,
The
M
athe
mat
ics
of th
e Id
eal
V
illa
an
d O
ther
Ess
ays,
Cam
brid
ge, M
A, 1
982,
p. 1
59-1
83.
18. E
en v
roeg
voo
rbee
ld
hi
erva
n is
de
bloe
mle
zing
Mea
nin
g in
Arc
hite
ctu
re,
ge
redi
geer
d do
or C
harl
es
Je
ncks
en
Geo
rge
Bai
rd,
N
ew Y
ork
1969
.
wed
erzi
jds
aanv
ulle
nde
kwes
ties
van
leze
n en
‘lee
sbaa
rhei
d’ z
oals
Lyn
ch
die
aan
de o
rde
stel
t, w
orde
n de
str
uctu
rali
stis
che
doct
rine
s di
e he
t arc
hite
c-tu
urdi
scou
rs v
an d
e ja
ren
zest
ig e
n ze
vent
ig z
oude
n do
min
eren
al z
icht
baar
. C
onte
xt w
ordt
hie
r afg
elei
d va
n of
alt
hans
ver
bond
en m
et c
once
pten
uit
de
ling
uïst
iek
en d
e se
mio
tiek
. Het
toen
emen
de g
ebru
ik e
rvan
in h
et a
rchi
tec-
tuur
disc
ours
van
de
jare
n ze
stig
moe
t dan
ook
wor
den
gezi
en in
het
lich
t van
de
kri
tiek
op
de o
rtho
doxe
mod
erne
arc
hite
ctuu
r en
de b
ijbe
hore
nde
esth
etie
k va
n de
Inte
rnat
iona
l Sty
le a
ls te
abs
trac
t en
zond
er b
etek
enis
. Zoa
ls w
e w
eten
zo
u di
t een
van
de
voor
naam
ste
uitg
angs
punt
en v
orm
en v
oor R
ober
t Ven
turi
’s
Com
plex
ity
and
Con
trad
icti
on u
it 1
966,
en
voor
het
vee
l lat
ere
boek
van
Cha
rles
Je
ncks
, The
Lan
guag
e of
Pos
t-M
oder
n A
rchi
tect
ure
uit
197
7.18
H
ier z
ijn w
e op
nieu
w a
ange
land
bij
het o
nopg
elos
te d
ilem
ma
zoal
s For
ty h
et
defi
niee
rde
toen
hij
stel
de d
at c
onte
xt h
etzi
j als
een
laat
ste
mod
erne
, het
zij a
ls e
en
eers
te p
ostm
oder
ne te
rm te
cla
ssif
icer
en w
as. M
en z
ou d
e te
gens
telli
ng tu
ssen
het
po
stm
oder
ne e
n he
t mod
erne
stan
dpun
t kun
nen
ophe
ffen
doo
r te
focu
ssen
op
de
cons
tant
en, d
e ov
erla
ppin
gen
en d
e ov
eree
nkom
sten
. Dit
zou
ech
ter v
oorb
ijgaa
n aa
n de
wed
erzi
jdse
ver
niet
igen
de k
riti
ek v
an b
eide
zijd
en e
n de
zee
r ver
schi
llend
e m
anie
ren
waa
rop
het i
dee
van
een
arch
itec
toni
sch
taal
wor
dt u
itge
wer
kt.
cont
esta
tion
s. A
s may
be
wel
l-kn
own
by n
ow,
the
Inde
pend
ent G
roup
mee
ting
s at t
he IC
A,
and
othe
r mor
e in
form
al g
athe
ring
s at t
he h
ome
of M
ary
and
Pete
r Rey
ner B
anha
m a
nd th
e so
-ca
lled
Fre
nch
Pub
in S
oho,
serv
ed a
s a b
reed
ing
grou
nd fo
r tho
se y
outh
ful a
rchi
tect
s to
deve
lop
thei
r ow
n id
eas.
Pro
babl
y le
sser
kno
wn
is th
e fa
ct th
at n
eo-P
alla
dian
s and
New
Bru
talis
ts
wer
e eq
ually
par
t of t
hese
cir
cles
, whi
ch h
ad it
s na
tura
l im
pact
on
the
skir
mis
hes e
xcha
nged
. W
hen,
in 1
953,
Pet
er S
mit
hson
stat
ed th
at h
e w
asn’
t goi
ng to
talk
abo
ut ‘P
ropo
rtio
n an
d Sy
mm
etry
’ wit
h re
gard
to th
e ‘P
aral
lel o
f Lif
e an
d A
rt’ s
how
, he
was
not
pol
emic
isin
g ag
ains
t an
ano
nym
ous s
tude
nt a
udie
nce
at th
e A
A
Scho
ol o
f Arc
hite
ctur
e as
Rey
ner B
anha
m h
ad
sugg
este
d. S
mit
hson
was
targ
etin
g C
olin
StJ
ohn
Wils
on w
ho h
ad p
rese
nted
a le
ctur
e at
the
ICA
un
der t
hat v
ery
sam
e ti
tle
of ‘P
ropo
rtio
n an
d Sy
mm
etry
’, ju
st a
wee
k be
fore
the
disc
ussi
on a
t th
e A
A, a
lect
ure
whi
ch w
as c
onve
ned
by n
one
othe
r tha
n th
e sa
me
Rey
ner B
anha
m.20
T
o be
tter
und
erst
and
Smit
hson
’s a
vers
ion
to th
e ne
o-Pa
lladi
an a
s wel
l his
idea
of ‘
cont
ext
thin
king
’ – a
nd th
e tw
o ar
e in
terr
elat
ed –
we
mig
ht b
ette
r loo
k at
ano
ther
, mos
t art
icul
ate
19.
Rel
ated
key
pub
licat
ions
are
J.M
. Ric
hard
s, T
he
C
astl
es o
n th
e G
roun
d
(L
ondo
n: T
he
A
rchi
tect
ural
Pre
ss,
19
46),
wit
h ill
ustr
atio
ns
by
Joh
n P
iper
, and
Nik
olau
s Pev
sner
, The
E
ngli
shne
ss o
f E
ngli
sh A
rt
(L
ondo
n: T
he A
rchi
tec-
tura
l Pre
ss, 1
956)
. The
1951
Fes
tival
of
Bri
tain
and
its e
xhib
itio
ns p
laye
d
a
cruc
ial r
ole,
see
for i
n-
st
ance
: Rey
ner B
anha
m,
‘R
even
ge o
f the
Pic
tur-
esqu
e: E
nglis
h A
rchi
tec-
tura
l Pol
emic
s, 1
945-
19
65’,
in: J
ohn
Sum
mer
son
(ed.
),
C
once
rnin
g A
rchi
tect
ure,
E
ssay
s on
Arc
hite
ctur
al
W
rite
rs a
nd W
riti
ng
(L
ondo
n: th
e P
ingu
in
P
ress
, 196
8), 2
65-2
73,
pr
esen
ted
to N
ikol
aus
Pe
vsne
r and
Alla
n L
ane;
see
also
Ala
n Po
wer
s,
‘T
he R
e-co
ndit
ione
d E
ye,
A
rchi
tect
s and
art
ists
in
E
nglis
h M
oder
nism
’,
in
: AA
Fil
es, n
o. 2
5,
Su
mm
er 1
993,
an
illum
i-
na
ting
pie
ce o
n th
e w
ider
deba
te in
Bri
tain
aro
und
the
Seco
nd W
orld
War
.
Pow
ers m
enti
oned
the
mag
azin
e P
unch
as o
ne o
f
the
rede
fini
ng p
latf
orm
s
for s
uch
conc
epts
as E
ng-
lis
hnes
s, th
e po
pula
r and
the v
erna
cula
r.20
. Se
e fo
r an
over
view
of
In
depe
nden
t Gro
up d
ates
and
fact
s: G
raha
m
W
hith
am, ‘
The
Inde
-
pend
ent G
roup
at t
he
In
stitu
te o
f Con
tem
pora
ry
A
rts:
Its O
rigi
ns, D
evel
-
opm
ent a
nd In
flue
nces
1951
-196
1’, P
hD th
esis
for t
he U
nive
rsit
y of
Ken
t,
19
86; s
ee a
lso:
Dav
id
R
obbi
ns (e
d.),
The
Ind
e-
pe
nden
t Gro
up: P
ostw
ar
B
rita
in a
nd th
e A
esth
etic
s of
P
lent
y (C
ambr
idge
, MA
:
MIT
Pre
ss, 1
990)
. For
Ban
ham
’s a
ccou
nt o
n
Pe
ter S
mit
hson
’s re
mar
ks:
R
eyne
r Ban
ham
, ‘T
he
N
ew B
ruta
lism
’, in
: The
A
rchi
tect
ural
Rev
iew
,
Dec
embe
r 195
5, 3
54-3
61.
29
‘ges
chik
thei
d’ e
n ‘a
ange
past
heid
’, is
ond
ubbe
lzin
nig
neod
arw
inis
tisc
h.14
E
en la
atst
e br
on d
ie d
oor F
orty
wor
dt g
enoe
md,
zij
n de
less
en v
an C
olin
R
owe.
Row
e le
idde
van
196
3 to
t 198
8 de
zog
enaa
mde
Urb
an D
esig
n St
udio
aan
C
orne
ll U
nive
rsit
y. H
et w
erk
van
deze
stu
dio
was
een
bel
angr
ijk
voor
beel
d va
n vr
oeg
onde
rzoe
k na
ar ‘c
onte
xtua
lism
e’ e
n ee
n ‘c
onte
xtua
list
isch
e’ o
ntw
erp-
prak
tijk
.15 V
olge
ns F
orty
had
Row
e vo
oral
een
‘for
mel
e’ b
elan
gste
llin
g vo
or d
e kw
esti
e va
n co
ntex
t en
voor
de
rela
ties
tuss
en o
bjec
ten
en r
uim
tes,
terw
ijl
Rog
ers c
onte
xt id
enti
fice
erde
met
de
‘dia
lect
isch
e pr
oces
sen
van
de g
esch
iede
nis’
zo
als
die
zich
‘in
de a
rchi
tect
uur m
anif
este
erde
n’.16
E
en v
an d
e br
onne
n w
aar R
owe
graa
g na
ar v
erw
ees
om z
ijn
beto
og v
oor e
en
cont
extu
ele
ontw
erpp
rakt
ijk
te o
nder
bouw
en, w
as d
e ge
stal
tthe
orie
. Row
e ve
r-w
ees n
aar d
eze
theo
rie
in v
erba
nd m
et h
et v
ersc
hijn
sel v
an fi
guur
en
acht
ergr
ond,
da
t hij
gebr
uikt
e om
stad
spla
tteg
rond
en e
n de
elk
aar w
eder
zijd
s aan
vulle
nde
con-
figu
rati
es v
an o
pen
ruim
tes
en g
ebou
wde
vol
umes
te le
zen
en te
ana
lyse
ren.
17
Ook
bij
aut
eurs
met
and
ere
opva
ttin
gen
vind
en w
e de
ze v
erw
ijzi
ng n
aar d
e ge
stal
tthe
orie
: opn
ieuw
bij
Ale
xand
er, m
aar v
oora
l bij
Kev
in L
ynch
. Met
zij
n oo
k nu
nog
ber
oem
de T
he I
mag
e of
the
Cit
y ui
t 196
0 sc
hree
f L
ynch
de
mee
st
door
wro
chte
ver
hand
elin
g ov
er d
e vi
suel
e pe
rcep
tie
van
de s
tad.
Het
boe
k va
n L
ynch
is v
olle
dig
gew
ijd
aan
het i
nzic
ht k
rijg
en in
de
man
ier w
aaro
p m
ense
n de
geb
ouw
de o
mge
ving
vis
ueel
waa
rnem
en. H
ij on
ders
chei
dt v
ijf e
lem
ente
n om
de
gebo
uwde
om
gevi
ng e
n ha
ar ‘b
eeld
’ te
anal
yser
en: r
oute
s, ra
nden
, wijk
en,
knoo
ppun
ten
en o
riën
tati
epun
ten.
Aan
de
hand
van
em
piri
sche
ond
erzo
eks-
tech
niek
en, v
oorn
amel
ijk
inte
rvie
wte
chni
eken
, pro
beer
t hij
aan
te to
nen
dat
men
sen
een
‘om
gevi
ngsb
eeld
’ van
de
stad
con
stru
eren
. Vol
gens
Lyn
ch w
ordt
dit
be
eld
op e
en w
eder
keri
ge w
ijze
gevo
rmd
door
iden
tite
it, s
truc
tuur
en
bete
keni
s.
In d
eze
cate
gori
eën:
iden
tite
it, s
truc
tuur
en
bete
keni
s, in
clus
ief
de e
lkaa
r
term
, or a
firs
t pos
tmod
erni
st o
ne. O
ne m
ight
so
lve
the
anti
thes
is th
at e
xist
s be
twee
n th
e po
stm
oder
nist
and
mod
ern
posi
tion
s by
focu
sing
on
the
cont
inui
ties
, ove
rlap
s an
d si
mil
arit
ies.
Y
et, a
t the
sam
e ti
me,
this
wou
ld s
eem
inco
m-
pati
ble
wit
h th
e m
utua
l, s
cath
ing
crit
icis
ms
from
bot
h si
des,
and
the
very
dif
fere
nt e
labo
ra-
tion
s of
the
idea
of
a la
ngua
ge o
f ar
chit
ectu
re.
B
ET
WE
EN
NE
O-P
AL
LA
DIA
NS
AN
D
N
EW
BR
UT
AL
IST
SA
s m
enti
oned
, the
pos
t-Se
cond
Wor
ld W
ar
disc
ours
e in
Gre
at B
rita
in w
as o
ne o
f th
e fo
rmat
ive
mom
ents
in th
e co
ntex
t deb
ate,
nex
t to
the
cruc
ible
of
the
Ital
ian
disc
ours
e. B
less
ed
wit
h th
e po
ssib
ilit
y of
look
ing
back
, one
can
al
read
y de
tect
in th
e 19
40s
and
earl
y 19
50s
the
vari
ous
posi
tion
s th
at w
ould
gro
w to
dom
inat
e th
e de
bate
in th
e 19
70s:
such
as t
hose
of t
he
spec
ific
Bri
tish
ver
sion
of p
opul
ism
and
inte
rest
in
low
cul
ture
and
loca
l ver
nacu
lar,
and
the
neo-
Pall
adia
n an
d P
ictu
resq
ue re
viva
ls w
hich
see
m
to fo
resh
adow
the
late
r pos
tmod
erni
st tu
rn.
Man
y of
thos
e el
emen
ts, i
f no
t all
, cou
ld b
e fo
und
in th
e pa
ges
of T
he A
rchi
tect
ural
Rev
iew
, w
here
they
wer
e bl
ende
d w
ith
the
func
tion
alis
t
trad
itio
n as
rede
fine
d by
Nik
olau
s Pev
sner
, w
ho to
geth
er w
ith
J.M
. Ric
hard
s ai
med
to
arri
ve a
t a s
peci
fic
Bri
tish
ver
sion
of t
he
Con
tinen
tal e
xper
imen
ts, s
uite
d to
the
Bri
tish
iden
tity
, the
so-
call
ed N
ew E
mpi
rici
sm.19
G
ordo
n C
ulle
n’s
idea
of
Tow
nsca
pe s
houl
d be
m
enti
oned
her
e as
wel
l, a
s th
e B
riti
sh p
enda
nt
of L
ynch
’s e
nqui
ries
into
the
stru
ctur
e of
the
urba
n im
age,
and
as
one
of th
e m
ain
prop
osi-
tion
s fo
r a P
ictu
resq
ue re
viva
l. H
is d
raw
ings
w
ere
dida
ctic
in te
achi
ng th
e re
ader
s of
The
A
rchi
tect
ura
l Rev
iew
to v
iew
the
chao
tic
land
-sc
ape
of h
isto
ric
citi
es, t
he s
ubur
bs a
nd th
e in
dust
rial
revo
luti
on o
f th
e ni
nete
enth
cen
tury
as
an
intr
icat
e w
eb o
f P
ictu
resq
ue a
ccid
ent a
nd
vari
atio
n w
ith
a sp
ecia
l rol
e fo
r urb
an d
ecor
atio
n su
ch a
s ir
on fe
nces
, neo
-Vic
tori
an a
dver
tise
-m
ents
and
sho
p w
indo
ws.
Eng
lish
ness
and
re
gion
alis
m w
ere
dom
inee
ring
ingr
edie
nts
of
this
re-a
ppro
pria
tion
of
the
mod
ern
trad
itio
n.
The
you
nger
gen
erat
ion
of B
riti
sh a
rchi
-te
cts,
incl
udin
g th
e Sm
iths
ons,
but
als
o Ja
mes
St
irlin
g an
d C
olin
StJ
ohn
Wils
on, b
oth
ab
sorb
ed a
nd c
onte
sted
the
polic
ies o
f The
Ar-
chit
ectu
ral R
evie
w. T
he N
ew B
ruta
lism
and
late
r B
riti
sh P
op A
rt a
re sa
id to
be
born
from
thos
e
DIR
K V
AN
DE
N H
EU
VE
L28
CO
NT
EX
T \
SPECIFICITY
OASE 76
19.
Bel
angr
ijke
ver
wan
te
ui
tgav
es z
ijn:
J.M
.
Ric
hard
s, T
he C
astl
es o
n
th
e G
rou
nd,
Lon
den
1946
, met
illu
stra
ties
van
John
Pip
er; e
n
N
ikol
aus
Pevs
ner,
The
E
ngl
ishn
ess
of E
ngl
ish
Art
,
Lon
den
1956
. Het
‘Fes
-
tiva
l of
Bri
tain
’ van
195
2
en
de
tent
oons
tell
inge
n
di
e in
het
kad
er e
rvan
ge
houd
en w
erde
n,
sp
eeld
en o
ok e
en
be
lang
rijk
e ro
l, z
ie
bi
jvoo
rbee
ld: R
eyne
r
Ban
ham
, ‘R
even
ge o
f th
e
Pic
ture
sque
: Eng
lish
Arc
hite
ctur
al P
olem
ics,
1945
–196
5’, i
n: J
ohn
Sum
mer
son
(red
.),
C
once
rnin
g A
rchi
tect
ure
,
E
ssay
s on
Arc
hite
ctu
ral
W
rite
rs a
nd
Wri
tin
g,
L
onde
n 19
68, p
. 265
-273
,
uitg
erei
kt a
an N
ikol
aus
Pevs
ner e
n A
llan
Lan
e;
zi
e oo
k: A
lan
Pow
ers,
‘The
Re-
cond
itio
ned
E
ye, A
rchi
tect
s an
d
ar
tist
s in
Eng
lish
Mo-
dern
ism
’, A
A F
iles
, nr.
25, z
omer
199
3, e
en
he
lder
e ui
teen
zett
ing
van
he
t bre
dere
deb
at in
Gro
ot-B
rita
nnië
rond
de
T
wee
de W
erel
door
log.
Pow
ers
noem
t het
tijd
schr
ift P
un
ch a
ls e
en
va
n de
pla
tfor
ms
voor
het h
erde
fini
ëren
van
conc
epte
n al
s ‘E
ngli
sh-
ne
ss’,
‘the
pop
ular
’ en
‘the
ver
nacu
lar’
.20
. Z
ie, v
oor e
en o
verz
icht
van
data
en
feit
en o
ver
T
he In
depe
nden
t Gro
up,
G
raha
m W
hith
am,
late
re B
rits
e po
p-ar
t ont
ston
den
uit d
eze
disp
uten
. Zoa
ls in
mid
dels
bek
end
mag
w
orde
n ve
rond
erst
eld
vorm
den
de b
ijeen
kom
sten
van
de
Inde
pend
ent G
roup
in
het I
CA
, en
ande
re, i
nfor
mel
e bi
jeen
kom
sten
bij
Mar
y en
Pet
er R
eyne
r Ban
ham
th
uis e
n in
de
zoge
naam
de F
renc
h P
ub in
Soh
o, d
e vo
edin
gsbo
dem
voo
r dez
e jo
nger
e ar
chit
ecte
n om
hun
eig
en id
eeën
te o
ntw
ikke
len.
Min
der b
eken
d is
waa
r-sc
hijn
lijk
dat d
e ne
opal
ladi
anen
eve
nzee
r dee
l uit
maa
kten
van
dez
e kr
inge
n, n
et
als d
e B
ruta
liste
n en
de
uitd
rage
rs v
an d
e po
p-ar
t die
de
hist
orio
graf
ie v
an d
e In
depe
nden
t Gro
up d
omin
eren
. De
riva
litei
t tus
sen
de g
roep
en e
n in
divi
duen
ha
d na
tuur
lijk
invl
oed
op d
e on
derl
inge
sche
rmut
selin
gen.
Toe
n Pe
ter S
mit
hson
in
195
3 st
elde
dat
hij
het m
et b
etre
kkin
g to
t de
tent
oons
telli
ng ‘P
aral
lel o
f Lif
e an
d A
rt’ n
iet g
ing
hebb
en o
ver ‘
prop
orti
e en
sym
met
rie’
, pol
emis
eerd
e hi
j nie
t te
gen
een
anon
iem
pub
liek
van
stud
ente
n in
de
AA
Sch
ool o
f Arc
hite
ctur
e, z
oals
R
eyne
r Ban
ham
sugg
eree
rde.
Sm
iths
on ri
chtt
e zi
ch e
xplic
iet t
egen
Col
in S
t Joh
n W
ilson
, die
slec
hts e
en w
eek
voor
de
disc
ussi
e op
de
AA
een
lezi
ng h
ad g
ehou
den
in h
et IC
A o
nder
pre
cies
die
tite
l: ‘P
ropo
rtio
n an
d Sy
mm
etry
’, e
en le
zing
die
w
as g
eorg
anis
eerd
doo
r nie
man
d an
ders
dan
die
zelf
de R
eyne
r Ban
ham
.20
flow
ing,
ope
n sp
ace
that
was
cha
ract
eris
tic
of
the
mod
ern
city
.22 T
hey
repr
oach
ed m
oder
n ar
chit
ects
, wit
h L
e C
orbu
sier
as
the
mos
t pr
omin
ent o
ne, a
nd th
eir v
isio
n of
an
‘abs
olut
e de
tach
men
t, s
ymbo
lic
and
phys
ical
, fro
m a
ny
aspe
cts
of e
xist
ing
cont
ext w
hich
has
bee
n,
typi
call
y, e
nvis
aged
as
a co
ntam
inan
t, a
s so
me-
thin
g bo
th m
oral
ly a
nd h
ygie
nica
lly
lepr
ous.
’23
F
rom
ther
e on
Row
e an
d K
oett
er fo
unde
d th
eir a
rgum
ent f
or a
Col
lage
Cit
y on
a c
ombi
-na
tion
of t
wo
elem
ents
. Fir
st, t
heir
app
ropr
ia-
tion
of t
he ‘f
igur
e-gr
ound
phe
nom
enon
’ fro
m
Ges
talt
theo
ry re
sult
ed in
the
now
fam
ous,
bl
ack-
and-
whi
te a
naly
ses o
f urb
an sp
ace.
The
se
diag
ram
mat
ic d
raw
ings
qui
te si
mpl
y co
nsis
ted
of re
duci
ng th
e co
mpl
exit
y of
the
city
to th
e op
-po
siti
on o
f ‘so
lid a
nd v
oid’
, Row
e an
d K
oett
er’s
ve
rsio
n of
the
clas
sic
exam
ple
of th
e N
olli
map
of
Rom
e as
dev
elop
ed w
ithi
n th
e U
rban
Des
ign
stud
io.24
The
stro
ng rh
etor
ical
pow
er o
f the
di
agra
ms s
erve
d to
dem
onst
rate
how
trad
itio
nal
citi
es p
rovi
ded
a ri
ch a
nd v
ersa
tile
‘sup
port
-in
g te
xtur
e or
gro
und’
, unl
ike
the
mod
ern
city
, w
hich
was
dia
gram
med
by
way
of b
lack
spot
s of
free
-sta
ndin
g ‘s
olid
s’ d
rift
ing
in a
whi
te se
a of
‘v
oid’
des
igna
ting
und
iffe
rent
iate
d ‘s
pace
’.
Le
Cor
busi
er’s
pla
n fo
r St D
ié (1
945)
was
stra
te-
gica
lly p
lace
d op
posi
te th
e in
ner c
ity
of P
arm
a,
and
a do
uble
spre
ad o
f the
mod
ern
mas
ter’
s P
lan
Voi
sin
(192
5) c
omm
unic
ated
at a
sing
le
glan
ce th
e ho
rrid
dis
aste
r tha
t wou
ld h
ave
hit
Pari
s if t
he p
lan
had
ever
bee
n ex
ecut
ed.25
T
he s
econ
d el
emen
t of
Row
e an
d K
oett
er’s
ar
gum
ent r
elat
ed to
the
natu
re o
f th
e ‘t
extu
re’
that
con
stit
uted
the
city
. Ref
erri
ng to
the
ex
ampl
es o
f im
peri
al a
nd p
apal
Rom
e, L
ondo
n sq
uare
s an
d te
rrac
es, a
nd th
e M
unic
h of
Leo
vo
n K
lenz
e, th
is te
xtur
e, o
r gr
ound
, was
de
fine
d by
Row
e an
d K
oett
er a
s a
mul
titu
de
of fr
agm
ents
of
(neo
)cla
ssic
al a
rchi
tect
ural
m
odel
s.26
Thi
s te
xtur
e w
as th
e ou
tcom
e of
21.
Col
in R
owe
and
Fre
d
K
oett
er, C
olla
ge C
ity
(Cam
brid
ge, M
A: M
IT
P
ress
, 197
8); f
or a
gen
e-
ra
l cri
tiqu
e of
Row
e’s
wor
k se
e: J
oan
O
ckm
an, ‘
Form
wit
hout
Uto
pia:
Con
-
text
uali
zing
Col
in
R
owe’
, the
Jou
rnal
of
th
e S
ocie
ty o
f A
rchi
tect
ural
H
isto
rian
s, D
ecem
ber
19
98, 4
48-4
56.
22.
Ibid
., 5
6-58
.23
. Ib
id.,
51.
24.
See
also
not
e 17
.25
. R
owe
and
Koe
tter
,
Col
lage
Cit
y, o
p. c
it.
(n
ote
21),
62-
63 a
nd
74
-75.
26.
The
dis
tinc
tion
bet
wee
n
ne
o-Pa
lladi
anis
m a
nd
ne
o-cl
assi
cism
is n
ot
al
way
s eas
y to
mak
e;
C
olin
Row
e se
ems t
o
ha
ve a
cle
ar p
refe
renc
e
31
TU
SS
EN
NE
OPA
LL
AD
IAN
EN
EN
BR
UT
AL
IST
EN
Zoa
ls v
erm
eld
was
het
nao
orlo
gse
disc
ours
in G
root
-Bri
ttan
nië
een
van
de b
epa-
lend
e m
omen
ten
in h
et c
onte
xtde
bat,
naa
st d
e sm
eltk
roes
van
het
Ital
iaan
se d
is-
cour
s. T
erug
kijk
end
met
de
kenn
is v
an n
u zi
jn a
l in
de ja
ren
veer
tig
en d
e vr
oege
ja
ren
vijf
tig
de v
ersc
hille
nde
stan
dpun
ten
te o
ntw
aren
die
het
deb
at in
de
jare
n ze
vent
ig z
oude
n ga
an d
omin
eren
, zoa
ls d
ie v
an d
e ty
pisc
h B
rits
e ve
rsie
van
het
po
pulis
me
en d
e be
lang
stel
ling
voor
‘low
cul
ture
’ en
regi
onal
e ar
chit
ectu
ur, e
n de
revi
vals
van
het
neo
palla
dian
ism
e en
het
pic
ture
sque
, die
al v
ooru
it li
jken
te
lope
n op
de
late
re p
ostm
oder
nist
isch
e w
endi
ng. V
eel v
an d
ie e
lem
ente
n, z
o ni
et
alle
, war
en te
vin
den
op d
e pa
gina
’s v
an T
he A
rchi
tect
ural
Rev
iew
. Daa
r wer
den
ze v
erm
engd
met
de
func
tion
alis
tisc
he tr
adit
ie z
oals
die
was
geh
erde
fini
eerd
do
or N
ikol
aus P
evsn
er, d
ie sa
men
met
J.M
. Ric
hard
stre
efde
naa
r een
spec
ifie
k B
rits
e ve
rsie
van
de
avan
t-ga
rde-
expe
rim
ente
n op
het
Eur
opes
e va
stel
and:
het
zo
gena
amde
New
Em
piri
cism
.19 O
ok G
ordo
n C
ulle
ns id
ee v
an T
owns
cape
(het
st
adsl
ands
chap
) ver
dien
t hie
r ver
mel
ding
, als
de
Bri
tse
tege
nhan
ger v
an L
ynch
’ on
derz
oek
naar
de
stru
ctuu
r van
het
stad
sbee
ld e
n al
s een
van
de
bela
ngri
jkst
e vo
orst
elle
n vo
or e
en re
viva
l van
het
pic
ture
sque
. Zijn
teke
ning
en le
erde
n de
leze
rs
van
The
Arc
hite
ctur
al R
evie
w h
et c
haot
isch
e la
ndsc
hap
van
hist
oris
che
sted
en, d
e bu
iten
wijk
en e
n de
indu
stri
ële
revo
luti
e va
n de
neg
enti
ende
eeu
w te
zie
n al
s een
in
gew
ikke
ld w
eb v
an p
ictu
resq
ue to
eval
en
vari
atie
, met
een
spec
iale
rol v
oor
stad
sver
sier
ing
als i
jzer
en h
ekke
n, n
eo-V
icto
riaa
nse
recl
ames
en
win
kele
tala
ges.
‘E
ngli
shne
ss’ e
n re
gion
alis
me
war
en d
e do
min
eren
de in
gred
iënt
en v
an d
eze
eige
n dr
aai a
an d
e m
oder
nist
isch
e tr
adit
ie.
D
e jo
nger
e ge
nera
tie
arch
itec
ten,
van
wie
de
Smit
hson
s, m
aar o
ok J
ames
St
irlin
g en
Col
in S
t Joh
n W
ilson
sleu
telp
osit
ies z
oude
n in
nem
en, a
bsor
beer
de
én k
riti
seer
de d
e ag
enda
van
The
Arc
hite
ctur
al R
evie
w. H
et N
ew B
ruta
lism
en
de
posi
tion
wit
hin
the
Bri
tish
deb
ate,
nam
ely
that
of C
olin
Row
e, w
ho w
as n
ot p
art o
f the
In
depe
nden
t Gro
up c
ircl
e, b
ut w
ho w
as c
er-
tain
ly c
lose
to S
tirl
ing,
San
dy W
ilson
and
Ala
n C
olqu
houn
. Wit
h re
gard
to th
e un
reso
lved
pr
edic
amen
t of c
onte
xt a
nd it
s par
adig
mat
ic
tens
ions
, a c
ompa
riso
n be
twee
n th
e po
siti
ons
of R
owe
and
Smit
hson
is ra
ther
illu
stra
tive
. T
he c
oupl
e an
d th
e cr
itic
seem
to o
ccup
y th
e fa
r en
ds o
f the
con
text
deb
ate:
the
Smit
hson
s saw
th
e is
sue
of c
onte
xt a
nd ‘c
onte
xt th
inki
ng’ a
s th
e na
tura
l ext
ensi
on o
f the
trad
itio
n of
mod
-er
n ar
chit
ectu
re, w
here
as R
owe
used
the
idea
of
con
text
ualis
m fo
r his
dev
asta
ting
att
acks
on
that
ver
y sa
me
trad
itio
n. T
he d
iffe
renc
e is
eve
n m
ore
stri
king
, sin
ce lo
okin
g fr
om th
e ou
tsid
e th
e th
ree
seem
ed to
hav
e sh
ared
sim
ilar i
nter
ests
an
d at
titu
des:
am
ong
othe
rs a
can
did
and
fier
ce
crit
icis
m o
f the
failu
res o
f mod
ern
arch
itec
ture
, co
mbi
ned
wit
h a
lifel
ong
adm
irat
ion
and
love
fo
r the
wor
k of
Le
Cor
busi
er a
nd M
ies v
an d
er
Roh
e, S
cand
inav
ian
mod
ern
arch
itec
ture
as
repr
esen
ted
by A
alto
, Asp
lund
and
Lew
eren
tz,
as w
ell a
s a p
assi
onat
e in
tere
st in
the
hist
ory
of
arch
itec
ture
, esp
ecia
lly o
f anc
ient
Rom
e an
d G
reec
e, a
nd R
enai
ssan
ce id
eals
.
R
owe
deve
lope
d hi
s ar
gum
ent f
or c
on-
text
uali
sm th
roug
h, a
mon
g ot
her t
hing
s, h
is
teac
hing
s at C
orne
ll U
nive
rsit
y. T
he p
ublic
atio
n of
Col
lage
Cit
y in
197
5 as
a s
peci
al is
sue
of T
he
Arc
hite
ctu
ral R
evie
w, a
nd in
197
8 as
a b
ook,
can
be
rega
rded
as
the
mos
t con
dens
ed s
umm
ary
of
the
idea
s as d
evel
oped
wit
hin
the
Urb
an D
esig
n st
udio
.21 R
owe,
toge
ther
wit
h F
red
Koe
tter
, st
arts
of
wit
h a
fron
tal a
ttac
k on
the
idea
of
utop
ia a
s a
prog
ram
me
for a
ctua
l soc
ial r
efor
m
as p
rocl
aim
ed a
nd s
uppo
rted
by
mod
ern
ar-
chit
ects
, as
wel
l as
on th
e id
ea o
f ar
chit
ectu
re
bein
g su
bjec
ted
to Z
eitg
eist
and
Heg
elia
n te
los.
T
he s
econ
d ch
apte
r pai
nts
a su
ccin
ct o
verv
iew
of
the
posi
tion
s of
the
post
-war
dec
ades
. The
n,
in th
e th
ird
chap
ter,
tell
ingl
y ca
lled
‘Cri
sis
of
the
Obj
ect:
Pre
dica
men
t of
Tex
ture
’, R
owe
and
Koe
tter
laun
ched
thei
r att
ack
on m
oder
n ar
chit
ectu
re fo
r bei
ng re
spon
sibl
e fo
r the
‘ di
sint
egra
tion
of
the
stre
et a
nd o
f al
l hig
hly
or
gani
sed
publ
ic s
pace
’, p
artl
y du
e to
the
‘rat
iona
lize
d fo
rm o
f ho
usin
g an
d th
e ne
w
dict
ates
of
vehi
cula
r act
ivit
y’, a
nd p
artl
y du
e to
the
‘fix
atio
n’ o
f m
oder
n ar
chit
ectu
re o
n th
e id
eal o
f a
buil
ding
as
a fr
eest
andi
ng o
bjec
t w
itho
ut a
ny im
pact
on
the
cont
inuu
m o
f fr
ee-
DIR
K V
AN
DE
N H
EU
VE
L30
CO
NT
EX
T \
SPECIFICITY
OASE 76
‘T
he I
nde
pen
den
t Gro
up
at
the
Inst
itu
te o
f
C
onte
mpo
rary
Art
s: I
ts
O
rigi
ns,
Dev
elop
men
t
an
d In
flu
ence
s 19
51-
19
61’,
dis
sert
atie
,
Uni
vers
ity
of K
ent,
1986
; zie
ook
: Dav
id
R
obbi
ns (r
ed.)
, The
In
depe
nde
nt G
rou
p:
P
ostw
ar B
rita
in a
nd
th
e A
esth
etic
s of
Ple
nty
,
Cam
brid
ge, M
A, 1
990.
Zie
voo
r Ban
ham
s
ve
rsla
g va
n de
opm
er-
ki
ngen
van
Pet
er
Sm
iths
on: R
eyne
r
Ban
ham
, ‘T
he N
ew
B
ruta
lism
’, T
he
A
rchi
tect
ura
l Rev
iew
,
dece
mbe
r 195
5,
p.
354
-361
.21
. C
olin
Row
e en
Fre
d
K
oett
er, C
olla
ge C
ity,
Cam
brid
ge, M
A, 1
978;
zie
voor
een
alg
emen
e
kr
itie
k va
n he
t wer
k va
n
R
owe:
Joa
n O
ckm
an,
‘F
orm
wit
hout
Uto
pia:
C
onte
xtua
lizi
ng C
olin
Row
e’, T
he J
ourn
al o
f
th
e S
ocie
ty o
f A
rchi
tect
ura
l
H
isto
rian
s, d
ecem
ber
19
98, p
. 448
-456
.22
. Id
em, p
. 56-
58.
23.
Idem
, p. 5
1.
herv
orm
ing,
zoa
ls d
at d
oor m
oder
ne a
rchi
tect
en w
erd
verk
ondi
gd e
n ge
steu
nd,
en o
ok o
p he
t ide
e va
n ee
n ar
chit
ectu
ur d
ie is
ond
erw
orpe
n aa
n ee
n Z
eitg
eist
en
een
hege
liaan
se te
los.
Het
twee
de h
oofd
stuk
gee
ft e
en b
ekno
pt o
verz
icht
van
de
heer
send
e op
vatt
inge
n ui
t de
dece
nnia
na
de o
orlo
g. D
an, i
n he
t der
de h
oofd
-st
uk, m
et d
e ve
elze
ggen
de ti
tel ‘
Cri
sis o
f the
obj
ect:
Pre
dica
men
t of T
extu
re’,
la
ncer
en R
owe
en K
oett
er h
un a
anva
l op
de m
oder
ne a
rchi
tect
uur,
die
vol
gens
he
n ve
rant
woo
rdel
ijk is
voo
r de
‘des
inte
grat
ie v
an d
e st
raat
en
van
alle
goe
d ge
orga
nise
erde
pub
lieke
ruim
te’,
dee
ls d
oor d
e ‘g
erat
iona
lisee
rde
vorm
van
hui
s-ve
stin
g en
de
nieu
we
eise
n di
e he
t ver
keer
stel
t’, e
n de
els d
oor d
e ‘g
efix
eerd
heid
’ va
n de
mod
erne
arc
hite
ctuu
r op
het i
deaa
l van
een
geb
ouw
als
vri
jsta
and
obje
ct
zond
er e
nige
invl
oed
op h
et c
onti
nuüm
van
vri
j vlo
eien
de, o
pen
ruim
te d
at
kara
kter
isti
ek w
as v
oor d
e m
oder
ne st
ad.22
Ze
lake
n de
mod
erne
arc
hite
cten
, met
L
e C
orbu
sier
als
de
mee
st p
rom
inen
te, e
n hu
n vi
sie
van
een
‘abs
olut
e on
thec
htin
g,
zow
el sy
mbo
lisch
als
fysi
ek, v
an e
lk a
spec
t van
de
best
aand
e co
ntex
t, d
ie d
oor-
gaan
s wor
dt v
oorg
este
ld a
ls ie
ts v
eron
trei
nige
nds,
een
soor
t mel
aats
heid
, zow
el
in m
orel
e al
s hyg
iëni
sche
zin
’.23
V
an d
aar a
f fu
nder
en R
owe
en K
oett
er h
un b
etoo
g vo
or e
en c
olla
gest
ad o
p ee
n co
mbi
nati
e va
n tw
ee e
lem
ente
n. A
ller
eers
t zet
ten
ze h
et v
ersc
hijn
sel v
an
on ‘N
eo-“
Cla
ssic
ism
” an
d M
oder
n A
rchi
tec-
ture
’ in
1973
, in
the
firs
t iss
ue o
f the
jour
nal
Opp
osit
ions
, a te
xt w
hich
was
alr
eady
wri
tten
in
195
6-19
57.32
Her
e, R
owe’
s sec
ond
mai
n co
ntri
buti
on to
the
revi
sion
of t
he d
isco
urse
of
mod
ern
arch
itec
ture
mus
t be
stip
ulat
ed, n
amel
y th
e co
ncep
t of a
uton
omy
of th
e ar
chit
ectu
ral
disc
iplin
e.33
The
revi
siti
ng a
nd p
ropo
undi
ng o
f ne
ocla
ssic
al id
eals
by
Row
e se
rved
the
forg
ing
of w
hat h
e ca
lled
the
‘arc
hite
ctur
al e
quiv
alen
t of
the
rule
of l
aw’,
an
auto
nom
ous a
utho
rity
tr
ansc
endi
ng th
e m
oder
nist
cla
ims t
hat a
rchi
-te
ctur
e w
as to
be
subo
rdin
ated
to th
e im
pera
-ti
ves o
f Zei
tgei
st, p
rogr
amm
e an
d te
chno
logy
.34
To
eluc
idat
e hi
s cas
e, R
owe
stra
tegi
cally
use
d th
e de
velo
pmen
t and
shif
ting
pos
itio
n of
Mie
s va
n de
r Roh
e. R
owe
reac
hed
a su
perb
leve
l of
anal
ytic
and
rhet
oric
al g
eniu
s, h
ere,
taki
ng a
m
oder
n m
aste
r and
the
deve
lopm
ent o
f his
idea
s ov
er th
e ye
ars a
ll in
ord
er to
dis
man
tle
som
e of
the
cent
ral t
enet
s of t
he b
egin
ning
s of t
he
mod
ern
trad
itio
n, in
par
ticu
lar t
he o
nes o
f ear
ly
func
tion
alis
m. C
onsi
deri
ng R
owe’
s wri
ting
s of
thos
e ye
ars,
the
1970
s, it
bec
omes
app
aren
t tha
t he
succ
eede
d in
firm
ly e
stab
lishi
ng th
e co
ncep
t fo
r an
auto
nom
y of
arc
hite
ctur
e, q
uite
par
a-
fo
r the
mor
e ge
neri
c,
im
peri
al n
eocl
assi
cism
,
whe
reas
Rud
olf
W
ittk
ower
seem
s ter
ribl
y
fond
of t
he m
ore
Bri
tish
incl
ined
neo
-Pal
ladi
a-
ni
sm; s
ee fo
r mor
e on
this
: Rud
olf W
ittk
ower
,
Pal
ladi
o an
d E
ngli
sh P
al-
la
dian
ism
(Lon
don:
Tha
mes
& H
udso
n,19
74).
27.
Ibid
., 8
3.28
. Ib
id.,
102
-103
.29
. R
owe,
As
I w
as S
ayin
g, o
p.
ci
t. (n
ote
15),
Vol
. III
, 2.
30.
Row
e an
d K
oett
er,C
olla
ge
C
ity,
op.
cit.
(not
e 21
), 1
51.
31.
Ibid
., 1
54.
32.
Rep
rint
ed in
: Row
e, T
he
M
athe
mat
ics
of th
e Id
eal
V
illa
, op.
cit
. (no
te 1
7),
11
9-15
8.33
. T
he a
uton
omy
conc
ept
w
as o
f cou
rse
alre
ady
prep
ared
for b
y E
mile
Kau
fman
n.34
. T
he p
hras
e ‘a
rchi
tect
ural
equi
vale
nt o
f the
rule
of la
w’ c
omes
from
Row
e’s a
naly
is o
f Mie
s’s
de
velo
pmen
t, se
e: R
owe,
The
Mat
hem
atic
s of
the
Id
eal V
illa
, op.
cit
. (no
te
17
), 1
32.
35.
The
rise
of t
he a
uton
omy
conc
ept w
as a
spec
ific
stra
nd w
ithi
n th
e po
st-
m
oder
nist
dis
cour
se,
co
ncur
ring
wit
h th
e id
ea
of
so-c
alle
d ‘n
eo-
ra
tion
alis
m’,
whi
ch
w
ould
uni
te su
ch d
iver
se
po
siti
ons a
s tho
se o
f Ald
o
Ros
si, P
eter
Eis
enm
an
an
d O
swal
d M
atth
ias
Ung
ers.
doxi
cally
by
build
ing
his a
rgum
ent o
n in
tern
al
deve
lopm
ents
wit
hin
mod
ern
arch
itec
ture
itse
lf
and
on th
e id
ea o
f urb
an c
onte
xtua
lism
.35
Y
et, i
t is a
lso
here
, bot
h on
the
issu
e of
ar
chit
ectu
ral a
uton
omy
and
neoc
lass
icis
t ide
al-
ism
, and
on
the
reco
nstr
ucti
on o
f the
trad
itio
n of
mod
ern
arch
itec
ture
, tha
t Alis
on a
nd P
eter
33
O
m S
mit
hson
s ave
rsie
tege
n he
t neo
palla
dian
ism
e en
zijn
idee
van
‘con
tex-
tuee
l den
ken’
bet
er te
kun
nen
begr
ijpen
– e
n de
twee
hou
den
onde
rlin
g ve
rban
d –
kunn
en w
e he
t bes
te k
ijken
naa
r een
and
er, z
eer u
itge
spro
ken
stan
dpun
t bin
nen
het B
rits
e de
bat,
nam
elijk
dat
van
Col
in R
owe,
die
gee
n de
el u
itm
aakt
e va
n de
kr
inge
n va
n de
Inde
pend
ent G
roup
, maa
r bes
list v
eel a
ffin
itei
t had
met
Sti
rlin
g,
Sand
y W
ilson
en
Ala
n C
olqu
houn
. Een
ver
gelij
king
tuss
en d
e st
andp
unte
n va
n R
owe
en S
mit
hson
kan
een
ver
held
eren
d lic
ht w
erpe
n op
het
ono
pgel
oste
di
lem
ma
van
de c
onte
xt e
n de
par
adig
mat
isch
e sp
anni
ngen
die
daa
ruit
voo
rt-
vloe
ien.
Het
ech
tpaa
r en
de c
riti
cus l
ijken
de
twee
tege
npol
en te
vor
men
van
het
co
ntex
tdeb
at: d
e Sm
iths
ons z
agen
in d
e kw
esti
e va
n de
con
text
en
het ‘
cont
extu
eel
denk
en’ e
en n
atuu
rlijk
e vo
ortz
etti
ng v
an d
e tr
adit
ie v
an d
e m
oder
ne a
rchi
tect
uur,
te
rwijl
Row
e he
t ide
e va
n co
ntex
tual
ism
e ge
brui
kte
voor
zijn
ver
niet
igen
de
aanv
alle
n op
die
zelf
de tr
adit
ie. H
et v
ersc
hil i
s des
te tr
effe
nder
om
dat d
e dr
ie,
alth
ans v
an b
uite
naf g
ezie
n, d
ezel
fde
bela
ngst
ellin
g en
dez
elfd
e ho
udin
g le
ken
te
hebb
en: o
nder
and
ere
een
open
hart
ige
en sc
herp
e kr
itie
k op
de
teko
rtko
min
gen
van
de m
oder
ne a
rchi
tect
uur,
gec
ombi
neer
d m
et e
en le
vens
lang
e be
won
deri
ng
en li
efde
voo
r het
wer
k va
n L
e C
orbu
sier
en
Mie
s van
der
Roh
e, n
et a
ls v
oor d
e Sc
andi
navi
sche
mod
erne
arc
hite
ctuu
r van
Aal
to, A
splu
nd e
n L
ewer
entz
, en
een
hart
stoc
htel
ijke
bela
ngst
ellin
g vo
or d
e ar
chit
ectu
urge
schi
eden
is, m
et n
ame
die
van
het o
ude
Rom
e en
Gri
eken
land
, en
de id
eale
n va
n de
Ren
aiss
ance
.
Row
e on
twik
keld
e zi
jn b
etoo
g vo
or c
onte
xtua
lism
e on
der m
eer v
ia z
ijn le
ssen
aa
n C
orne
ll U
nive
rsit
y. C
olla
ge C
ity,
in 1
975
vers
chen
en a
ls sp
ecia
al n
umm
er
van
The
Arc
hite
ctur
al R
evie
w e
n in
197
8 al
s boe
k, is
te b
esch
ouw
en a
ls d
e m
eest
be
knop
te sa
men
vatt
ing
van
de id
eeën
zoa
ls d
ie b
inne
n de
Urb
an D
esig
n St
udio
w
erde
n on
twik
keld
.21 R
owe
open
t (sa
men
met
Fre
d K
oett
er) m
et e
en fr
onta
le
aanv
al o
p he
t ide
e va
n ee
n U
topi
a al
s pro
gram
ma
voor
daa
dwer
kelij
ke so
cial
e
‘cro
ss-b
reed
ing,
ass
imil
atio
n, d
isto
rtio
n,
chal
leng
e, r
espo
nse,
impo
siti
on, s
uper
impo
-si
tion
, con
cili
atio
n,’27
in s
hort
a p
roce
ss o
f ‘b
rico
lage
’ med
iati
ng a
nd n
egot
iati
ng b
etw
een
the
plat
onic
idea
l, te
chno
logi
cal p
rogr
ess
and
the
prag
mat
ic s
itua
tion
at h
and.
28
L
ooki
ng b
ack
in h
is 1
995
intr
oduc
tion
to
the
docu
men
tati
on o
f th
e w
ork
of th
e U
rban
D
esig
n st
udio
, Row
e de
scri
bed
the
stud
io
atm
osph
ere
as fo
llow
s:
If n
ot c
onse
rvat
ive,
its
gen
eral
ton
e w
as r
adic
al
mid
dle
of th
e ro
ad. I
t bel
ieve
d in
dia
lect
ic, i
n a
dia
-le
ctic
bet
wee
n th
e pr
esen
t an
d th
e pa
st, b
etw
een
the
empi
rica
l an
d th
e id
eal,
bet
wee
n th
e co
nti
nge
nt a
nd
the
abst
ract
. . .
. Its
idea
l was
a m
edia
tion
bet
wee
n
the
city
of
Mod
ern
arc
hite
ctu
re –
a v
oid
wit
h ob
ject
s –
and
the
hist
oric
al c
ity
– a
soli
d w
ith
void
s.’ 29
How
ever
, rer
eadi
ng C
olla
ge C
ity,
as
wel
l as
cons
ider
ing
othe
r wri
ting
s by
Row
e of
the
1970
s, s
uch
as h
is in
trod
ucti
on to
the
Eng
lish
tr
ansl
atio
n of
Rob
Kri
er’s
Urb
an S
pace
, of
1979
, thi
s par
adox
ical
pro
posi
tion
for a
‘rad
ical
m
iddl
e of
the
road
’ see
ms
hard
ly c
redi
ble.
C
olla
ge C
ity
conc
lude
d w
ith
a co
llec
tion
of
poet
ic a
nd in
spir
ing
exam
ples
, ‘an
abr
idge
d li
st o
f st
imul
ants
, a-t
empo
ral a
nd n
eces
sari
ly
tran
scul
tura
l’ a
ccor
ding
to th
e au
thor
s.30
Yet
, th
is ‘E
xcur
sus’
act
uall
y re
ads
as a
col
lect
ion
wit
h a
rath
er c
lear
, cul
tura
l bia
s, n
amel
y a
desi
re
to re
surr
ect t
he fi
nest
of
Wes
tern
hum
anis
t tr
adit
ion,
whi
ch a
lso
beco
mes
evi
dent
from
th
e po
siti
onin
g of
Mic
hela
ngel
o’s
Pia
zza
del
Cam
pido
glio
as
the
fina
l im
age
to th
e C
olla
ge
Cit
y ar
gum
ent,
and
ope
ning
the
coll
ecti
on o
f se
lect
ed e
xam
ples
. Mod
ern
arch
itec
ture
app
ar-
entl
y do
es n
ot b
elon
g to
this
trad
itio
n at
all
. O
f th
e 55
incl
uded
pro
ject
s th
ere
is o
nly
one
that
can
be
clas
sifi
ed a
s ‘m
oder
n’, n
amel
y V
an E
este
ren’
s de
sign
for B
erli
n’s
Unt
er d
en
Lin
den,
und
er th
e ca
tego
ry o
f ‘M
emor
able
st
reet
s’.31
Mor
eove
r, g
oing
thro
ugh
the
col-
lect
ion
of a
rchi
tect
ural
‘sti
mul
ants
’, th
e ob
jets
tr
ouvé
s rea
dy to
be
used
for a
pra
ctic
e of
‘urb
an-
isti
c co
llag
e’, R
owe
and
Koe
tter
’s p
refe
renc
e fo
r the
(neo
)cla
ssic
al is
all
too
obvi
ous.
It s
eem
s fa
ir to
say
that
Row
e’s
purs
uit o
f ne
ocla
ssic
ism
is
als
o do
min
ant i
n th
e C
olla
ge C
ity
argu
men
t,
rath
er th
an th
e ‘r
adic
al m
iddl
e of
the
road
’.
T
his a
ssum
ptio
n is
supp
orte
d by
the
(re)
publ
icat
ion
of R
owe’
s sem
inal
dou
ble
essa
y
DIR
K V
AN
DE
N H
EU
VE
L32
CO
NT
EX
T \
SPECIFICITY
OASE 76
Smit
hson
took
a p
rinc
ipal
ly d
iffe
rent
pos
itio
n w
ith
rega
rd to
con
text
and
tow
n bu
ildin
g, o
r ur
ban
desi
gn. I
t is h
ere
I bel
ieve
that
we
star
t to
unde
rsta
nd th
e pr
ofou
nd d
iffe
renc
es b
etw
een
the
Bri
tish
con
tem
pora
ries
.
In th
e al
read
y m
enti
oned
197
2 le
ctur
e ‘A
rchi
tect
ure
as T
ownb
uild
ing’
, aft
er h
avin
g st
ated
that
‘a d
esig
n fo
r a b
uild
ing
or b
uild
ing
grou
p co
uld
not b
e ev
olve
d ou
tsid
e of
con
text
’,
Smit
hson
exp
lain
ed w
hy th
is id
ea w
ould
be
such
a m
ajor
dis
tinc
tion
that
one
cou
ld s
peak
of
‘ano
ther
sen
sibi
lity
’, h
e sa
id: ‘
Thi
s so
unde
d ea
sy. B
ut it
cut
aga
inst
all
inhe
rite
d po
st-R
en-
aiss
ance
trad
itio
n. A
trad
itio
n of
“id
eas”
, a
trad
itio
n of
“ab
stra
ctio
n”, a
trad
itio
n of
bu
ildi
ngs
as s
impl
e m
echa
nism
s, a
nd it
cut
s ag
ains
t the
sim
ple
forc
e of
fash
ion.
’36
U
nlik
e R
owe,
Sm
iths
on u
nder
stoo
d
‘con
text
thin
king
’ as
fund
amen
tall
y op
pose
d to
the
neoc
lass
ical
trad
itio
n an
d an
y at
tem
pt
to it
s re
surr
ecti
on. T
o hi
m th
e ne
ocla
ssic
al
trad
itio
n w
as n
ot u
nlik
e th
e In
tern
atio
nal
Styl
e, a
det
ache
d tr
adit
ion
of p
atte
rn b
ooks
an
d fo
rms
to b
e im
itat
ed w
itho
ut c
onsi
dera
-ti
on o
f lo
cal s
peci
fici
ty. T
o th
e Sm
iths
ons,
‘c
onte
xt th
inki
ng’ w
as p
art a
nd p
arce
l of
an
24.
Zie
ook
noo
t 17.
25.
Row
e en
Koe
tter
, op.
cit
.
(noo
t 21)
, p. 6
2-63
en
74-7
5.26
. H
et o
nder
sche
id tu
ssen
neop
alla
dian
ism
e en
neoc
lass
icis
me
is n
iet
al
tijd
een
voud
ig te
mak
en; C
olin
Row
e li
jkt
ee
n du
idel
ijke
voo
rkeu
r
te h
ebbe
n ge
had
voor
het
mee
r gen
eris
che,
impe
-
rial
isti
sche
neo
clas
-
sici
sme,
terw
ijl R
udol
f
W
ittk
ower
een
dui
de-
li
jke
voor
lief
de h
ad v
oor
he
t mee
r Bri
tse
neo-
pall
adia
nism
; zie
voo
r
mee
r hie
rove
r: R
udol
f
W
ittk
ower
, Pal
ladi
o an
d
E
ngl
ish
Pal
ladi
anis
m,
L
onde
n 19
74.
27.
Idem
, p. 8
3.28
. Id
em, p
. 102
-103
. 29
. R
owe,
op.
cit
. (no
ot 1
5),
de
el II
I, p
. 2.
30.
Row
e en
Koe
tter
, op.
cit
.
(noo
t 21)
, p. 1
51.
arch
itec
ture
whi
ch w
as th
e ‘r
esul
t of a
way
of
life’
, a ‘r
ough
poe
try’
dra
gged
out
of
‘the
con
-fu
sed
and
pow
erfu
l for
ces
whi
ch a
re a
t wor
k’,37
so
met
hing
the
Smit
hson
s ha
d st
arte
d to
und
er-
stan
d as
the
unfo
ldin
g of
long
-ter
m p
roce
sses
, of
wha
t the
y ca
lled
the
‘slo
w g
row
th o
f ano
ther
se
nsib
ility
’.38
It is
als
o in
this
sen
se th
at th
e Sm
iths
ons’
pos
itio
n an
d N
ew B
ruta
lism
mus
t be
und
erst
ood
as a
n at
tem
pt to
rege
nera
te th
e id
ea o
f fu
ncti
onal
ism
, of
desi
gn a
s a
‘fin
ding
pr
oces
s’, a
nd a
n et
hica
l im
pera
tive
to m
ove
beyo
nd p
rede
term
ined
, for
mal
cat
egor
ies.
A
s al
read
y su
gges
ted
befo
re, t
he S
mit
h-so
ns’ i
dea
of N
ew B
ruta
lism
was
dev
elop
ed
agai
nst t
he n
eo-P
alla
dian
fash
ion
that
aro
se
amon
g yo
unge
r arc
hite
cts
in th
e U
K in
the
late
De
alge
men
e to
on w
as, z
o ni
et c
onse
rvat
ief,
dan
toch
rad
icaa
l ‘m
iddl
e-of
-the
-roa
d’. M
en
gelo
ofde
in d
iale
ctie
k, e
en d
iale
ctie
k tu
ssen
hed
en e
n ve
rled
en, t
usse
n em
piri
e en
idea
al,
tuss
en to
eval
en
abst
ract
ie. (
…) D
e st
udio
zag
het
als
zij
n id
eaal
te b
emid
dele
n tu
ssen
de
stad
van
de
mod
erne
arc
hite
ctuu
r –
een
leeg
te m
et o
bjec
ten
– en
de
hist
oris
che
stad
– e
en
vast
e vo
rm m
et le
egte
n.29
Bij
her
lezi
ng v
an C
olla
ge C
ity
en b
estu
deri
ng v
an a
nder
e ge
schr
ifte
n va
n R
owe
uit d
e ja
ren
zeve
ntig
, zoa
ls z
ijn
inle
idin
g op
de
Eng
else
ver
tali
ng v
an R
ob
Kri
ers U
rban
Spa
ce u
it 1
979,
kom
t de
para
doxa
le le
uze
van
een
‘rad
ical
e “m
iddl
e-of
-the
-roa
d”’ e
chte
r nau
wel
ijks g
eloo
fwaa
rdig
ove
r. C
olla
ge C
ity
wor
dt a
fges
lote
n m
et e
en v
erza
mel
ing
poët
isch
e en
insp
irer
ende
voo
rbee
lden
, ‘ee
n ve
rkor
te li
jst
prik
kels
, tij
dloo
s en
noo
dzak
elij
kerw
ijs
tran
scul
ture
el’,
ald
us d
e au
teur
s.30
In
feit
e le
est d
eze
‘exc
urs’
ech
ter a
ls e
en v
erza
mel
ing
met
een
vri
j uit
gesp
roke
n cu
ltur
ele
voor
inge
nom
enhe
id, n
amel
ijk e
en v
erla
ngen
het
bes
te v
an d
e w
este
rse
hum
anis
tisc
he tr
adit
ie n
ieuw
leve
n in
te b
laze
n, z
oals
ook
bli
jkt u
it h
et fe
it d
at
ze M
iche
lang
elo’
s P
iazz
a de
l Cam
pido
glio
als
laat
ste
beel
d pl
aats
en b
ij h
et
beto
og v
oor d
e co
llag
esta
d, e
n er
de
verz
amel
ing
gese
lect
eerd
e vo
orbe
elde
n m
ee o
pene
n. K
enne
lijk
maa
kt d
e m
oder
ne a
rchi
tect
uur h
elem
aal g
een
deel
uit
va
n de
ze tr
adit
ie. V
an d
e vi
jfen
vijf
tig
opge
nom
en o
ntw
erpe
n va
lt e
r maa
r één
al
s ‘m
oder
n’ te
cla
ssif
icer
en, n
amel
ijk V
an E
este
rens
ont
wer
p vo
or U
nter
den
36. O
p. c
it. (
note
2).
37.
The
se S
mit
hson
quo
tes
or
igin
ate
from
the
begi
nnin
gs o
f the
New
Bru
talis
t deb
ate.
See
thei
r edi
tori
al st
atem
ents
in: A
rchi
tect
ural
Des
ign,
Janu
ary
1955
, and
thei
r
unti
tled
com
men
ts in
:
Arc
hite
ctur
al D
esig
n, A
pril
1957
, 113
.
38.
The
phr
asin
g po
ints
to a
n
af
fini
ty w
ith
Ray
mon
d
W
illia
ms,
in p
arti
cula
r
his 1
961
The
Lon
g
R
evol
utio
n, w
hich
dis
cus-
ses t
he lo
ng te
rm e
ffec
ts
of
the
Indu
stri
al
R
evol
utio
n on
Bri
tish
soci
ety.
35
figu
ur e
n ac
hter
gron
d ui
t de
gest
altt
heor
ie in
. Dit
leid
t tot
de
inm
idde
ls
bero
emde
, zw
art-
wit
te a
naly
se v
an d
e st
edel
ijke
rui
mte
die
sim
pelw
eg b
esta
at
uit h
et te
rugb
reng
en v
an d
e co
mpl
exit
eit v
an d
e st
ad to
t de
tege
nste
lling
‘vol
ume
en le
egte
’, R
owes
ver
sie
van
het k
lass
ieke
voo
rbee
ld v
an d
e N
olli
-kaa
rt v
an
Rom
e di
e in
de
Urb
an D
esig
n St
udio
was
ont
wik
keld
.24 M
et g
rote
reto
risc
he
krac
ht d
emon
stre
ert d
eze
diag
ram
mat
isch
e w
eerg
ave
dat t
radi
tion
ele
sted
en
een
rijk
e en
vee
lzij
dige
‘ond
erli
ggen
de te
xtuu
r of
bode
m’ z
oude
n he
bben
, in
tege
nste
llin
g to
t de
mod
erne
sta
d, d
ie is
wee
rgeg
even
met
zw
arte
vle
kken
van
vr
ijst
aand
e ‘v
olum
es’ r
ondz
wem
men
d in
een
wit
te z
ee v
an ‘l
eegt
e’ w
aarm
ee
onge
diff
eren
tiee
rde
‘rui
mte
’ is
aang
edui
d. L
e C
orbu
sier
s on
twer
p vo
or S
t. D
ié
(194
5) w
ordt
str
ateg
isch
tege
nove
r de
binn
enst
ad v
an P
arm
a ge
plaa
tst,
en
een
dubb
ele
pagi
na v
an h
et P
lan
Voi
sin
(192
5) v
an d
e m
oder
ne m
eest
er la
at in
één
oo
gops
lag
de g
ruw
elij
ke ra
mp
zien
die
Par
ijs
zou
hebb
en g
etro
ffen
als
het
on
twer
p oo
it w
as u
itge
voer
d.25
H
et tw
eede
ele
men
t van
Row
e en
Koe
tter
s be
toog
hee
ft b
etre
kkin
g op
de
aar
d va
n de
ond
erli
ggen
de ‘t
extu
ur’ v
an d
e st
ad. V
erw
ijze
nd n
aar
de
voor
beel
den
van
keiz
erli
jk e
n pa
usel
ijk
Rom
e, d
e pl
eine
n en
str
aatw
ande
n va
n L
onde
n en
het
Mün
chen
van
Leo
von
Kle
nze,
wor
dt d
eze
text
uur
of
bode
m d
oor
Row
e en
Koe
tter
ged
efin
ieer
d al
s ee
n ve
elhe
id v
an fr
agm
ente
n va
n (n
eo)k
lass
ieke
arc
hite
ctuu
rmod
elle
n.26
Dez
e te
xtuu
r is
het
res
ulta
at v
an
‘kru
isbe
stui
ving
, ass
imil
atie
, ver
vorm
ing,
uit
dagi
ng, r
eact
ie, o
pleg
ging
, ge
laag
dhei
d, v
erzo
enin
g’,27
kor
tom
een
pro
ces
van
‘bri
cola
ge’ b
emid
dele
nd
en o
nder
hand
elen
d tu
ssen
het
pla
toni
sche
idea
al, d
e te
chno
logi
sche
voo
ruit
-ga
ng e
n de
sit
uati
e zo
als
die
zich
in d
e pr
akti
jk v
oord
oet.
28
In
een
teru
gbli
k ui
t 199
5, in
zij
n in
leid
ing
op d
e do
cum
enta
tie
van
het w
erk
van
de U
rban
Des
ign
Stud
io, b
esch
rijf
t Row
e de
sfe
er in
de
stud
io a
ls v
olgt
:
Pla
tteg
ron
d v
an L
e C
orb
usi
er’s
rec
on
stru
ctie
pla
n v
oo
r S
t. D
ié,
zoal
s ge
pu
bli
ceer
d i
n C
oli
n R
ow
e an
d F
red
Ko
ette
rs,
Col
lage
Cit
y /
Fig
ure
gro
un
d pl
an o
f L
e C
orbu
sier
’s r
econ
stru
ctio
n p
lan
for
St.
Dié
as
publ
ishe
d in
Col
in R
owe
and
Fre
d K
oett
er, C
oll
age
Cit
y
An
alyse
van
de
sted
elij
ke
ruim
te v
an d
e bin
nen
stad
van
Par
ma
zoal
s ge
pu
bli
ceer
d i
n C
oli
n R
ow
e an
d F
red
Ko
ette
rs,
Col
lage
Cit
y /
Fig
ure
gro
un
d pl
an o
f th
e in
ner
cit
y of
Par
ma
as p
ubl
ishe
d in
Col
in R
owe
and
Fre
d K
oett
er, C
oll
age
Cit
y.
DIR
K V
AN
DE
N H
EU
VE
L34
CO
NT
EX
T \
SPECIFICITY
OASE 76
O
p di
t pun
t ech
ter n
amen
Alis
on e
n Pe
ter S
mit
hson
, zow
el w
at b
etre
ft d
e kw
esti
e va
n de
aut
onom
ie v
an d
e ar
chit
ectu
ur a
ls v
an n
eocl
assi
cist
isch
idea
lism
e,
als v
an d
e re
cons
truc
tie
van
de tr
adit
ie v
an d
e m
oder
ne a
rchi
tect
uur e
en p
rinc
ipie
el
ande
r sta
ndpu
nt in
met
bet
rekk
ing
tot c
onte
xt, s
tads
plan
ning
en
stad
sont
wer
p. O
p di
t pun
t tre
den
diep
gaan
de v
ersc
hille
n tu
ssen
de
Bri
tse
tijd
geno
ten
aan
het l
icht
.
In d
e le
zing
uit
197
2, ‘A
rchi
tect
ure
as T
ownb
uild
ing’
, ver
klaa
rde
Smit
hson
da
t ‘ee
n on
twer
p vo
or e
en g
ebou
w o
f gr
oep
gebo
uwen
nie
t bui
ten
een
cont
ext
om o
ntw
ikke
ld k
an w
orde
n’ e
n le
gde
verv
olge
ns u
it w
aaro
m d
it id
ee z
o’n
hem
elsb
reed
ver
schi
l uit
maa
kte
dat j
e zo
u ku
nnen
spr
eken
van
‘een
and
ere
gevo
elig
heid
’: ‘D
it k
lonk
gem
akke
lijk
. Maa
r het
gin
g in
tege
n al
le o
verg
eërf
de
post
rena
issa
ncis
tisc
he tr
adit
ie. E
en tr
adit
ie v
an “
idee
ën”
, een
trad
itie
van
“
abst
ract
ie”
, een
trad
itie
van
geb
ouw
en a
ls s
impe
le m
echa
nism
en, e
n he
t gaa
t in
tege
n de
sim
pele
kra
cht v
an d
e m
ode.
’36
In
tege
nste
llin
g to
t Row
e va
tte
Smit
hson
‘con
text
ueel
den
ken’
op
als
fun-
dam
ente
el te
geng
este
ld a
an d
e ne
okla
ssie
ke tr
adit
ie e
n el
ke p
ogin
g de
ze n
ieuw
le
ven
in te
bla
zen.
Wat
hem
bet
rof
vers
chil
de d
e ne
okla
ssie
ke tr
adit
ie n
iet
veel
van
de
Inte
rnat
iona
l Sty
le, e
en n
iet-
gew
orte
lde
trad
itie
van
han
dboe
ken
en v
orm
en d
ie k
onde
n w
orde
n ge
kopi
eerd
zon
der r
eken
ing
te h
oude
n m
et h
et
spec
ifie
ke k
arak
ter v
an e
en p
lek.
Voo
r de
Smit
hson
s w
as ‘c
onte
xtue
el d
enke
n’
onlo
smak
elij
k ve
rbon
den
met
een
arc
hite
ctuu
r die
‘het
resu
ltaa
t was
van
een
1940
s. It
was
larg
ely
base
d on
the
obse
rvat
ion
that
Ren
aiss
ance
and
man
neri
st p
rinc
iple
s of
or
deri
ng w
ere
stil
l at p
lay
in th
e w
ork
of th
e m
oder
n m
aste
rs, a
s in
Mie
s va
n de
r Roh
e’s
proj
ects
for t
he II
T in
Chi
cago
. Col
in R
owe’
s es
say
‘The
Mat
hem
atic
s of
the
Idea
l Vil
la’
(194
7) w
as p
arti
cula
rly
reve
lato
ry, t
oget
her
wit
h hi
s m
ento
r’s
wor
k, R
udol
ph W
ittk
ower
’s
publ
icat
ion
Arc
hite
ctu
ral P
rin
cipl
es in
the
Age
of
Hu
man
ism
(194
9). I
niti
ally
, Ali
son
and
Pete
r Sm
ithso
n w
ould
bri
efly
em
brac
e th
is n
ew fa
shio
n,
publ
icly
def
endi
ng W
ittk
ower
’s p
ubli
cati
on,39
an
d ab
sorb
ing
aspe
cts
of M
ies’
s w
ork
at II
T
and
the
neo-
Pall
adia
n m
anne
r in
thei
r des
ign
for t
he H
unst
anto
n Se
cond
ary
Mod
ern
Scho
ol.
How
ever
– a
s is
gen
eral
ly w
ell-
know
n an
d w
hich
mus
t be
reca
pitu
late
d he
re –
alr
eady
du
ring
the
cons
truc
tion
of
thei
r Hun
stan
ton
Scho
ol, t
hey
wou
ld d
epar
t fro
m th
is tr
ack
from
19
52 o
nwar
d, a
nd s
tart
dev
elop
ing
the
idea
of
New
Bru
tali
sm.40
So, a
t the
tim
e, in
197
2, 2
0 ye
ars l
ater
, whe
n Pe
ter S
mit
hson
cam
e to
Cor
nell
to d
eliv
er h
is
lect
ure
‘Arc
hite
ctur
e as
Tow
npla
nnin
g’, a
nd re
-ap
prop
riat
ed th
e is
sue
of c
onte
xt a
s he
thou
ght
fit,
his
pro
posi
tion
mig
ht b
e co
nsid
ered
a p
rovo
-
31.
Idem
, p. 1
54.
32.
Her
druk
t in:
Row
e, o
p.
ci
t. (n
oot 1
7), p
. 119
-158
.33
. E
en c
once
pt d
at a
l was
voor
bere
id d
oor E
mil
e
K
aufm
ann.
34.
Het
cit
aat ‘
arch
itec
to-
ni
sch
equi
vale
nt v
an d
e
w
et’ k
omt u
it R
owes
anal
yse
van
de o
ntw
ik-
ke
ling
van
Mie
s. Z
ie:
R
owe,
op.
cit
. (no
ot 1
7),
p.
132
.35
. D
e op
kom
st v
an h
et
co
ncep
t van
aut
onom
ie
w
as e
en s
peci
fiek
e li
jn
bi
nnen
het
pos
tmod
erne
beto
og, d
ie s
amen
viel
met
het
idee
van
het
zoge
noem
de n
eora
tio-
nali
sme,
dat
uit
eenl
o-
pe
nde
posi
ties
als
die
van
Ald
o R
ossi
, Pet
er
E
isen
man
en
Osw
ald
Mat
thia
s U
nger
s
zo
u sa
men
bren
gen.
36.
Smit
hson
, op.
cit
.
(noo
t 3).
39.
Pete
r Sm
iths
on, ‘
Let
ter
in
Def
ense
of
W
ittk
ower
’s A
rchi
tect
ural
P
rinc
iple
s in
the
Age
of
H
uman
ism
’, R
IBA
Jo
urna
l, M
arch
195
2.40
. In
his
195
5 es
say
‘The
New
Bru
talis
m’,
Ban
ham
wou
ld p
oint
to th
e
com
peti
tion
ent
ries
for
G
olde
n L
ane
and
Shef
fiel
d U
nive
rsit
y,
bo
th fr
om 1
952.
41.
Tom
Sch
umac
her,
‘Con
text
ualis
m: U
rban
Idea
ls +
Def
orm
atio
ns’,
Cas
abel
la, n
o. 3
59-3
60,
19
71, 7
9-86
.42
. A
s is w
ell-
know
n,
U
nger
s and
Row
e w
ere
not o
n sp
eaki
ng te
rms.
Row
e m
enti
oned
the
inco
mpa
tibi
lité
des
hum
eurs
in th
e in
trod
ucti
on to
As
I w
as S
ayin
g, o
p. c
it.
(n
ote
15),
Vol
ume
II
‘C
orne
llian
a’, 1
996.
cati
on. C
onte
xt a
nd c
onte
xtua
lism
had
bee
n re
disc
over
ed a
s a ‘n
ew’ t
opic
then
, as d
emon
-st
rate
d by
the
publ
icat
ion
of o
ne o
f Row
e’s s
tu-
dent
s, T
hom
as S
chum
ache
r, in
Cas
abel
la, o
nly
one
year
ear
lier.
Und
er th
e he
adin
g of
‘Con
tex-
tual
ism
: Urb
an Id
eals
+ D
efor
mat
ions
’ the
ess
ay
disc
usse
d m
any
of th
e id
eas t
hat w
ould
late
r be
full
y el
abor
ated
by
Row
e hi
mse
lf in
Col
lage
C
ity.
41 O
n th
e ot
her h
and,
ther
e is
no
reco
rd o
f an
y de
bate
surr
ound
ing
Smit
hson
’s v
isit
and
hi
s ide
as o
n co
ntex
t – m
aybe
due
to th
e fa
ct th
at
Smit
hson
was
invi
ted
by U
nger
s and
not
Row
e,
or m
aybe
sim
ply
beca
use
the
post
mod
erni
st
pole
mic
had
n’t f
ully
star
ted
yet.
42
37
Lin
den
in B
erlij
n, in
de
cate
gori
e ‘g
eden
kwaa
rdig
e st
rate
n’.31
Tro
uwen
s, a
ls w
e de
ver
zam
elin
g ar
chit
ecto
nisc
he ‘p
rikk
els’
doo
rnem
en, d
e ob
jets
trou
vés,
kla
ar
voor
geb
ruik
in e
en te
ver
wez
enlij
ken
‘ste
delij
ke c
olla
ge’,
wor
dt d
e vo
orke
ur v
an
Row
e en
Koe
tter
voo
r het
(neo
)kla
ssie
ke m
aar a
l te
duid
elijk
. Het
lijk
t ger
echt
-va
ardi
gd te
stel
len
dat R
owes
neo
clas
sici
stis
che
voor
keur
ook
bep
alen
d is
voo
r he
t bet
oog
voor
de
colla
gest
ad, v
eel m
eer d
an d
e ‘r
adic
ale
“mid
dle-
of-t
he-r
oad”
.’
Dez
e ve
rond
erst
elli
ng w
ordt
bev
esti
gd d
oor d
e (h
er)p
ubli
cati
e va
n R
owes
oo
rspr
onke
lijk
e es
say
over
‘Neo
-“C
lass
icis
m”
and
Mod
ern
Arc
hite
ctur
e’ in
19
73, i
n he
t eer
ste
num
mer
van
Opp
osit
ion
s, e
en te
kst d
ie a
l in
1956
–195
7 w
as
gesc
hrev
en.32
Hie
r kun
nen
we
de tw
eede
bel
angr
ijke
bij
drag
e va
n R
owe
aan
de
herz
ieni
ng v
an h
et d
isco
urs
van
de m
oder
ne a
rchi
tect
uur a
anw
ijze
n, n
amel
ijk
het c
once
pt v
an d
e au
tono
mie
van
het
vak
arc
hite
ctuu
r.33
Het
her
zien
en
pro-
mot
en v
an n
eokl
assi
eke
idea
len
ston
d bi
j Row
e te
n di
enst
e va
n he
t sch
eppe
n va
n w
at h
ij h
et ‘a
rchi
tect
onis
che
equi
vale
nt v
an d
e w
et’ n
oem
de, e
en a
uto-
nom
e au
tori
teit
die
zic
h ve
rhie
f bo
ven
de m
oder
ne c
laim
s da
t de
arch
itec
tuur
m
oest
wor
den
onde
rwor
pen
aan
de e
isen
van
Zei
tgei
st, p
rogr
amm
a en
tech
no-
logi
e.34
Om
zij
n za
ak to
e te
lich
ten,
maa
kte
Row
e st
rate
gisc
h ge
brui
k va
n de
on
twik
keli
ng e
n de
ver
ande
rend
e st
andp
unte
n va
n M
ies
van
der R
ohe.
Row
es
anal
ytis
che
en re
tori
sche
gav
en b
erei
kten
hie
r een
ong
eëve
naar
d ni
veau
: hij
ge
brui
kte
een
mod
erne
mee
ster
en
de o
ntw
ikke
ling
van
die
ns id
eeën
doo
r de
jare
n he
en m
et h
et d
oel e
nkel
e gr
ondb
egin
sele
n ui
t het
beg
in v
an d
e m
oder
ne
trad
itie
te o
ntm
ante
len,
met
nam
e di
e va
n he
t vro
ege
func
tion
alis
me.
Bij
bes
tu-
deri
ng v
an R
owes
ges
chri
ften
uit
die
tijd
(de
jare
n ze
vent
ig) w
ordt
dui
deli
jk d
at
hij h
et c
once
pt v
an e
en a
uton
ome
arch
itec
tuur
ove
rtui
gend
nee
rzet
, par
adox
aal
geno
eg ju
ist d
oor z
ijn
beto
og te
fund
eren
op
ontw
ikke
ling
en b
inne
n de
m
oder
ne a
rchi
tect
uur z
elf,
en
op h
et id
ee v
an s
tede
lijk
con
text
uali
sme.
35
Ali
son
en
Pet
er
Sm
ith
son
, H
et
gebo
uw
vo
or
Th
e E
con
om
ist,
19
59-1
964,
situ
atie
teken
ing
/
Ali
son
an
d P
eter
Sm
ith
son
,
Th
e E
con
omis
t
buil
din
g, 1
959-
1964
, si
te p
lan
DIR
K V
AN
DE
N H
EU
VE
L36
CO
NT
EX
T \
SPECIFICITY
OASE 76
leve
nsw
ijze
’, e
en ‘r
auw
e po
ëzie
’ ont
wor
stel
d aa
n ‘d
e ve
rwar
de e
n m
acht
ige
krac
hten
die
wer
kzaa
m z
ijn’
,37 ie
ts w
at d
e Sm
iths
ons w
aren
gaa
n zi
en a
ls h
et
zich
ont
vouw
en v
an la
nget
erm
ijnpr
oces
sen,
wat
zij
de ‘l
angz
ame
groe
i van
een
an
dere
sens
ibili
teit
’ noe
mde
n.38
Ana
loog
hie
raan
moe
ten
ook
het s
tand
punt
van
de
Smit
hson
s en
het N
ew B
ruta
lism
wor
den
begr
epen
als
een
pog
ing
het i
dee
van
het
func
tion
alis
me,
van
ont
wer
pen
als e
en ‘p
roce
s van
zoe
ken
en v
inde
n’ d
at h
et n
i-ve
au v
an v
oora
f bep
aald
e, fo
rmel
e ca
tego
rieë
n on
tsti
jgt,
nie
uw le
ven
in te
bla
zen.
Z
oals
eer
der g
ezeg
d on
twik
keld
e he
t New
Bru
tali
sm v
an d
e Sm
iths
ons
zich
te
geno
ver h
et n
eopa
llad
iani
sme
dat e
ind
jare
n ve
erti
g on
der j
onge
arc
hite
cten
in
het
Ver
enig
d K
onin
krij
k in
de
mod
e ra
akte
. Dit
ber
ustt
e vo
orna
mel
ijk
op
de o
bser
vati
e da
t de
orde
ning
spri
ncip
es v
an d
e R
enai
ssan
ce e
n he
t man
iëri
sme
nog
alti
jd e
en ro
l spe
elde
n in
het
wer
k va
n de
mod
erne
mee
ster
s, z
oals
in M
ies
van
der R
ohes
ont
wer
pen
voor
IIT
in C
hica
go. V
oora
l Col
in R
owes
ess
ay The
M
athe
mat
ics
of th
e Id
eal V
illa
(194
7) w
as in
dit
opz
icht
een
ope
nbar
ing,
sam
en
met
het
wer
k va
n zi
jn m
ento
r, R
udol
ph W
ittk
ower
s pu
blic
atie
Arc
hite
ctu
ral
Pri
nci
ples
in th
e A
ge o
f H
um
anis
me
(194
9). A
anva
nkel
ijk g
inge
n A
lison
en
Pete
r ko
rte
tijd
mee
in d
eze
mod
e, v
erde
digd
en z
e pu
blie
kelij
k W
ittk
ower
s pub
licat
ie 39
en
ver
wer
kten
ze
aspe
cten
van
Mie
s’ w
erk
aan
IIT
en
de n
eo p
alla
diaa
nse
orde
ning
spri
ncip
es in
hun
ont
wer
p vo
or d
e H
unst
anto
n Se
cond
ary
Mod
ern
Scho
ol. H
et is
ech
ter a
lgem
een
beke
nd e
n he
t mag
hie
r nog
een
s w
orde
n
Sm
iths
on il
lust
rate
d hi
s ar
gum
ent f
or ‘c
on-
text
thin
king
’ by
rela
ting
it to
his
and
Ali
son’
s ow
n pr
acti
ce, h
e sa
id:
In o
ur
own
des
ign
wor
k –
the
‘con
text
’ is
a m
ain
ce
ntr
e of
eff
ort.
It i
s n
ot e
xact
ly a
qu
esti
on o
f ‘fi
t-ti
ng-
in’,
bu
t of
re-m
ater
iali
sin
g, r
e-fo
cusi
ng
– th
e w
ords
are
dif
ficu
lt. T
he c
onte
xt m
ay d
eman
d a
tota
lly
invi
sibl
e bu
ildi
ng
or n
o bu
ildi
ng,
a ‘c
oun
ter-
geom
etry
’ or
a ‘c
onti
nu
atio
n g
eom
etry
’. I
n a
way
li
ke d
ecor
atin
g, r
e-ar
ran
gin
g an
d ‘p
repa
rin
g’ a
ro
om, f
or a
rea
l hom
emak
er, a
rea
l res
tau
rate
ur
or
inn
-kee
per
it is
mor
e th
an a
qu
esti
on o
f ta
ste:
it is
an
act
of
both
con
tin
uit
y an
d re
-gen
erat
ion
.43
To
Smit
hson
this
com
bina
tion
of c
onti
nuit
y an
d re
gene
rati
on is
key
for a
con
text
-res
pons
ive
arch
itec
ture
. The
dif
ficu
lt ta
sk fo
r arc
hite
cts
wou
ld li
e in
the
brin
ging
toge
ther
of t
he ‘q
uali-
ties
of c
onti
nuit
y an
d ne
wne
ss’.
Pet
er S
mit
hson
m
enti
oned
the
Eco
nom
ist b
uild
ing
(195
9-19
64)
as a
n ex
ampl
e fo
r the
‘str
uggl
ing
wit
h th
e id
ea
of c
onti
nuat
ion
and
re-g
ener
atio
n’. H
e al
so
show
ed th
e pr
ojec
ts fo
r St H
ilda’
s col
lege
in
Oxf
ord
(196
7-19
70) a
nd th
eir w
eeke
nd h
ome,
th
e U
pper
Law
n pa
vilio
n (1
959-
1962
).
43.
Op.
cit
. (no
te 2
).44
. I a
m th
inki
ng h
ere
of th
e
wri
ting
s of
Fra
nces
co
D
al C
o an
d K
. Mic
hael
Hay
s, in
par
ticu
lar.
Q
uite
rem
arka
bly,
Sm
iths
on a
lso
incl
uded
th
e A
mer
ican
pro
ject
s of
Mie
s va
n de
r Roh
e in
hi
s ar
gum
ent f
or a
con
text
-res
pons
ive
arch
i-te
ctur
e, c
alli
ng th
e Se
agra
m b
uild
ing
in N
ew
Yor
k ‘a
cle
ar, s
impl
e an
d ea
sily
read
con
text
-co
nsci
ous
urba
n fo
rm’.
It is
rem
arka
ble
to u
s,
sinc
e w
e ha
ve c
ome
to u
nder
stan
d th
e Se
agra
m
as th
e ap
othe
osis
of
the
idea
s of
neg
atio
n,
abse
nce
and
auto
nom
y af
ter t
he It
alia
n an
d A
mer
ican
pos
tstr
uctu
rali
st re
adin
gs o
f M
ies’
s w
ork.
44 Y
et, t
o Sm
iths
on M
ies’
s ‘co
ntex
t-co
n-sc
ious
ness
’ was
a c
lear
‘que
stio
n of
sens
ibili
ty’:
It is
not
a q
ues
tion
of
con
tin
uin
g M
ies’
s sp
ace
and
mea
nin
gs th
at I
am
talk
ing
abou
t – it
is b
ein
g aw
are
of h
is s
pace
an
d m
ean
ings
whe
n m
akin
g fu
rthe
r bu
ildi
ngs
an
d sp
aces
. A q
ues
tion
of
sen
sibi
lity
. A
s M
ies
was
sen
sibl
e n
ot o
nly
of
the
Rac
quet
Clu
b,
but o
f th
e fl
anki
ng
buil
din
gs, t
he ‘n
et’ o
f N
ew
Yor
k, th
e n
atu
re o
f P
ark
Ave
nu
e as
an
urb
an c
hasm
–
all a
s pa
rts
of h
is d
ecis
ion
on
how
to b
uil
d in
that
pa
rtic
ular
pla
ce. M
ies’
s ar
chit
ectu
re a
t its
mar
vell
ous
best
– fo
r ex
ampl
e at
Lak
e S
hore
Dri
ve o
r th
e ea
rly
37.
Dez
e ci
tate
n va
n de
Smit
hson
s zijn
afk
omst
ig
ui
t het
beg
in v
an h
et N
ew
B
ruta
lism
-deb
at. Z
ie h
un
re
dact
ione
le u
itla
ting
en
in
: Arc
hite
ctur
al D
esig
n,
ja
nuar
i 195
5 en
hun
com
-
m
enta
ar (z
onde
r tit
el) i
n:
A
rchi
tect
ural
Des
ign,
apri
l 195
7, p
. 113
.38
. D
e fo
rmul
erin
g ‘l
ang-
zam
e gr
oei’
wijs
t op
affi
nite
it m
et R
aym
ond
Will
iam
s, m
et n
ame
met
di
ens T
he L
ong
Rev
olut
ion
uit 1
961,
waa
rin
de
lang
eter
mijn
effe
cten
van
de In
dust
riël
e R
evol
utie
op d
e B
rits
e sa
men
levi
ng
w
orde
n be
spro
ken.
39.
Pete
r Sm
iths
on,
‘L
ette
r in
Def
ence
of
W
ittk
ower
’s A
rchi
tect
ural
P
rinc
iple
s in
the
Age
of
H
uman
ism
’, R
IBA
Jou
r-
na
l, m
aart
195
2.
39
Ali
son
en
Pet
er
Sm
ith
son
,
geb
ou
w v
oo
r
Th
e E
con
om
ist,
19
59
-19
64
/
Ali
son
an
d P
eter
Sm
ith
son
,
Th
e E
con
omis
t
buil
din
g,
1959
-196
4
DIR
K V
AN
DE
N H
EU
VE
L
CO
NT
EX
T \
SPECIFICITY
OASE 76
moe
ilijk
e ta
ak ru
sten
om
de
‘kw
alit
eite
n va
n co
ntin
uïte
it e
n ni
euw
heid
’ bij
elka
ar
te b
reng
en. P
eter
Sm
iths
on n
oem
de h
et g
ebou
w v
an T
he E
cono
mis
t (19
59–1
964)
als
vo
orbe
eld
van
de ‘w
orst
elin
g m
et h
et id
ee v
an c
onti
nuït
eit e
n he
rsch
eppi
ng’.
Ook
de
ont
wer
pen
voor
St.
Hild
a’s C
olle
ge in
Oxf
ord
(196
7–19
70) e
n hu
n w
eeke
nd-
huis
, het
Upp
er L
awn
pavi
ljoen
(195
9–19
62),
liet
hij
als v
oorb
eeld
en z
ien.
O
pmer
keli
jk is
dat
Sm
iths
on o
ok d
e A
mer
ikaa
nse
ontw
erpe
n va
n M
ies
van
der R
ohe
opna
m in
zij
n be
toog
voo
r een
con
text
gevo
elig
e ar
chit
ectu
ur, e
n he
t Se
agra
m B
uild
ing
in N
ew Y
ork
‘een
hel
dere
, een
voud
ige
en g
emak
keli
jk le
es-
bare
, con
text
bew
uste
ste
deli
jke
vorm
’ noe
mde
. Voo
r ons
is d
at o
pmer
keli
jk,
omda
t wij
het
Sea
gram
Bui
ldin
g na
de
Ital
iaan
se e
n A
mer
ikaa
nse
post
stru
ctu-
rali
stis
che
inte
rpre
tati
es v
an M
ies’
wer
k 44 z
ijn
gaan
zie
n al
s de
apo
theo
se v
an
de id
eeën
van
neg
atie
, abs
enti
e en
aut
onom
ie. M
aar v
oor S
mit
hson
was
Mie
s’
‘con
text
bew
ustz
ijn’
dui
deli
jk e
en ‘k
wes
tie
van
gevo
elig
heid
’:
(…)
ik h
eb h
et n
iet o
ver
een
voo
rtze
ttin
g va
n M
ies’
ru
imte
en
bet
eken
isse
n –
waa
r he
t om
gaa
t is
dat j
e je
bew
ust
ben
t van
zij
n r
uim
te e
n b
etek
enis
sen
als
je n
ieu
we
gebo
uw
en
en r
uim
tes
maa
kt. E
en k
wes
tie
van
gev
oeli
ghei
d. Z
oals
Mie
s zi
ch n
iet a
llee
n b
ewu
st
was
van
de
Rac
quet
Clu
b, m
aar
ook
van
de
gebo
uw
en a
an w
eers
zijd
en, h
et ‘n
etw
erk’
va
n N
ew Y
ork,
het
kar
akte
r va
n P
ark
Ave
nu
e al
s st
edel
ijke
klo
of –
dit
all
es w
as m
ede-
bepa
len
d vo
or d
e be
slis
sin
g ho
e hi
j op
die
spec
ifiek
e pl
ek z
ou b
ouw
en. M
ies’
arc
hite
c-
40.
In z
ijn e
ssay
uit
195
5
‘T
he N
ew B
ruta
lism
’,
ve
rwee
s Ban
ham
naa
r de
prijs
vraa
ginz
endi
ngen
voor
Gol
den
Lan
e en
Shef
fiel
d U
nive
rsit
y,
be
ide
uit 1
952.
41.
Tom
Sch
umac
her,
‘Con
text
ualis
m: U
rban
Idea
ls +
Def
orm
atio
ns’,
Cas
abel
la, n
r. 3
59-3
60,
19
71, p
. 79-
86.
42.
Zoa
ls b
eken
d, k
onde
n
U
nger
s en
Row
e he
t nie
t
m
et e
lkaa
r vin
den.
Row
e
no
emt d
eze
inco
mpa
tibi
lité
de
s hu
meu
rs in
de
inle
i-
di
ng v
an A
s I
was
Say
ing,
op. c
it. (
noot
15)
, Vol
ume
II
‘Cor
nelli
ana’
, 199
6.
43.
Smit
hson
, op.
cit
.
(noo
t 3).
44.
Ik d
enk
hier
in h
et
bi
jzon
der a
an d
e ge
schr
if-
te
n va
n F
ranc
esco
Dal
Co
en
K. M
icha
el H
ays.
buil
din
gs o
n th
e II
T c
ampu
s, to
use
Am
eric
an
exam
ples
of
his
wor
k, is
itse
lf a
sig
n o
f th
e gr
owth
of
a s
ensi
bili
ty a
bou
t cit
ies.
A
s I
have
sai
d el
sew
here
ther
e ha
s be
en, i
n th
is
Cen
tury
, a s
low
-gro
win
g se
nsi
bili
ty o
f th
e m
achi
ne-
serv
ed c
ity.
A s
eein
g th
at it
s ve
ry e
xist
ence
an
d co
n-
tin
ued
an
d co
nti
nu
ous
mai
nte
nan
ce is
a m
irac
le,
and
that
how
del
icat
e is
its
fabr
ic.45
To re
capi
tula
te: f
or th
e Sm
iths
ons,
the
‘new
ness
’ of
the
‘mac
hine
-ser
ved
soci
ety’
– th
e te
ch-
nolo
gy a
nd m
arke
t-dr
iven
con
sum
er so
ciet
y,
the
alle
gedl
y re
sult
ing
loss
of
sens
e of
pla
ce
and
com
mun
ity
– w
as a
cen
tral
and
con
stit
utiv
e pa
rt o
f th
e pr
oble
m o
f a
cont
ext-
resp
onsi
ve
arch
itec
ture
. Thi
s w
as q
uite
unl
ike
Col
in
Row
e’s
prop
osit
ion,
eve
n th
ough
Row
e w
ould
st
art f
rom
an
obse
rvat
ion
sim
ilar
to th
at o
f th
e Sm
iths
ons
that
mod
erni
sati
on, m
oder
n pl
an-
ning
and
mod
erni
st id
eolo
gy e
xerc
ised
a ‘d
isre
-ga
rd fo
r con
text
, dis
trus
t of
soci
al c
onti
nuum
’,
used
‘sym
boli
c ut
opia
n m
odel
s fo
r lit
eral
pu
rpos
es’,
and
hel
d ‘t
he a
ssum
ptio
n th
at th
e ex
isti
ng c
ity
wil
l be
mad
e to
go
away
’.46
Row
e ai
med
to s
olve
the
prob
lem
wit
h an
aut
ono-
mou
s ap
para
tus
cont
aini
ng fo
rmal
str
ateg
ies
of ty
polo
gy, c
ompo
siti
on a
nd tr
ansf
orm
atio
n to
be
depl
oyed
in a
‘bri
cola
ge’ w
ay in
ord
er to
re
vita
lise
the
exis
ting
cit
y fa
bric
. App
aren
tly,
a
‘con
text
uali
st’ a
rchi
tect
ure
as p
ropo
sed
by
Row
e di
d no
t con
side
r new
ness
, mac
hine
s or
oth
er a
spec
ts o
f m
oder
nisa
tion
to h
ave
a pa
rtic
ular
rele
vanc
y to
arc
hite
ctur
al d
isco
urse
an
d th
e de
velo
pmen
t of
any
arch
itec
tura
l la
ngua
ge o
r tec
toni
cs. O
n th
e co
ntra
ry, t
he tw
o si
ngle
refe
renc
es to
con
tem
pora
ry te
chno
logy
th
at w
ere
incl
uded
in th
e ‘E
xcur
sus’
, the
sel
ec-
tion
of i
nspi
ring
exa
mpl
es fo
r the
Col
lage
Cit
y pr
acti
tion
ers,
wer
e ir
onic
ally
pos
itio
ned
unde
r th
e he
adin
g of
‘Nos
talg
ia-p
rodu
cing
inst
ru-
men
ts’.
47
45.
Pete
r Sm
iths
on,
ty
pesc
ript
of
1972
lect
ure;
the
‘els
ewhe
re’ h
e is
refe
rrin
g to
was
Ber
lin,
whe
re P
eter
Sm
iths
on
w
as in
vite
d, a
gain
by
Ung
ers,
to le
ctur
e fo
r
stud
ents
; the
topi
c w
as
te
chno
logy
and
the
‘mac
hine
-ser
ved
soci
ety’
,
the
titl
e of
the
lect
ure
‘W
itho
ut R
heto
ric’
–
an
impl
icit
cri
tici
sm o
f
A
rchi
gram
’s fu
turi
stic
ferv
our,
and
Ban
ham
’s
pr
efer
ence
for I
tali
an
F
utur
ism
.46
. R
owe
and
Koe
tter
, Col
lage
C
ity,
op.
cit
. (no
te 2
1), 3
8.47
. Ib
id.,
172
-173
; Cap
e
C
anav
eral
, and
an
unid
enti
fied
oil
rig.
41
herh
aald
, dat
ze
dit s
poor
van
af 1
952,
al t
ijden
s de
bouw
van
hun
Hun
stan
ton
Scho
ol, v
erlie
ten
en h
et id
ee v
an e
en N
ew B
ruta
lism
beg
onne
n te
ont
wik
kele
n.40
D
us to
en P
eter
Sm
iths
on d
erti
g ja
ar la
ter,
in 1
972,
naa
r Cor
nell
kw
am o
m
zijn
lezi
ng ‘A
rchi
tect
ure
as T
ownp
lann
ing’
te h
oude
n en
poo
gde
de k
wes
tie
van
cont
ext w
eer t
oe te
eig
enen
, kon
zijn
stel
ling
wel
als
een
pro
voca
tie
wor
den
ui
tgel
egd.
Teg
en d
ie ti
jd w
aren
con
text
en
cont
extu
alis
me
hero
ntde
kt a
ls
‘nie
uw’ t
hem
a, z
oals
bli
jkt u
it e
en p
ubli
cati
e sl
echt
s ee
n ja
ar e
erde
r van
een
va
n R
owes
stu
dent
en, T
hom
as S
chum
ache
r, in
Cas
abel
la. O
nder
de
kop
‘Con
-te
xtua
lism
: Urb
an Id
eals
+ D
efor
mat
ions
’ wer
den
in h
et e
ssay
vee
l ide
eën
besp
roke
n di
e la
ter d
oor R
owe
zelf
zou
den
wor
den
uitg
ewer
kt in
Col
lage
C
ity.
41 A
an d
e an
dere
kan
t is
niet
s op
gete
kend
ove
r eni
ge v
orm
van
deb
at ro
nd
Smit
hson
s be
zoek
en
zijn
idee
ën o
ver c
onte
xt –
wel
licht
te w
ijten
aan
het
feit
dat
Sm
iths
on n
iet d
oor R
owe,
maa
r doo
r Ung
ers w
as u
itge
nodi
gd, o
f mis
schi
en g
e-w
oon
omda
t de
post
mod
erne
pol
emie
k no
g ni
et v
olle
dig
op g
ang
was
gek
omen
.42
Sm
iths
on il
lust
reer
de z
ijn b
etoo
g vo
or ‘c
onte
xtue
el d
enke
n’ d
oor t
e ve
rwijz
en
naar
de
prak
tijk
van
Ali
son
en h
emze
lf, m
et d
e w
oord
en: ‘
In o
ns w
erk
zijn
on
ze in
span
ning
en v
oor e
en g
root
dee
l ger
icht
op
de “
cont
ext”
. Het
is n
iet e
cht
een
kwes
tie
van
“in
pass
en”
maa
r van
opn
ieuw
mat
eria
lise
ren,
een
nie
uwe
focu
s vi
nden
– h
et is
moe
ilij
k er
woo
rden
voo
r te
vind
en. M
issc
hien
vra
agt d
e co
ntex
t om
een
com
plee
t onz
icht
baar
geb
ouw
of
hele
maa
l gee
n ge
bouw
, een
“
tege
ngeo
met
rie”
of
een
“vo
ortg
ezet
te g
eom
etri
e”. Z
o is
ook
het
inri
chte
n,
hers
chik
ken
en “
klaa
rmak
en”
van
een
kam
er v
oor d
e w
are
huis
vrou
w, d
e w
are
rest
aura
teur
of
herb
ergi
er m
eer d
an e
en k
wes
tie
van
smaa
k: h
et is
zow
el e
en
daad
van
voo
rtze
ttin
g al
s va
n he
rsch
eppi
ng.’
43
V
oor S
mit
hson
is d
eze
com
bina
tie
van
cont
inuï
teit
en
hers
chep
ping
de
sleu
tel
tot e
en c
onte
xtge
voel
ige
arch
itec
tuur
. Op
de sc
houd
ers v
an d
e ar
chit
ect z
ou d
e
DIR
K V
AN
DE
N H
EU
VE
L
Uit
zich
t va
nu
it
the
Eco
no
mis
t
Pla
za,
gete
ken
d
do
or
Go
rdo
n
Cu
llen
/
Vie
w fr
om t
he
Eco
nom
ist
Pla
za,
draw
ing
by
Gor
don
Cu
llen
40
CO
NT
EX
T \
SPECIFICITY
OASE 76
ontw
erpe
rs v
an d
e co
llag
esta
d, z
ijn
noga
l iro
nisc
h on
derg
ebra
cht o
nder
de
kop
‘nos
talg
ie p
rodu
cere
nde
inst
rum
ente
n’.47
D
AD
EN
VA
N D
E-C
ON
ST
RU
CT
IE E
N D
E-C
ON
TE
XT
UA
LIS
ER
ING
Nat
uurl
ijk v
alt e
r nog
vee
l mee
r te
zegg
en o
ver d
e kw
esti
e va
n co
ntex
t en
de
hist
oris
che
ontw
ikke
ling
van
het d
isco
urs.
Het
hel
e co
ntex
tdeb
at e
n he
t ide
e va
n ee
n co
ntex
tgev
oelig
e ar
chit
ectu
ur w
emel
t van
de
para
doxe
n, e
n m
issc
hien
lijk
t he
t wel
daa
rom
mom
ente
el in
een
slu
imer
ger
aakt
, of
het i
s ge
woo
n ee
n on
mo-
geli
jke
ambi
tie
– de
nk m
aar a
an h
et g
eïrr
itee
rde
‘Fuc
k co
ntex
t’ v
an K
oolh
aas.
B
inne
n he
t dom
ein
van
de a
rchi
tect
uur w
erd
het c
onte
xtde
bat i
n de
jare
n ze
vent
ig u
itei
ndel
ijk
gew
onne
n do
or d
e hi
stor
iste
n-fo
rmal
iste
n, e
n ni
et d
oor
een
nieu
we
gene
rati
e va
n ‘m
ilie
uact
ivis
ten’
– o
fwel
eco
loge
n, s
ocio
loge
n,
stru
ctur
alis
ten,
et c
eter
a, la
at s
taan
doo
r de
gene
rati
e va
n T
eam
10.
Het
was
Ja
mes
Sti
rlin
g, ri
vaal
van
de
Smit
hson
s en
stu
dent
van
Row
e, d
ie a
ls d
e ul
tiem
e ka
mpi
oen
zou
wor
den
begr
oet t
oen
zijn
inze
ndin
g vo
or d
e pr
ijsv
raag
voo
r de
Neu
e St
aats
gale
rie
van
Stut
tgar
t (19
77–1
983)
voo
r rea
lisa
tie
wer
d ui
tver
kore
n.
Het
geb
ouw
, een
inte
llig
ente
mix
van
pop
-art
tech
niek
en, t
ypol
ogis
che
tran
s-fo
rmat
ie e
n hi
stor
isch
e ci
tate
n, w
erd
de u
ltie
me
expr
essi
e va
n de
pos
tmod
erne
m
ode
van
die
tijd
, hel
emaa
l in
de g
eest
van
Row
es p
leid
ooi v
oor e
en n
ieuw
m
anië
rism
e, v
an ‘k
ruis
best
uivi
ng, a
ssim
ilat
ie, v
ervo
rmin
g, u
itda
ging
, an
twoo
rd, o
pleg
ging
, gel
aagd
heid
, ver
zoen
ing’
. Ver
rass
end
geno
eg w
as h
et
A
CT
S O
F D
E-C
ON
ST
RU
CT
ION
AN
D
D
E-C
ON
TE
XT
UA
LIS
AT
ION
N
atur
ally
, the
re a
re m
any
mor
e th
ings
to sa
y on
th
e is
sue
of c
onte
xt a
nd th
e hi
stor
ic d
evel
opm
ent
of th
e di
scou
rse.
The
who
le c
onte
xt d
ebat
e an
d th
e id
ea o
f a c
onte
xt-r
espo
nsiv
e ar
chit
ectu
re is
ph
enom
enal
ly ri
ddle
d w
ith
para
doxe
s, a
nd
perh
aps t
hat i
s why
it se
ems d
orm
ant n
ow, o
r si
mpl
y a
hope
less
am
biti
on –
thin
k of
Koo
lhaa
s’s
exas
pera
ted
‘Fuc
k co
ntex
t’ st
atem
ent.
W
ithi
n th
e fi
eld
of a
rchi
tect
ure,
the
1970
s co
ntex
t deb
ate
was
eve
ntua
lly
won
by
his-
tori
cist
-for
mal
ists
, not
by
a ne
w g
ener
atio
n of
env
iron
men
tali
sts
– or
eco
logi
sts,
soc
iolo
-gi
sts,
str
uctu
rali
sts,
etc
eter
a, le
t alo
ne b
y th
e ge
nera
tion
of
Tea
m 1
0. It
was
Jam
es S
tirl
ing,
a
riva
l of
the
Smit
hson
s an
d st
uden
t of
Row
e,
who
wou
ld b
e ha
iled
as
the
ulti
mat
e ch
ampi
on
whe
n hi
s co
mpe
titi
on e
ntry
for t
he S
tutt
gart
N
eue
Staa
tsga
leri
e (1
977-
1983
) was
cho
sen
to b
e bu
ilt.
A c
leve
r exe
rcis
e in
mix
ing
Pop
Art
tech
niqu
es w
ith
typo
logi
cal t
rans
form
a-ti
on a
nd h
isto
ric
quot
ing,
the
buil
ding
bec
ame
the
ulti
mat
e ex
pres
sion
of
the
post
mod
erni
st
fash
ion
of th
e ti
me,
qui
te in
the
vein
of
Row
e’s
plea
for a
new
man
neri
sm, o
f ‘c
ross
-bre
edin
g,
45.
Smit
hson
, op.
cit
. (no
ot
3)
. De
‘and
ere
plaa
ts’ w
as
B
erlij
n, in
196
6, to
en
Pe
ter S
mit
hson
ook
doo
r
Ung
ers w
erd
uitg
enod
igd
om e
en le
zing
te h
oude
n
vo
or st
uden
ten
– he
t
them
a w
as te
chno
logi
e
en
de
op m
achi
nes w
er-
ke
nde
sam
enle
ving
,
onde
r de
kop
‘Zon
der
re
tori
ek’ –
een
hin
t naa
r
A
rchi
gram
en
Ban
ham
s
voor
keur
voo
r het
Ital
iaan
se fu
turi
sme.
46.
Row
e en
Koe
tter
, op.
cit
.
(noo
t 21)
, p. 3
8.
47.
Idem
, p. 1
72-1
73;
C
ape
Can
aver
al e
n
ee
n on
geïd
enti
fice
erd
boor
eila
nd.
assi
mil
atio
n, d
isto
rtio
n, c
hall
enge
, res
pons
e,
impo
siti
on, s
uper
impo
siti
on, c
onci
liat
ion’
. Su
rpri
sing
ly, i
t was
Ken
neth
Fra
mpt
on w
ho
wou
ld re
cogn
ise
and
prai
se th
e co
ntex
tual
ist
tend
enci
es in
Sti
rlin
g’s
wor
k, a
s ea
rly
as 1
976,
w
hen
he d
iscu
ssed
Sti
rlin
g’s
com
peti
tion
ent
ry
for t
he D
üsse
ldor
f Kun
stsa
mm
lung
Nor
drhe
in-
Wes
tfal
en w
hile
hig
hlig
htin
g th
e ‘n
eo-c
lass
ical
in
tent
’ in
the
wor
k.48
It w
as n
ot b
efor
e 19
83,
whe
n F
ram
pton
form
ulat
ed a
n al
tern
ativ
e to
po
stm
oder
nism
, tha
t he
mad
e a
plea
for a
C
riti
cal R
egio
nali
sm –
a te
rm h
e bo
rrow
ed
from
Ale
xand
er T
zoni
s an
d L
iane
Lef
aivr
e,
but w
hich
may
als
o be
con
side
red
a la
te fr
uit o
f th
e E
ngli
sh d
isco
urse
on
New
Bru
tali
sm, n
eo-
Pall
adia
nism
and
the
Pic
ture
sque
.
How
ever
, it w
ould
be
Col
in R
owe’
s oth
er
stud
ent,
Pet
er E
isen
man
, who
thou
ght R
owe’
s pr
ojec
t to
its u
ltim
ate
cons
eque
nce.
In th
e w
ork
of E
isen
man
the
proc
ess o
f bri
cola
ge, i
mpo
siti
on,
supe
rim
posi
tion
and
so o
n, w
as e
labo
rate
d fr
om
post
func
tion
alis
m in
to d
econ
stru
ctio
n, a
nd
one
mig
ht a
dd, d
econ
text
ualis
atio
n. M
ore
than
48.
Ken
neth
Fra
mpt
on,
‘S
tirl
ing
in C
onte
xt.
B
uild
ings
and
Pro
ject
s
19
50-1
975’
, RIB
A
Jo
urn
al, M
arch
197
6,
10
2-10
4.
43
tuu
r op
zij
n s
chit
tere
nds
t – b
ijvo
orbe
eld
aan
Lak
e S
hore
Dri
ve, o
f de
vro
ege
gebo
uw
en
op d
e II
T-c
ampu
s, o
m d
e A
mer
ikaa
nse
voo
rbee
lden
van
zij
n w
erk
te n
oem
en –
is o
p zi
chze
lf a
l een
teke
n v
an e
en g
roei
ende
gev
oeli
ghei
d te
n a
anzi
en v
an s
tede
n.
Z
oals
ik e
lder
s al
heb
gez
egd,
is e
r in
dez
e ee
uw
gel
eide
lijk
een
gev
oeli
ghei
d ge
groe
id
voor
de
op m
achi
nes
wer
ken
de s
tad.
Een
bes
ef d
at h
et e
en w
onde
r is
dat
hij
übe
rhau
pt
best
aat e
n in
sta
nd
geho
ude
n k
an w
orde
n, e
n h
oe d
elic
aat h
et w
eefs
el e
rvan
is.45
Sam
enva
tten
d: v
oor d
e Sm
iths
ons
was
de
‘nie
uwhe
id’ v
an d
e ‘o
p m
achi
nes
wer
kend
e sa
men
levi
ng’ –
de
tech
nolo
gie
en d
e m
arkt
gest
uurd
e co
nsum
ente
n-sa
men
levi
ng e
n he
t ver
lies
aan
pla
ats-
en
gem
eens
chap
sbes
ef d
at d
aaru
it z
ou
voor
tvlo
eien
– e
en c
entr
aal e
n co
nsti
tuer
end
onde
rdee
l van
het
pro
blee
m v
an
een
cont
extg
evoe
lige
arc
hite
ctuu
r. C
olin
Row
e kw
am to
t een
hee
l and
ere
stel
ling
, al g
ing
hij u
it v
an e
en v
erge
lijk
bare
obs
erva
tie
als
de S
mit
hson
s,
nam
elij
k da
t de
mod
erni
seri
ng, d
e m
oder
ne s
tads
plan
ning
en
ideo
logi
e ‘v
oor-
bijg
inge
n aa
n de
con
text
en
het m
aats
chap
peli
jke
cont
inuü
m w
antr
ouw
den’
, ge
brui
kmaa
kten
van
‘sym
bolis
che,
uto
pisc
he m
odel
len
voor
lett
erlij
ke d
oele
inde
n’
en u
itgi
ngen
‘van
de
aann
ame
dat d
e be
staa
nde
stad
wel
zal
ver
dwij
nen’
.46
Row
e w
ilde
het
pro
blee
m o
plos
sen
met
een
aut
onoo
m a
ppar
aat b
esta
ande
uit
fo
rmel
e ty
polo
gisc
he, c
ompo
sito
risc
he e
n tr
ansf
orm
eren
de s
trat
egie
ën d
ie
als
in e
en ‘b
rico
lage
’ moe
sten
wor
den
toeg
epas
t om
het
bes
taan
de s
tede
lijk
e w
eefs
el te
revi
tali
sere
n. K
enne
lijk
had
den
bij e
en ‘c
onte
xtua
list
isch
e’ a
rchi
tec-
tuur
zoa
ls R
owe
die
voor
stel
de n
ieuw
heid
, mac
hine
s of
and
ere
aspe
cten
van
de
mod
erni
seri
ng g
een
spec
iale
rele
vant
ie v
oor h
et a
rchi
tect
uurd
isco
urs
of
voor
de
ontw
ikke
ling
van
de
taal
van
de
arch
itec
tuur
of
bouw
kund
ige
prak
tijk
. In
tege
ndee
l, d
e en
ige
twee
ver
wij
zing
en n
aar h
eden
daag
se te
chno
logi
e di
e vo
orko
men
in d
e ‘e
xcur
s’, d
e se
lect
ie v
an in
spir
eren
de v
oorb
eeld
en v
oor d
e
Jam
es S
tirl
ing,
Neu
e S
taat
sgal
erie
, S
tutt
gart
, 1
97
7-1
98
3,
inga
ng
en t
erra
s /
Jam
es S
tirl
ing,
Neu
e S
taat
sgal
erie
, S
tutt
gart
, 19
77-1
983,
en
tran
ce a
nd
fron
t te
rrac
e
DIR
K V
AN
DE
N H
EU
VE
L42
CO
NT
EX
T \
SPECIFICITY
OASE 76
De
in h
et o
og s
prin
gen
de c
ult
ure
le g
ron
dreg
el is
het
cre
ëren
van
‘pla
ats’
; het
alg
emen
e m
odel
dat
in ie
dere
toek
omst
ige
ontw
ikke
lin
g m
oet w
orde
n to
egep
ast i
s de
en
clav
e,
dat w
il z
egge
n, h
et o
msl
oten
frag
men
t waa
rdoo
r de
on
opho
ude
lijk
e st
ortv
loed
van
een
pl
aats
-loo
s, v
ervr
eem
den
d co
nsu
men
tism
e ko
rtst
ondi
g ee
n h
alt w
ordt
toeg
eroe
pen
.50
De
nadr
uk o
p en
clav
es e
n fr
agm
ente
n is
wel
lich
t het
dui
deli
jkst
e vo
orbe
eld
van
een
van
de m
eest
onw
aars
chij
nlij
ke s
tell
inge
n in
het
con
text
deba
t: d
at
het m
ogel
ijk
zou
zijn
om
zow
el c
onte
xtue
el a
ls k
riti
sch
te z
ijn.
Kri
tiek
of
een
krit
isch
e ho
udin
g is
een
pri
ncip
ieel
mod
ern
conc
ept e
n ve
rond
erst
elt
per
defi
niti
e de
pos
itie
of
alth
ans
de b
lik
van
een
buit
enst
aand
er. D
e vr
aag
is n
iet n
ieuw
, maa
r li
jkt n
og a
ltij
d cr
ucia
al v
oor
de a
rchi
tect
uurp
rakt
ijk:
ho
e te
lave
ren
tuss
en a
uton
omie
en
voll
edig
eng
agem
ent?
48.
Ken
neth
Fra
mpt
on,
‘S
tirl
ing
in C
onte
xt.
B
uild
ings
and
Pro
ject
s
19
50–1
975’
, RIB
A J
ourn
al,
m
aart
197
6, p
. 102
-104
.49
. A
liso
n Sm
iths
on,
‘T
he S
mit
hson
s go
ne
sw
imm
ing’
, typ
oscr
ipt,
geda
teer
d 2
juli
197
8,
ui
t het
Sm
iths
ons
arch
ief;
een
typi
sche
rege
l: ‘N
ow it
is th
e er
a of
the
ragp
icke
rs
an
d th
e an
tiqu
e de
aler
s.
So
be
it; i
t is
no jo
y to
figh
t
the
zeit
geis
t.’
50.
Ken
neth
Fra
mpt
on,
‘P
rosp
ects
for a
Cri
tica
l
Reg
iona
lism
’, in
: K.
N
esbi
tt (r
ed.)
, The
oriz
ing
a
New
Age
nda
for
Arc
hite
c-
tu
re. A
n A
nth
olog
y of
A
rchi
tect
ura
l The
ory
1965
–
19
95, N
ew Y
ork
1996
,
p. 4
82.
anyo
ne e
lse,
Eis
enm
an su
ccee
ded
in ra
dica
lisin
g R
owe’
s ide
as, t
hus n
ot o
nly
dem
onst
rati
ng th
e pa
rado
x of
Row
e’s p
roje
ct to
con
stru
ct a
uni
-ve
rsal
, hum
anis
t tra
diti
on th
at a
ctua
lly se
ems
quit
e a-
hist
oric
al a
nd d
etac
hed
from
his
tori
cal
cont
ext,
but
als
o by
mov
ing
beyo
nd th
at sa
me
hum
anis
t tra
diti
on. W
here
as E
isen
man
thus
op
ened
a n
ew d
isco
urse
, ver
y di
ffer
ent f
rom
the
Eng
lish
one
on m
oder
n ar
chit
ectu
re, A
lison
and
Pe
ter S
mit
hson
had
mov
ed in
to th
e m
argi
ns
and
‘gon
e sw
imm
ing’
as t
hey
them
selv
es p
ut
it.49
The
re th
ey w
ould
dev
elop
thei
r id
ea o
f a
‘con
glom
erat
e or
der’
, a r
edef
init
ion
of N
ew
Bru
tali
sm a
nd T
eam
10
urba
nism
aim
ed a
t the
cr
eati
on o
f in
viol
ate
frag
men
ts a
s sa
fe h
aven
s in
the
larg
er fa
bric
that
is m
oder
n, g
loba
l so
ciet
y. L
ooki
ng b
ack
it r
eads
as
quit
e in
syn
c w
ith
Fra
mpt
on’s
ple
a fo
r a C
riti
cal R
egio
nalis
m:
Its
sali
ent c
ult
ura
l pre
cept
is ‘p
lace
’ cre
atio
n; t
he
gen
eral
mod
el to
be
empl
oyed
in a
ll fu
ture
dev
elop
-m
ent i
s th
e en
clav
e th
at is
to s
ay, t
he b
oun
ded
frag
-m
ent a
gain
st w
hich
the
ceas
eles
s in
un
dati
on o
f a
plac
e-le
ss, a
lien
atin
g co
nsu
mer
ism
wil
l fin
d it
self
m
omen
tari
ly c
heck
ed.50
49.
Ali
son
Smit
hson
,
‘The
Sm
iths
ons
... g
one
swim
min
g’, t
ypes
crip
t
date
d 2
July
197
8, fr
om th
e
Smit
hson
arc
hive
; a ty
pica
l
line
read
s: ‘N
ow it
is th
e
er
a of
the
ragp
icke
rs a
nd
th
e an
tiqu
e de
aler
s. S
o
be
it; i
t is
no jo
y to
figh
t
the
zeit
geis
t.’
50.
Ken
neth
Fra
mpt
on,
‘P
rosp
ects
for a
Cri
tica
l
Reg
iona
lism
’, in
: Kat
e
N
esbi
tt (e
d.),
The
oriz
ing
a
New
Age
nda
for
A
rchi
tect
ure
. An
An
thol
ogy
of
Arc
hite
ctu
ral T
heor
y
19
65-1
995
(New
Yor
k:
P
rinc
eton
Arc
hite
ctur
al
P
ress
, 199
6), 4
82.
Jam
es S
tirl
ing,
Neu
e S
taat
sgal
erie
, S
tutt
gart
, 1
97
7-1
98
3,
situ
atie
tek
enin
g /
Jam
es S
tirl
ing,
Neu
e S
taat
sgal
erie
, S
tutt
gart
, 19
77-
1983
, si
te p
lan
45
Ken
Fra
mpt
on d
ie d
e co
ntex
tual
isti
sche
tend
ense
n in
Sti
rlin
gs w
erk
onde
r-ke
nde
en p
rees
. Dat
dee
d hi
j al i
n 19
76, t
oen
hij S
tirl
ings
inze
ndin
g vo
or d
e K
unst
sam
mlu
ng N
ordr
hein
-Wes
tfal
en in
Düs
seld
orf b
espr
ak e
n de
‘neo
klas
siek
e in
tent
ie’ i
n he
t wer
k be
nadr
ukte
.48 P
as in
198
3 fo
rmul
eerd
e F
ram
pton
een
al
tern
atie
f vo
or h
et p
ostm
oder
nism
e, to
en h
ij p
leit
te v
oor e
en k
riti
sch
regi
ona-
lism
e –
een
term
die
hij
leen
de v
an A
lexa
nder
Tzo
nis
en L
iane
Lef
aivr
e, m
aar
die
ook
te b
esch
ouw
en is
als
een
late
vru
cht v
an h
et E
ngel
se d
ebat
ove
r het
N
ew B
ruta
lism
, het
neo
pall
adia
nism
e en
het
pic
ture
sque
.
Het
was
ech
ter P
eter
Eis
enm
an, d
e an
dere
stud
ent v
an C
olin
Row
e, d
ie R
owes
pr
ojec
t tot
zij
n ui
ters
te c
onse
quen
tie
door
dach
t. In
het
wer
k va
n E
isen
man
w
erd
het p
roce
s va
n br
icol
age
via
post
func
tion
alis
me
uitg
ewer
kt to
t dec
on-
stru
ctie
, en,
zo
zou
men
era
an k
unne
n to
evoe
gen,
de-
cont
extu
alis
erin
g. M
eer
dan
wie
ook
sla
agde
Eis
enm
an e
rin
Row
es id
eeën
te ra
dica
lise
ren,
waa
rmee
hij
ni
et a
llee
n de
par
adox
aan
toon
de v
an R
owes
wen
s om
een
uni
vers
ele,
hum
anis
-ti
sche
trad
itie
te c
onst
ruer
en d
ie in
feit
e vo
lkom
en a
hist
oris
ch w
as e
n lo
ssto
nd
van
de h
isto
risc
he c
onte
xt, m
aar w
aarm
ee h
ij te
vens
die
zelf
de h
uman
isti
sche
tr
adit
ie a
chte
r zic
h li
et. T
erw
ijl E
isen
man
ald
us e
en n
ieuw
dis
cour
s op
ende
, he
el a
nder
s da
n he
t Eng
else
dis
cour
s ov
er m
oder
ne a
rchi
tect
uur,
war
en A
liso
n en
Pet
er S
mit
hson
naa
r de
mar
ge u
itge
wek
en, w
aar z
e m
aar w
at ‘r
ond
ging
en
zwem
men
’, z
oals
ze
het z
elf
zeid
en.49
Daa
r ont
wik
keld
en z
e hu
n id
ee v
an e
en
‘con
glom
erat
e or
der’
, een
her
defi
niti
e va
n he
t New
Bru
tali
sm e
n de
ste
den-
bouw
kund
ige
idee
ën v
an T
eam
10,
ger
icht
op
het c
reër
en v
an o
nges
chon
den
frag
men
ten
en b
esch
erm
de p
lekk
en in
het
gro
tere
wee
fsel
van
de
mod
erne
, m
ondi
ale
sam
enle
ving
. Ter
ugki
jken
d va
llen
de o
vere
enko
mst
en o
p m
et F
ram
pton
s pl
eido
oi v
oor e
en k
riti
sch
regi
onal
ism
e:
DIR
K V
AN
DE
N H
EU
VE
L
Jam
es S
tirl
ing,
Neu
e S
taat
sgal
erie
, S
tutt
gart
, 1
97
7-1
98
3,
iso
no
met
rie
van
de
entr
ee e
n d
e ro
nd
e za
al /
Jam
es S
tirl
ing,
Neu
e S
taat
sgal
erie
, S
tutt
gart
, 19
77-1
983,
isom
etri
c vi
ew o
f th
e en
tran
ce h
all a
nd
rotu
nda
44
CO
NT
EX
T \
SPECIFICITY
OASE 76
DE
CO
NT
EX
T V
AN
T
RA
DIT
ION
AL
ISM
E
TH
E C
ON
TE
XT
OF
T
RA
DIT
ION
AL
ISMH
AN
S V
AN
DE
R H
EIJ
DE
N
47
A
UT
EU
RS
NO
OT
:D
eze
teks
t is
uite
raar
d he
t res
ulta
at v
an v
ele
uitw
isse
ling
en, z
owel
aca
dem
isch
e al
s in
-fo
rmel
e ge
spre
kken
en
corr
espo
nden
tie.
Het
is d
ankz
ij C
hris
tine
Boy
er d
at ik
mij
bew
ust
wer
d va
n he
t bel
ang
van
de s
peci
fici
teit
van
het
Bri
ts d
ebat
. Ten
twee
de w
il ik
gra
ag A
lan
C
olqu
houn
bed
anke
n vo
or h
et g
ener
eus
dele
n va
n zi
jn e
rvar
inge
n en
ged
acht
en o
ver
het
onde
rwer
p. T
en s
lott
e ga
at m
ijn
dank
uit
naa
r C
olom
bia
Uni
vers
ity,
Joa
n O
ckm
an,
Mar
y M
cLeo
d, R
einh
old
Mar
tin
en K
enne
th F
ram
pton
, voo
r hu
n ui
tnod
igin
g om
bij
het
20
07 B
uell
-col
loqu
ium
mij
n on
derz
oek
te p
rese
nter
en.
Ver
tali
ng:
Boo
kmak
ers,
Au
ke v
an d
en B
erg
The
em
phas
is o
n en
clav
es a
nd fr
agm
ents
is
perh
aps
the
mos
t luc
id d
emon
stra
tion
of
one
of th
e m
ost i
mpr
obab
le p
ropo
siti
ons
in th
e co
ntex
t deb
ate:
that
it w
ould
be
poss
ible
to
be b
oth
cont
extu
al a
nd c
riti
cal.
Cri
tica
lity
, or
crit
ique
is a
key
mod
ern
conc
ept,
and
pre
sum
es
an o
utsi
der p
osit
ion
by d
efin
itio
n, o
r at l
east
an
out
side
r’s
look
. Alt
houg
h ha
rdly
new
, thi
s m
ight
sti
ll b
e th
e ke
y qu
esti
on fo
r arc
hite
ctur
e pr
acti
ce: h
ow to
neg
otia
te b
etw
een
auto
nom
y an
d fu
ll e
ngag
emen
t?
A
UT
HO
R’S
NO
TE
:N
atu
rall
y, th
is te
xt is
the
outc
ome
of m
any
ex-
chan
ges,
aca
dem
ic o
nes
, bu
t als
o in
form
al c
onve
rsa-
tion
s an
d co
rres
pon
den
ce. I
’d li
ke to
cre
dit C
hris
tin
e B
oyer
her
e, fo
r m
akin
g m
e aw
are
of th
e im
port
ance
of
the
spec
ifici
ties
of
the
Bri
tish
deb
ate.
Sec
ond,
I
wis
h to
exp
ress
my
grat
itu
de to
Ala
n C
olqu
hou
n
who
was
so
gen
erou
s in
sha
rin
g hi
s ex
peri
ence
s an
d th
ough
ts o
n th
e su
bjec
t. F
inal
ly, I
hav
e to
than
k
Col
um
bia
Un
iver
sity
, Joa
n O
ckm
an, M
ary
McL
eod,
Rei
nho
ld M
arti
n a
nd
Ken
net
h F
ram
pton
, fo
r in
viti
ng
me
to th
e 20
07 B
uel
l col
loqu
ium
to
pres
ent m
y re
sear
ch.
DIR
K V
AN
DE
N H
EU
VE
L46
Tony Fretton
Tony Fretton
