Acceleration and Rationalization

1

Volu

me

47Volume 47

‘The system’ is oft lamented to little

effect. Aside from something out of our

hands, what is ‘the system’, anyways?

And how out of our hands is it, really?

In this issue of Volume, we’re collecting

a series of definitions, maps and

strategies for intervening in it.

leveraging To position ones efforts

within a system so that its outcomes

are multiplied by the system itself.

short-circuiting. To modulate

resistance so that either excessive

or insufficient current flows.

disrupting To develop alternative

processes and replace existing

technologies.

infecting To introduce an alien

and viral presence.

25 Latent City Yaohua Wang

32 The Project of a Collective Line

Godofredo Enes Pereira

39 Neck of the Moon Design Earth

43 Cos mic Cir cuitry Sasha Engelmann

2 Editorial Arjen Oosterman

4 Mining Value Lionel Devlieger interview 13 Resist, Release,

Retire, Repeat Debbie Chen

21 Expanding Dredge Geologics

Neeraj Bhatia / The Open Workshop

122 Coup De Grâce Patrik Schumacher

125 Infinite Circulation Ross Exo Adams

130 Babel Edwin Gardner and

Christiaan Fruneaux

134 Sample and Hold Robert Gerard Pietrusko

140 Protocols of Interplay Keller Easterling

101 Revolution as a Techni cal Question

Amador Fernández-Savater

104 Geographies of Uncertainty

Ghazal Jafari

109 Two Liquids Tom Fox

116 Back to the Source Thomas Rau interview

92 Unknown Unknowns Rob Holmes

96 Open Supply Blockchains

Guy James

99 Deposition Effects Jesse LeCavalier

69 Acceleration and Rationalization

Francesco Marullo

79 Rewiring Territories The Petropolis

of Tomorrow

87 Polysynthetic Reclamation

Bruno De Meulder and Kelly Shannon

49 Cycles of Creativity Jan Jongert interview

55 Metabolic Wastebelts for Suburbia

Alan M. Berger et al. and MIT Center for Advanced Urbanism

61 Logistical Hijack Clare Lyster

65 Global Security Pipeline

Nick Axel

THESYSTEM

V47_BW_1MRT16-new grid-BIG-_JN_IB.indd 1 7/03/16 12:41

68 69

Volu

me

47

‘HOTEL, CONGRESS AND ADMINISTRATION BUILDING for the S-Bahnhof Lehrter Bahnhof’ by Jürgen Peter, part of the ‘Schnellbahn und Gebäude’ studio (1968).


68 69

Volu

me

47

A city is not a uniform entity but rather the assemblage of self-standing parts dialectically juxtaposed, each resulting from the stratifi ca-tion of diverging uses and activities, political intentions and economic processes, geo graphi-cal con ditions and typological configurations. From here, we reach an ambivalent under stand-ing of logistics: either as the apparatus framing and exploiting the unmeasurable value produced by such a hybrid ensem ble of clashing differ-ences, or, to the contrary, as the system for exchanging goods and information indispen-sable to produce and reproduce the city and its inhabitants.

Whereas the former considers logistics in a reactionary perspective as a pure adminis-tra tive technology to let everything flow, the latter opens up a progressive hypothesis. As Alberto Toscano claimed, once liberated from the abstract compulsions of value and

exchange and configured within forms of col-lec tive control, logistics became, and could become again, a crucial instrument for collec-tive production as well as for an equal access and redistribution of resources.1

Despite not excluding each other, these two approaches have led to diverging strategies of opposition. Moving from the

assump tion that the vulnerability of capitalism lies in the system of distribution, the ´logistics as exploitative frame’ approach endorses breakage, sabotage and interruption as possi-bili ties for antagonism. The other deliberately accepts the necessity of logistics and seeks to hijack its network power towards common benefits, either by way of acceleration or by collectivization.

An obvious example of architectural accel-eration is Archizoom’s NoStop City, which indefinitely intensified the technical apparatus of capitalist production by endlessly repeating the typical plan of the factory across the entire planet to make “the brain of the system mad.”2 The expo nential increase of exchange and com-

munications would have turned logis tics into a self-destructing machine, inter nally dismantling the apparatus of exploi ta tion by means of its own spatial principles.

A coeval yet contrary design applica-tion of such an accelerationist perspec tive can be found in Oswald Mathias Ungers’ architectural experiments from 1963 to 1968 at TU Berlin. Indeed, post-war Berlin offered fertile ground for radical explora-tions: the construction of relatively vast quantities of dwellings was urgently needed; infrastructures had to be repaired and extended; production sites had to be implemented; and new civic facil-ities had to be built.

Delving into what he defined the constituent urban ‘structures’ of Berlin as a divided-city where the wall had just

recently been erected – highways, shopping streets, parks, waterways, metro lines railways –Ungers firmly accepted the logistical nature of the contemporary metropolis. With this Ungers tested an innovative design methodology with his students and personally published their work, which went on to inspire contemporary architecture by way of their black-an-white

FRANCESCO MARULLO LEADING UP TO HIS FAMOUS PROJECT BERLIN: A GREEN ARCHIPELAGO, OM UNGERS LED A SERIES OF DESIGN STUDIOS AT TU BERLIN. HE EXPERIMENTED WITH THE SYNTHESIS OF ARCHITECTURE AND INFRA STRUCTURE AS A MEANS OF SUBVERTING THE FRAGMENTED, DIVIDED AND WARTORN LANDSCAPE OF BERLIN AT THE TIME. FRANCESCO MARULLO LOOKS BACK TO SEE WHAT WE CAN LEARN FROM UNGERS AND BRING INTO TODAY’S INCREASINGLY LOGISTICAL PROCESSES OF URBANIZATION.

ACCEL-ERATION AND RATIONAL-IZATION


70 71

Volu

me

47

theoretical conception that defines the theme of fragmentation. These contradictions do not shut themselves up i n their antithetical nature, but are integrated into an inclusive image. This does not only apply to the contradictions between individual works of architecture, and hence between architectural forms and styles, or to the contradictions present in the urban environment relating to spaces, places and settings, but also to those between designed and natural environment, and therefore between culture and nature.”4

The strenuous effort to obtain variation within unity was what for Ungers metaphori cally characterized as a truly democratic society. Key to this was an agonistic confrontation among parties.5 Hadrian’s villa in Tivoli, or Friedrich Schinkel’s Havelanshaft reflexively epitomized Ungers’ idea of the city as a complex dialec-tical whole. First conceived as the antithesis to Hippodamus’ all-embracing organisztion of the grid, Hadrian’s villa is a collection of archi-tectural elements retracing the accomplish-ments of the Emperor, ranging from the temples and channels of Egypt to the Caryatids of Greece. Objects functioned like places and places like memories, with their own idiosyncratic charac-ter, competing but also mutually enriching each other.6 As a strategic disposition of interrelated architectural interventions, Schinkel’s Havellandschaft in the Glieniecke Schlosspark con versely framed a whole territorial extension by repeat-ing single architectural elements, such as a bridge or a column, in series of self-interpretive morphological transformations.

The lessons learned from Schinkel would provide Ungers the planning criteria he would constantly rework from his Cologne Grünzug Süd project in 1962 to the more famous 12 theses of Berlin Green Archipelago in 1977.7 Within this, Ungers’ studios at TU Berlin were vital to his design methodology’s development and refinement. The architectural project for Ungers was ultimately an exploration and further re-articulation of formal themes found in the city as raw material itself. Thus, the task of the architect was to unfold the potential of the different fragments of a city, proposing new strategies of arrangement that intensify their collective assemblage without limiting their specific singularities. In this way, the architec-tural project could be defined a ‘rationalization of the existing’, whose internal logic did not itself derive from any ideology but rather stem-med from the conscious selection of constitu tive elements of the existing reality.

booklets. Each studio was dedicated to either one or a series of these ‘logistical structures’ Ungers identified in the then-contemporary Berlin, including: Expressways and Buildings in 1966; Squares and Streets and Houses and Parks in 1967; Traffic Line Spree, Wuppertal Sus-pended Railway, Housing Buildings and High-Speed Railway and Buildings from 1968; Berlin 1995 and Block Renovation and Parking in 1969. Students investigated the spatial and social effects of infrastructure in and on Berlin’s urban fabric, each time proposing a constellation of site-specific architectural interventions capable of enhancing communication and the possibilities of encounter; channeling and redistributing the city’s common wealth.

Preceded by a Team X meeting hosted by Ungers himself at TU Berlin, the studio series was kicked off by Peter Smithson who presen ted the manifesto Without Rethoric and whose attention to spatial connectivity and the ‘knitting and fitting’ of existing conditions presented numerous affinities with Ungers’ work. The Smithsons remarked the crucial importance of the systems of access for regulating the evolution of any urban structure – from roads and private parkings to the overall traffic net-work. Accessibility governs the intensity and types of use; it accelerates and arrests growth and congestion; it can stimulate interchange or sever connections by the same measure. This indeed constituted a perfect introduction for a possible integration between logistics and architectural form, which would in fact resonate throughout all of the studios.

Nevertheless, the most crucial passage of Without Rhetoric was the reconsideration of Mies’ architecture and the sober use of typi-cal plans and technology to both ennoble and enable the life of its inhabitants. In this sense, as remarked by Kenneth Frampton, the Smithson’s Economist Building marked a clear shift in their operative methodology, focusing on the speci-ficity of each building “as a unique fragment, but a fragment which contains within itself for-mal and organizational seeds which could lead freely to a group-form”.3 The idea of consider-ing the city as an archipelago of meaningful frag-ments, each built upon its distinguished inter-nal logic yet resonating within a coherent whole was indeed familiar to Ungers’ research, for which he often adopted Nicolas of Cusa’s notion of the coincidentia oppositorum, namely the possibility to accommodate variety and opposi-tion in unity:

“the coincidence of antitheses and not their overcoming, lies at the bottom of the


70 71

Volu

me

47

‘REDEVELOPMENT OF KREUZBERG’, by Bernhard Dittrich, part of the ‘Blocksanierung und Parken’ studio (1969).

‘REDEVELOPMENT OF KREUZBERG’, by Bernhard Dittrich, part of the ‘Block sanierung und Parken’ studio (1969).


72 73

Volu

me

47

COVER of ‘Berlin 1995. Planungsmodelle für eine Fünfmillionenstadt im Übergang zu den siebziger Jahren’, Veröffentlichungen zur Architektur, no. 25 (Berlin, 1969).


72 73

Volu

me

47It is interesting, in this sense, that the last

image of Ungers’ publication Grossformen im Wohnungsbau was Albrecht Dürer’s ‘fortress-city’, namely a city in the form of a perfectly logistical war-machine: “the expression fulfill-ing a technically perfect purpose and of an organizational necessity.” Historically speaking, logistics is a military discipline: the way of dis-posing troops across the battlefield, of ensuring supplies and communication, of exploiting natural resources and enemies’ weakness or, to use Carl von Clausewitz’s words, to minimize friction and obstructions in the actualization of a strategy. Thus, in Ungers’ terms, similar to armies and outposts, the circulatory lymph of a metropolis had to be regulated by punctual urban forms capable of regulating its flux, storing it in batteries of basins and dikes, or suddenly releasing it through a seamless flow of cars, goods, people and information.

The architecture of logistics could have been translated analogously as a hydraulic system filtering and redistributing the potential pro duced by the whole city. In Expressways and Buildings (Schnellstrasse und Gebäude, 1966) for example, a series of social condensers – namely a univer sity, a train museum, a police presidium, a trading-center, an industrial site, a Luna-park, housing blocks, and commercial and warehouse buildings9– were dispersed along the highway-ring surrounding Berlin and on the major arteries crossing through the city-center. Vehicular and pedestrian traffic was taken as the formal generator of each single intervention. This strategy was replicated through-out, in the internal articulation of circulation and connections, the functional organization of the program, and the structural ordering of the technical facilities.

After preliminary studies on mass-housing, standardization and collective dwelling, the High-Speed Railway and Buildings (Schnellbahn und Gebäude, 1968) studio recapitulated all of Ungers’ previous stances on Berlin’s infrastruc-ture and emphasized the role of public trans-portation as the future democratic platform for a collective use of the metropolis. The U-bahn and S-bahn network reduced distances and time of movement and was seen as creating a sequence of equally accessible points in dif fer-ent parts of the city, literally short-circuiting their programmatic and geographic separation. Public transport was thus considered a con tin uous integrated logistical architecture that bridged a series of social condensers of private and pub-lic facilities positioned at calculated distances from each other and pedestrianly reachable.

Grünzug Süd was a paradigm. The typo-logi cal repertoire found, surveyed and photo-graphed at the fringes of the city center was progressively rationalized and projectively implemented through morphological transfor-mations. The suburban sequence of row housing constituted for Ungers a recognizable grossform: a structural element of the urban fabric that, in its total extension, could be considered a distinct theme of the city. The project thus consisted in a formal elaboration of what Ungers deemed an inhabitable ‘wall’. Morphological transformations such as halving, doubling, hol-lowing, mirroring, folding or stepping, not only preserved a typological continuity with the past but actually enhanced or even exacer bating a future progression of its internal and external configurations.

It was no coincidence that just after Peter Smithson’s seminar and the Schnellstrasse und Gebäude (expressways and buildings, 1966) studio, Ungers gave a lecture in Moscow about the idea of architectural form, or what he called grossform:“Why the grossform? The answer: the big form creates the framework, the order and the planned space for the unpredictable, unforeseen, living process, for a parasitic archi-tecture. Without this component, each planning remains rigid and lifeless.” In short terms, grossform allowed the architecture of the city to be conceived in figural terms: as an assemblage of more or less relevant forms.8 The issue at stake was neither their scale nor size but rather their spatial legibility and formal clarity in relation to the city: a figure-ground problem.

A small house like the Villa Malaparte in Capri could easily be grossform just as much as the Lake Shore Drive towers in Chicago. The crucial features of the large form were neither functional nor programmatic but rather the rationality of their logic of internal agglomeration and outer coherency. According to Ungers, grossform was defined by a set of rules such as: the pres-ence of an over-accentuated element, the con-nection among elements, the distinct presence of themes and figures, and the application of regulatory principles. Grossform turns sheer functionalism into a problem of formal organi-zation and logistics into an architectural pro ject. Stressing either their integration or iso la tion within a context, grossform can be generated by radical diversity of formal assemblages such as roads and walls or towers and plateaux. Grossform is eminently a social fact: it emerges out of a human congregation and is ultimately the condition that makes cohabitation possible.


74 75

Volu

me

47

space, taking in consideration the social needs and the general dissolution of the conventional nuclear family. Apartments offered possibilities for cohabitation, collective spaces and enough flexibility to allow inhabitants to freely rearrange them according to their needs.

The proposals offered a wide range of com-pa rable solutions for single sites. This strategy of investigation was what Ungers later defined as ‘Zwicky-box’: sorting out all the main solu-tions for a given problem.10 Providing higher-densities of inhabitants per square meter, the projects had to be drawn at different scales: from the urban analyses of the districts to minute technical plans for housing and public facilities and comprehensively axonometric views. The complexity of the projects required the identifi-cation of a primary structure, characterized by a very simple frame – allowing maximum flexibility and hosting technical supplies and circulation – and an independent secondary structure to treat the local needs of the users.

It was Berlin 1995, A Planningmode for a five-million city in transition from the 1970s (1969) that marked the culmination of Ungers’ experiments on logistical acceleration. The studio opened with a catastrophic statement: without an efficient supply system, whatever metropolis could easily lose control. Ungers recalled an example from New York when, in February 1969, a blizzard paralyzed the city for days. Disasters, strikes, technical failures, climatic alterations, unexpected social reac-tions, could have driven technology similarly out of control: what would happen if the AT&T communication network or Con Edison’s energy grid was suddenly overloaded?

After an impressive series of modern experiments – from 1910’s Gürtelpan and Radialplan, to Martin Mächler’s Grossraum Berlin in 1919, Ludwig Hilberseimer’s decentralized visions from 1933, Albert Speer’s Achsenplan from 1938, Max Taut’s Sternstadt and Planungs-kollektiv’s Bandstadt in 1946, and Fritz Hallers’ Totale Stadt in 1968 – in the 1970s Berlin was halved by contrasting political ideologies and, burdened by the paradoxical condition of a dupli-cated city, was left with no substantial inno va-tion in planning. In this sense, West Berlin was a perfect study case for Ungers – a walled city that: could not grow beyond its juridical delimi-tation; depended on foreign subsidies and almost entirely devoid of internal industrial activities; and a frontier between Eastern and Western Europe.

A series of hypothetical scenarios for West Berlin were thus considered. The first was to leave

These smaller-scale projects ranged from housing and university campus extensions to leisure and distribution centers. Their specific functional configurations were literally struc-tured based upon logistical principles. The pro-posal for an Administrative Center in Fehrbelliner Platz, for example, transformed the traditional office building into a complex three-dimensional machine, concentrating all horizontal and vertical circulation into ducts, pipes, cylindrical slopes, paternosters, and elevators, while leaving the working space as large unobstructed rooms for cognitive production. A library for the Freie Universität was superimposed above the U-bahn in Dahlem Dorf and served by a travel-ator for pedestrians and an inventive dispatching device for the distribution of books. A Central Institute for Pedagogy was located above the S-Bahn station at Olympia-Stadion that repli-cated its serial order of railway platforms with the horizontal plateaux of endlessly repeatable workspaces, laboratories, and classrooms. In Jungfernheide, a food-market with a container-terminal juxtaposed the historical multi-story warehouses with the modern one-floor distri-bu tion-center into an integrated wholesale machine. A trade-center with exhibition spaces, exchange and retail was proposed for the reuse of the West Harbors by diagonally inter-secting the on-site railway lines with five prefab-concrete slabs, each with external technical cores. Finally, a colossal linear project for a hotel, congress-center, parking and administration offices connected Berlin’s Central Station to the Ministries building and transformed both the theme of a bridge and the complexity of multi-modal infrastructural intersection into a singular and massive architectural form.

As further elaboration of the notion of grossform, Ungers progressively moved the task of the studio from simple punctual interventions to the design of entire urban compounds, questioning the very idea of ‘building’ as singular element, demanding instead an architectural project to be truly conceived as a city: a logistic sub-system working within the larger frame-work of the metropolis; a city within a city.

The studio Houses and Parks (Block sanierung und Parken, 1967) aimed at the design of self-standing city-parts and proposed alter-native concepts for housing developments in the districts of Kreuzberg, Neukölln and Schöneberg. The specificity of each proposal was determined by the rational organization of access systems: vehicular and pedestrian traffic and parking lots. Particular attention was dedicated to the configuration of domestic


74 75

Volu

me

47

‘BAHNHOF ZOO’ BY Catherine Hoja, part of ‘Berlin 1995’. The plateau integrates the existing buildings of the Kaiser Wilhelm Memorial Church in Breitscheidplatz, the SBahn and the UBahn stations with housing and offices towers, residential facilities, department stores, a warehouse, agitation-center, social club, and an exhibition hall.


76 77

Volu

me

47

As a colossal typical plan, each module had to: respect a service grid system of 60 centimeters for appliances; provide staircases every 60 meters and escape ways every 35; and leave internal roads 30 meters wide for ad-hoc circulation vehicles. Because of its extreme flexibility and openness, the module allowed not only for expansion in all directions, but also to easily integrate whatever exception might present itself within the existing urban fabric into the articulation of the massive plateau.

The raised continuous mega-structure provided a unifying backbone for the develop-ment of different projects, for which two differ-ent configurations were adopted: the ribbon-city (Model B Bandstadt) and the extended-city (Model F FIächenstadt). The former, recovering the city’s postwar Berliner Stadtentwicklung’s Kollektivplan from 1946, homogeneously stret-ched from Spandau to Rüdersdorf and followed the parallel railway lines, leaving some frag ments of the city-center as exceptions. The latter exalted natural and historical circumstances by framing parts of the city center through a series of interwoven surfaces extending in all directions. Both the models radically departed from the traditional radial and ring system of the Berlin modern planning tradition and attempted to overcome the East-West division while pro-posing a wider integration with the surrounding region.

The advantages and differences of each model were tested through the singular articu-lation of student projects, conceived of as pro-grammatic specifications of the megastructure; delimiting a zone of intervention within the macro-scale grid and individuating the parts of the historical city. The particular figure-ground rela-tion ship obtained by filtering the historical fabric of the city – with its numerous contra dic-tions, different alignments and morphological exceptions – through the mechanical and linear plateau, was translated into a series of layered plans and sectioned axonometrics explaining in an almost-archaeological fashion the relations between existing and new settlements. The new city was to be the accelerated doppelgänger of the old, flying over its ruins and monumental objects as an overhanging mechanical prosthesis.

Considering Archizoom’s indiscriminate extension of logistics, Ungers and his students adopted a reverse strategy, anatomically dissec-ting the metropolis in its parts and developing its constituent constructive principles to formu-late an architecture on a purely logistic base. Nevertheless, even when pushed to its most extreme consequences – as in Berlin 1995 –

it as it was: a ‘Ghost Town’ that would have slowly collapsed once left without the eco nomi cal support of western countries. Another solution was, conversely, to exploit its enclave condi-tion by transforming it into a sort of Las Vegas, boosting tourism and consumption. A third possibility consisted in evacuating the city and building a New Berlin in the Western territories. But Ungers proposed a radically different vision, presuming with great foresight that Berlin would slowly become one of the largest developed cities on the continent: a flourishing trading place and an international epicentre that hosted global representative institutions and was sur-rounded by a vibrant industrial conurbation. Such economical progress would substantially increase the population, projected up to five million in the 1990s, and require the rapid con-struction of new infrastructure and dwellings with a drastic densification and superimposition of functions within the city center.

The studio was indeed a speculation, an experiment possible only within the safe domain of an academic environment and deliberately devoid of a political connotation. Formulating a planning hypothesis from the existing conditions, pushing a thesis to a level of absurdity and finally implementing it within reality to gain new insights: only through these kind of conjectures – claims Ungers – was it pos sible to converge architecture theory with design into a meaningful practice of planning.11 The studio rejected CIAM’s division of the city into distinct functional sectors and radically postulated logistics and collective transpor ta-tion as a structural system for equal access to facilities and distribution of resources. To ensure maximum flexibility and freedom for its inhabitants, a colossal plateau, gravi-tating 24 meters above the existing urban fabric and 60 above the sea, was created to mark the ground level for the new city.

Literally flipping Ludwig Hilberseimer’s 1929 Vertical City upside down, Berlin 1995 imag ined a massive ‘productive platform’ with ribbons of vehicular and pedestrian circulation superimposed above the existing city. The plateau, consisting of a dense stratification of public programs, working and residential facilities, was based upon a unique Grundeinheiten: a three-dimensional structural square module for the continuous horizontal and vertical transportation and communication ducts. The module measured 720 by 720 meters, with sub-modules and buffer zones of 30 meters, centrally equipped with a technical core for installation and vertical connections.


76 77

Volu

me

47relation and strategical disposition of its specificities and contradictions.

Different from Ildefonso Cerda’s depoliti cized and purely technical concepts of Urbanización and Vialidad, Ungers understood infrastructure as the system making cooperation and collec tive confrontation possible and thus indispen sable to support every form of human conglomer ation and communal production. Thus, the students’ projects transformed logistics into a constructive political weapon, to organize and take control of an annihilated and neutralized city by means of the unbalances and accelerations of architectural assemblages, constantly exceeding, diverting or reinventing the dichotomy between urbs and civitas into new combinations.13

If logistics is the art of organization – the way to struggle for surviving and collectively dwelling the world – then a strategy of subversion able to revert its negative effects and to repurpose its instruments could only rise from a critical reconsideration of the rational order and allegedly ‘inhuman’ character of its architecture.

All drawings courtesy of Ungers Archiv

for Architectural Research UAA, Cologne.

the complexity of the megastructure did not lose any of its architectural legibility and coherence, measured and controlled by the fine detailed drawings. To Archizoom’s outward endless repeti tion of the capitalist system of production, Ungers’s experiments suggested an inward excavation of the rational logic of architectural form. Not dissimilar from what Rossi defined as ‘exalted rationalism’ in ÉtienneLouis Boullée, Ungers’ grossform introjected and replicated the dialectical complexity of the city within the singularity of a formal assemblage and its logical principles of construction. In this sense, acceleration in Ungers was predominantly an internal phenomena: a metabolization of the metro politan fragmentation restituted in exaggerated formal agglomerations, “able to shed light on a system while remaining outside of it.”12

Against the traditional rejection of logistics and circulation as the anathema of architecture Ungers proposed instead an architecture of logistics, one that made visible how logistics and architecture conjunctively produced and reproduced the city, allowing for its unforeseeable proliferation and cohabitation of differences. It was not a mere question of function but the coherency of formal organization that makes the city work collectively; the mutual

1 Alberto Toscano, ‘Logistics

and Opposition’, Mute, 9

August, 2011. At: www.

metamute.org/editorial/

articles/logisticsand

opposition (accessed 8

February 2016).

2 Archizoom Associati, ‘Città

Catena di Montaggio del

Sociale’, Casabella, Jul–Aug,

1970; Archizoom Associati,

‘NoStop City. Residential

Car Park. Universal Climatic

System’, Domus, no. 496,

March, 1971.

3 Kenneth Frampton, ‘The

Economist and the

Haupstadt’, Architectural

Design, February 1965,

pp. 61–62; Alison and Peter

Smithson, Without Rhetoric.

An Architectural Aesthetic,

1959–1972 (London: Latimer

New Dimensions Limited

1973), pp. 44.

4 Oswald Mathias Ungers, ‘The

theme of Assemblage’. In:

Oswald Mathias Ungers,

Architecture as Theme

(Milan: Rizzoli, Electa 1982),

pp. 31–35.

5 Aldo Rossi, ‘Un giovane

architetto tedesco: Oswald

Mathias Ungers’, Casabella,

no. 244, 1960, pp. 22.

6 Oswald Mathias Unger, ‘The

Architecture of Collective

Memory’, The Urban Garden

(Berlin: Studio Press for

Architecture 1978).

7 Oswald Mathias Ungers,

‘Planning Criteria’, Lotus, no.

11, 1976; Rem Koolhaas and

Hans Ulrich Obrist, ‘The

Rationalization of the

Existing’, Log, 16, (New York:

Anyone Corporation 2009),

pp. 65; Oswald Mathias

Ungers, ‘Five Lessons from

Schinkel’s work’, Cornell

Journal of Architecture, 1981,

pp. 118–119.


Grossformen im

Wohnungsbau (Berlin:

Lehrstuhl für Entwerfen und

Gebäudelehre, 1966);

Francesco Marullo, ‘Logistics

Takes Command’, Log, 35,

(New York: Anyone

Corporation 2015).


Schnellstrasse und Gebäude

(Berlin: Lehrstuhl für

Entwerfen und

Gebäudelehre, 1966).

10 Ibid., Koolhaas and Obrist,

2009.


Berlin 1995 Planungsmodelle

für eine Fünfmillionenstadt

im Übergang zu den

siebziger Jahren (Berlin:

Lehrstuhl für Entwerfen und

Gebäudelehre, 1969).

12 Aldo Rossi, ‘Introduzione to a

Boullée’. In ÉtienneLouis

Boullée, Saggio sull’Arte

(Padua: Marsilio, 1967),

pp. 7–24; Aldo Rossi,

‘Critique of Naive

Functionalism’ in The

Architecture of the City

(Cambridge, MA: The MIT

Press 1982), pp. 46–48.

13 Pier Vittorio Aureli, The

Possibility of Absolute

Architecture (Cambridge,

MA: MIT Press 2011),

pp. 2–13; Ross Exo Adams,

‘To fill the earth: architecture

in a spaceless universe’. In:

Nadir Lahiji (ed.),

Architecture against the

post-political. Essays in

reclaiming the critical

project (London: Routledge

2014), pp. 180–196.


Documents

Acceleration and Rationalization