10 questions 10 architects

7/27/2019 10 questions 10 architects

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/10-questions-10-architects 1/5

PRAXIS 8 Koolhaas +

2 Architects10 Questions

on ProgramRem Koolhaas +Bernard Tschumi

1. What role does program play in your current practice and how ha

since it first emerged in your thinking and design? Has the shift o

from paper (both writing and design) to practice changed the way y

tualize and/or use program?

KOOLHAAS: Would it be shocking if I claimed that it is no different than it used to be? It

is straightforward. My work with program began as a desire to pursue different means

of expression that were similarto writing screenplays. At an interesting moment my

obsession with script writing almost randomly intersected the world of constructivism,

and with that I discovered an exceptionally interesting hybrid, where any aspect of daily

life could be imagined and enacted through the architect’s imagination.

I think that there are underlying structures in the process of architectural creation

and design that critics neverrecognize. For instance, the difference between a com-

petition and a commission dictates yourroom to maneuver and has a decisive

impact on the design. As the Seattle Library was presented to a Board of Trustees it

had to be understood as a linear, logical process. Porto, on the other hand, was a

competition so it could be a to tally irrational, insane, and surprising project. Seattle

had to be diagrammatic—in order to win the commission, we had to generate mate-

rial that explained it step by step as an educational process. There is a dialectic

dimension to this project, which was not my motivation, but became a tool fora cer-

tain explanation of the project.

Program increasingly has another connotation forme, which is closer to agenda. I

have been trying to find ways that we could circumvent or avoid the architect’s pas-

sivity and by this I mean his orher dependence on the initiatives of others. However

it is framed and pursued, ouragenda/program is an important term for me, to the

extent that—contrary to my longstanding reputation as a capitalist sell-out and

cynical bystander in the process of globalization—I was actually very interested in

selective participation. The key is being “selective” while also looking forstrategiesthat would allow us to pursue (programmatically) ourown interests. AMO has been

an important part of that initiative, affording us a greatermeans to redefine the ini-

tial project brief, through the addition of political or cultural dimensions. We have

just completed a competition in Dubai fora vast museum that includes components

of the Hermitage, the Tate, and the Serpentine and that forms amalgamations in cul-

ture and politics. This kind of programming allows us to finally engage a practice

that really interests me.

Brief is merely an architectural word, but forme program is a word that exceeds

that sheer limitation. I am not suggesting that we are not interested in briefs—we

are highly literal about briefs. In fact, in a certain way, we are earnest and innocent,

maybe too earnest and innocent. In Porto, the Berlin Embassy, IIT, and Seattle we lit-

erally pushed the brief in a particular critical direction to produce specific effects. In

that sense I wouldn’t claim any sophistication or uniqueness in ourapproach.

TSCHUMI: My current practice expl

ferent issues and concepts. Program

Envelopes, movement vectors, and,

questioning of contexts are among o

The shift from paper to practice rea

shift from The Manhattan Transcrip

Villette in 1982-83, since I had con

La Villette competition in orderto m

programs to a “real” program, from

applied mathematics.

What strikes me is that some of th

from years past are still present in ou

practice precedes theory as often

ceded practice. It is a very fluid relat

the recent foreword on “Concepts, c

Event-Cities 3 was my conscious atte

what I had learned from ourpractice

In our recent projects, concepts

with a strategy about content orpro

egy about contexts. Forexample, in

of Dubai, a “cultural island” with an o

posefully revisited an earlierprogra

strips of ouro pera house in Tokyo of with ourrecent research on double e

4 4

6 8

6 9

7 0

7 2

7 3

B o r n , R o t t e r d a m ,

T h e N e t h e r l a n d s

E n r o l l s a t

A r c h i t e c t u r a l

A s s o c i a t i o n ,

L o n d o n

G r a d u a t e s f r o m


A s s o c i a t i o n ,

L o n d o n

T h e s i s : E x o d u s o r t h e

V o l u n t a r y P r i s o n e r s

o f A r c h i t e c t u r e

S t u d i e s a t C o r n e l l

w i t h U n g e r s

V i s i t i n g f e l l o w a t

t h e I n s t i t u t e f o r

A r c h i t e c t u r e a n d

U r b a n S t u d i e s

B o r n , L a

u s a n n e ,

S w i t z e r

l a n d

G r a d u a t e s f r o m

E T H , Z u

r i c h

B e g i n s t e a c h i n g

a t t h e


A s s o c i a

t i o n ,

L o n d o n

Questions written by Ana Miljacki, Amanda Reeser Lawrence,

and Ashley Schafer.

T+R5_ac.qxp 10/23/06 3:52 AM Page 6





PRAXIS 8 Koolhaas + T

5. Tell us about your time at the Institute for Architecture and Urb

and how it influenced your development as an intellectual and as

Who were your allies there?

It was a time when the Institute was probably much less rigorous and much less rigid in its

alliances. There was not a single person in that period in New York that I was not at some

point, or to some extent, sympathetic to or involved with, or who did not in some ways influ-

ence what I was doing.

The big unknown in this story is the influence of Matthias Ungers. I spent a year [1972] at

Cornell prior to going to New York, which was significant. There were two phenomena thatmade it important. First, studying with Ungers exposed me to his way of thinking, particu-

larly his conceptual abilities to think about cities. Michel Foucault also happened to be

teaching there that year, as well as Herbert Damisch, anotherFrench intellectual with whom

I became close friends. He introduced me to Foucault, so even before arriving in New York I

spent a year in America immersed in French Intellectual culture, which reinforced my already

considerable involvement with Roland Barthes’ work.

Weirdly enough I think I was more intellectual than any of them, but I was working on a

project that seemed less intellectual than any of their ideas. They were all outside architec-

ture, and so that was a kind of double, an interesting stereo that was more literary than

architectural. Maybe Delirious New York is about architecture, but it is more a literary cre-

ation—more writing than thinking.

The Institute forArchite ctur

with its conjoined publication

architectural settings at th

architecture as part of a rig

course. But many of the inte

were quite distant from my owto the New York art scene of

Institute for just one year, 1

there sharpened my desire

malized discourse on the prim

The Manhattan Transcript

leaving the Institute. Allies?

key people at the Institute

friends only afterI left.

6. What was the status of program in this laboratory of Eisenma

formalism?

I wrote Delirious New York when I returned to London. I did the research forit

in New York, but I couldn’t write there. Back in London, I gave a series of lec-

tures at the AA that then became the basis of the book. And in terms of

allies, Peter has a rare and unbelievable generosity to create and support a

field in which otherpeople flourish. Probably he is partially motivated out of a

kind of perverse sense of curiosity of what will happen to them. It was simul-

taneously a stimulating field, a test bed, and an accelerated aging procedure.

He was extremely skeptical, but also extremely supportive.

At that time I also had the luxury of being the only person in almost the

entire New York scene—except the Greys—to be involved in American issues.

So I had the great advantage of invisibility, as no one was interested in the

material I was researching. I was an intelligent person dealing with the

debased material that nobody could understand. I had the best of both worlds.

In the early Institute years, Eisenman w

Oppositions called “Postfunctionalism” whic

and function as part of a 500 yearold, pre

practice. So a redefinition of program was

the Institute’s agenda. Yet, as is often the c

as interesting as what is in full view. Antho

lectures on Boullée, Ledoux, and Lequeu wer

ceptive, forexample, showing programmat

sequences in the architecture of Lequeu’s l

pre-industrial, his lectures suggested brid

temporary art practices, including modes of

formance art. But the Institute’s prevalen

autonomy. My inclinations were more towar

4. New York, 1976: You were pursuing research and developing theories of pro-

gram that spawned what became for both of you seminal publications: Delirious

New York and The Manhattan Transcripts. What was so urgent about the issue

of program at this moment? What made New York such fertile ground—both as

a working environment and as a subject—at that particular time?

Today there’s a total banality of travel and intellectual traffic

that didn’t exist in the seventies. As a very technical European, I

am deeply influenced by almost any of the “isms” that havecomprised Europe’s history. Therefore I was ambitious enough

not so much to want my own “ism” but to look at the world in

terms of “isms.” On the one hand, I felt a real disenchantment

with the slackening of modernity that was an outcome of

‘flower-power’ o r the emergence o f postmode rnism. And yet I

was simultaneously keenly aware of how manifestos them-

selves had introduced so many failures that the whole typolog y

could not be rescued.

So I approached New York indirectly, with a manifesto that

consisted of a volume or quantity of pre-existing evidence. I

took a journalistic but also a personal approach, which I had to

shield behind America. Bernard Tschumi’s project seems much

more clearly a manifesto, orat least it more openly uses the

traditional methodology and appearance of a manifesto.

I came to New York from London because of an interest in the art scene, which

seemed to be in extraordinarily creative flux at the time. Many artist friends,

including Robert Longo, David Salle, Cindy Sherman, and Sarah Charlesworth,had come to New York about the same time. Form e, architecture was a blank

page: everything seemed to need to be invented. I became obsessed with New

York City itself, a city in which everything seemed possible. I also watched a lot

of black-and-white B-movies at the time. I was struck by how space and build-

ings could also be protagonists in the action. Performance art seemed a natu-

ral extension of conceptual art. These two forms of art practice echoed my

definition of architecture: as concept and experience, or the definition of

space and the movement of bodies within it.

V i l l a d a l l ’ A v a ,

P a r i s , F r a n c e

C o m p l e t e d , 1

9 9 1

“ H e w a n t e d a g l a s s

h o u s e . S

h e w a n t e d a

s w i m m i n g p o o l o n t h e

r o o f . T h e o r e t i c a l l y , i t

w o u l d b e p o s s i b l e t o

s e e t h e E i f f e l T o w e r

w h i l e s w i m m i n g ” .

C O M P E T I T I O N

T h e H a g u e C i t y

H a l l , T h e H a g u e ,


“ I t s u n s t a b l e c o n f i g u -

r a t i o n a l l o w e d

u s . . . a f t e r o u r p r o j e c t

f o r P a r c d e l a V i l l e t t e ,

t o r e e x p e r i m e n t w i t h

t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p

b e t w e e n s p e c i f i c i t y

a n d i n d e t e r m i n a c y ,

t h i s t i m e i n a b u i l d i n g . ”

E X H I B I T I O N

D e c o n s t r u c t i v i s t

A r c h i t e c t u r e ,

M o M A , N e w Y o r k


B i b l i o t h è q u e

N a t i o n a l e d e

F r a n c e , P a r i s

H o n o r a b l e M e n t i o n

“ T h e a m b i t i o n o f t h i s

p r o j e c t i s t o r i d a r c h i -

t e c t u r e o f r e s p o n s i -

b i l i t i e s i t c a n n o

l o n g e r s u s t a i n a n d t o

e x p l o r e t h i s n e w f r e e -

d o m a g g r e s s i v e l y . I t

s u g g e s t s t h a t , l i b e r a t -

e d f r o m i t s f o r m e r

o b l i g a t i o n s , a r c h i t e c -

t u r e ’ s l a s t f u n c t i o n

w i l l b e t h e c r e a t i o n o f

t h e s y m b o l i c s p a c e s

t h a t a c c o m m o d a t e

t h e p e r s i s t e n t d e s i r e

f o r c o l l e c t i v i t y . ” ”


C e n t e r f o r A r t a n d

M e d i a

T e c h n o l o g y ,

K a r l s r u h e , w

i n n e r

V i d e o P a v i l i o n ,

G r o n i n g e n ,


E u r a l i l l e , L i l l e ,

F r a n c e

C o m p l e t e d , 1

9 9 4

“ I n t h i s f i n - d e - s i è c l e ,

‘ p r o g r a m s ’ h a v e

b e c o m e a b s t r a c t i n

8 4

8 5

8 6

8 7

8 8

8 9

9 0

C O M P E T I

T I O N

N e w N a

t i o n a l

T h e a t e r a n d

O p e r a H

o u s e ,

T o k y o , J

a p a n

S e c o n d P r i z e

W e a b a n d o n e d t r a d i -

t i o n a l r u l e s o f c o m p o -

s i t i o n a n d h a r m o n y ,

r e p l a c i n g

t h e m w i t h a

m o d e o f o r g a n i z a t i o n

b a s e d n o

t o n “ f o r m

f o l l o w s f u n c t i o n , ”

“ f o r m f o l l o w s f o r m ” o r

e v e n “ f o r

m f o l l o w s

f i c t i o n ” b

u t r a t h e r o n

b r e a k i n g

a p a r t t h e

t r a d i t i o n a l c o m p o -

n e n t s o f

t h e t h e a t e r

a n d o p e r

a h o u s e … N o

m o r e a r t f u l a r t i c u l a -

t i o n s a m o n g t h e a u d i -

t o r i u m , t h e s t a g e , t h e

f o y e r , t h e g r a n d s t a i r -

c a s e ; a n e w p l e a s u r e

l i e s i n t h e p a r a l l e l j u x -

t a p o s i t i o

n o f i n d e t e r -

m i n a t e c u l t u r a l m e a n -

i n g s …

A p p o i n t e d D e a n ,

C o l u m b

i a

U n i v e r s

i t y , G S A P P

E X H I B I T I O

N

D e c o n s

t r u c t i v i s t

A r c h i t e

c t u r e ,

M o M A ,

N e w Y o r k

C O M P E T I

T I O N

B i b l i o t h

è q u e

N a t i o n a

l e d e

F r a n c e , P a r i s

“ T r a n s p r o g r a m m i n g :

C o m b i n e

d t w o p r o -

g r a m s , r e g a r d l e s s o f

t h e i r i n c o m p a t i b i l i -

t i e s , t o g e t h e r w i t h

t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e s p a -

t i a l c o n f i g u r a t i o n s .

R e f e r e n c

e : p l a n e t a r i -

u m + r o l l e r - c o a s t e r . ” ”

C O M P E T I

T I O N

C e n t e r

f o r A r t

a n d M e d i a

T e c h n o l o g y ,

K a r l s r u h e

3 r d P r i z e

G l a s s V

i d e o

P a v i l i o n

,

G r o n i n g

e n ,


T+R5_ac.qxp 10/23/06 3:52 AM Page 10




8. Some critics have written about the return of the megastructure

your practice but also in other architect’s designs. Do you agree,

would you attribute the recuperation of this type? How is this ‘new’

ture different from its sixties predecessors?

There’s a very seductive and potentially very naïve form of look-

ing at the past fifteen years, whereby you begin by saying that

architecture meets megalomania, and megalomania is

debased. But fortunately the force of the market flushed it

away with the unfortunate commitment to postmodernism.

Then in the 90s the market seemed to parallel and even spon-

sor or support radical redefinitions of form. In the late 90s,

together with the destruction of the World Trade Center, form

was discredited, and perhaps also the possibility for architects’

participation and complicity with the market economy. Now

we’re all looking for something which gives us not so much

power—because I don’t think many people are nostalgic for

power, and it’s still a very dirty word—but perhaps a larger

scope of what architecture could do, orcould say.

The recent Factory 798 project in Beijing started with

liveliest cultural center in China from being razed to ma

square feet of residential towers. Aftertalking to the

there, we proposed to keep the art program below and

gram above, hovering overthe existing art neighborhood

points were located anywhere we could place them betwe

ings on the ground, so that the resulting “random” grid b

project generated an enormous amount of media coverag

as a way to keep the old while moving forward with the n

to the response to our project, the government decided

demolition. So maybe we saved the neighborhood but ulti

I do not think the project could have been done elsew

market economy and megastructure are two terms tha

Who will pay for megastructures? Today’s capital is tra

tructures are not. So maybe you can call the newest me

gence of criticality. (What an ugly word!) Megastru

manifestos. Our Factory 798 project was a buildable ma

7. What was the relationship between this early research and writing and the

radical reconceptualization of program evidenced in your design for the Parc

de la Villette?

My work on The Manhattan Transcripts began with a tripartite definition of

architecture as space, action, and movement. The resulting mode of nota-

tion was used throughout the Transcriptsand led directly to the La Vil lette

principle of superimposing points (of activities), lines (of movement), and

spaces (of appropriation). The precedent for my point grid was interesting

in its relationship to programs. In the mid-1970s, I used to give my stu-

dents at the AA excerpts from Kafka, Poe, Borges, and Joyce as pro grams.

In order to organize the complexity of Joyce’s text with a number of stu-

dents, I gave them a point grid that announced the one at La Villette. It

proved a great way to explode the park’s programmatic complexity and

reorganize it around the points of intensity of the folies. Simultaneously, I

was writing more theoretical texts—”Architecture and Limits” and

“Violence of Architecture”—which addressed the issue of program directly.

There is a very direct relationship. I explained La Villette as a kind of

horizontal skyscraper. The relationship to Delirious New Yorkwas

so unbelievably literal that, as our practice evolved, it has inevitably

become more indirect. At first those ideas worked as an example or

prototype, but then it became simply an influence orarea of atten-

tion. I still notice occasionally that the early research returns in an

almost literal way, certainly in CCTV . So it’s a source that we feel

free to ignore, but there’s always a pull. Except when there’s a kind

of anti-pull. Or when it has no relevance whatsoever. For instance

when I work on a house, it’s totally in abeyance.

But I also consider it as a historical given, and so in texts like

“Generic City” and “Junkspace” it remains a reference, but a refer-

ence we constantly suppress orrefine.

t o a l l o t h e r p l a c e s . ”

9 1

9 2

9 3

9 4

9 5

9 6

9 7


J R R a i l

S t a t i o n

K y o t o , J

a p a n

“ D i s p r o g

r a m m i n g :

C o m b i n i n g t w o o r

m o r e p r o

g r a m s ,

w h e r e b y

a r e q u i r e d

s p a t i a l c o n f i g u r a t i o n

o f p r o g r a m A c o n -

t a m i n a t e

s p r o g r a m B

a n d B ’ s p

o s s i b l e c o n -

f i g u r a t i o

n . T h e n e w

p r o g r a m

B m a y b e

e x t r a c t e

d f r o m t h e

i n h e r e n t

c o n t r a d i c -

t i o n s c o n t a i n e d i n

p r o g r a m

A , a n d B ’ s

r e q u i r e d

s p a t i a l c o n -

f i g u r a t i o

n m a y b e

a p p l i e d t

o A . ”


L e F r e s

n o y ,

T o u r c o i n g ,

F r a n c e ,

W i n n e r

C o m p l e t

e d , 1 9 9 8

E v e n t - C i t i e s

( P r a x i s ) p u b l i s h e d

“ … t h e c a

u s e - a n d -

e f f e c t r e

l a t i o n s h i p

s a n c t i f i e

d b y m o d -

e r n i s m , b

y w h i c h

f o r m f o l l o w s f u n c t i o n

( o r v i c e v

e r s a ) n e e d s

t o b e a b a n d o n e d i n

f a v o r o f p r o m i s c u o u s

c o l l i s i o n s o f p r o -

g r a m s a n d s p a c e s , i n

w h i c h t h e t e r m s

i n t e r m i n g l e , c o m b i n e ,

a n d i m p l i c a t e o n

a n o t h e r i n t h e p r o -

d u c t i o n o f a n e w

a r c h i t e c t u r a l r e a l i t y . ”

E X H I B I T I O N

L i g h t

C o n s t r u c t i o n ,

M o M A ,

N e w Y o r k


M o M A E x p a n s i o n ,

N e w Y o

r k

F i n a l i s t

“ [ T h e G a r d e n ’ s ]

P r o g r a m

m a t i c f l e x i -

b i l i t y a n d

s o c i a l

s p a c e p r

o v i d e s

p l a c e s f o

r a c t i v i t i e s

a n d a r t f

o r m s t h a t

a r e n o t e

a s i l y c o n -

t a i n e d w

i t h i n c o n v e n -

t i o n a l e x

h i b i t i o n g a l -

l e r i e s . O u r c o n c e p t

e x t e n d s

t h i s q u a l i t y

t h r o u g h o

u t t h e

M

i t h f

T+R5_ac.qxp 10/23/06 3:52 AM Page 12



All of the above. Most projects start with a program. First, you have to understand

the program’s intricacies, but also what you want to do with it. So you explore possi-

ble configurations and relations. I do not mean bubble diagrams here, but spatial

connections or sequential routes. The quickest way is to diagram it, i.e. to concep-

tualize what you want to do with that program. There are many potential program-matic concepts. Sometimes that’s it: your programmatic concept becomes your

architectural form.

At LernerHall, we had to put in 6,000 mailboxes, an auditorium, music rooms,

and so on. I wanted a central meeting space (which was not in the official program)

so that all the parts of the program would be visible and accessible—a vertical

social space of sorts. But a program always has to be inserted into a given site,

which often has multiple constraints, whetherphysical or otherwise; in otherwords,

it has a context. That in turn affects the selection orthe expression of the program-

matic concept. At Lerner, there were many specific site constraints, including his-

toricist ones, but I could take advantage of one of them, namely, the fact that the

campus is half a level higher than Broadway. I could link these two levels by a ramp

and continue the ramp to the top of the building, assembling the pieces of the pro-

gram with its 6,000 mailboxes along the ramp. Program? You need to figure it out,

literally. That’s what this diagram is.


Not that I have a particularly high regard fordiagrams, but

this one is simply an illustration to enable others to under-

stand our process. It’s not at all a diagram, but a drawing

that came afterthe fact. Hidden in it is a more simple read-

ing of which elements of a particularkind of building can bestable, and which have to remain volatile. This is simply an

end product, a retroactive illustration of what, in a more

private sense, is a way of thinking.

The real diagram is the one that addresses st ability

and instability. In otherpro jects there were diagrams,

barcodes of stability and instability, ordef ined and unde-

fined spaces.

9. How does the above drawing represent program? Is this a diagrammatic

device, an operative tool, a formal construct, a descriptive idea, or a combina-

tion of these or none of these?

I can’t deny that I’m perversely interested in these ‘attributions.’ I have such a vast attention

span that I can’t deny that I follow them. But I think that at this point it is not attribution. The

extent of media coverage has reached complete insanity. It is sad that the discipline is so

dependant on one group of people to provide its subject.

I’m still totally dedicated to the discipline, in terms of working in it, but since 1995 I’ve

effectively left the discipline. I have almost no friends left in architecture. My intimate

friends used to be architects, but now they’re all outside the discipline because I need nour-

ishment and within the field there is an almost infernal circle of regurgitation. And that of

course makes everyone who is regurgitated bitter. So that even if you produce something

good, there is a cynical view of it from the beg inning. So while I’m increasingly disenchanted

with the practice of being interviewed, I hope this questionnaire produces something new

or at least something less than totally predictable.

Look, I do not think that arch

with form. It begins with a con

of these concepts or ideas m

Architecture is the material

and I feel no qualms about c

material, much as concrete

sures are materials. You can a

way Malevich orMondrian tra

Joyce and Schönberg trans

music. Most interesting, howe

conditions forliving, whether

10. Recently, various critics have argued that you are responsible

an entire body of work regarding program, both pedagogical projec

trends in architectural production outside of academia. What is yo

to this type of ‘blame:’ acknowledgment, or attribution?

E d u c a t o r i u m ,

U t r e c h t , T h e

N e t h e r l a n d s

C o m p l e t e d 1 9 9 7

“ B i g n e s s , O r t h e

P r o b l e m o f L a r g e ”

p u b l i s h e d i n

D o m u s ,

“ I n B i g n e s s , t

h e

f a ç a d e b e c o m e s d i s -

c o n n e c t e d f r o m t h e

p r o g r a m m a t i c e l e -

m e n t s i n s i d e .

P r o g r a m c h a n g e s ,

b u t f a ç a d e r e m a i n s

s t a b l e . . .

T h e a r t i f i c i a l i -

t y a n d c o m p l e x i t y o f

B i g n e s s r e l e a s e

f u n c t i o n f r o m i t s

d e f e n s i v e a r m o r t o

a l l o w a k i n d o f l i q u e -

f a c t i o n ; p r o g r a m m a t -

i c e l e m e n t s r e a c t

w i t h e a c h o t h e r t o

c r e a t e n e w e v e n t s —

B i g n e s s r e t u r n s t o a

m o d e l o f p r o g r a m -

m a t i c a l c h e m y . ”

E X H I B I T I O N

L i g h t

C o n s t r u c t i o n ,

M o M A , N e w Y o r k

S , M , L , X

L

p u b l i s h e d

P r o g r a m m e ( g l o s s a r y

e n t r y ) : “ T h e s l o w r e a l -

i z a t i o n t h a t t h e

e x c i t e m e n t o f a

s c h e m e i s n o t i n i t s

o u t r a g e o u s c o m p o -

n e n t s , b u t i s t h e m o s t

m o d e s t p r o g r a m m e . ”

— P e t e r S a l t e r


M o M A E x p a n s i o n ,

N e w Y o r k

“ B e c a u s e a n e n t i r e l y

n e w b u i l d i n g w i l l c o n -

t a i n t h e e n t i r e

M u s e u m p r o g r a m i t

w i l l h a v e t h e a d v a n -

t a g e s o f B i g n e s s :

‘ p r o g r a m m a t i c

h y b r i d i z a t i o n , p r o x i m i -

t i e s / f r i c t i o n s / o v e r -

l a p s / s u p e r p o s i t i o n s ,

t h e e n t i r e a p p a r a t u s

o f m o n t a g e i n v e n t e d

a t t h e b e g i n n i n g o f

9 9

0 0

0 1

0 2

0 3

0 4

0 5

0 6


S c h o o l

o f

A r c h i t e

c t u r e ,

F l o r i d a

I n t e r n a t i o n a l

U n i v e r s

i t y

M i a m i , F l o r i d a

W i n n e r ,

C o m p l e t

e d , 2 0 0 3

“ H e r e , w h a t a b u i l d -

i n g d o e s

b e c o m e s a s

i m p o r t a n t a s w h a t i t

l o o k s l i k e . T h e b u i l d -

i n g m u s t

a c t a s a

g e n e r a t o r , a c t i v a t i n g

s p a c e s a

s w e l l a s

d e f i n i n g

t h e m . ”


D o w n s v i e w P a r k ,

T o r o n t o

, C a n a d a

E X H I B I T I O N

W e x n e r

C e n t e r

f o r t h e A r t s

P e r f e c t

A c t s o f

A r c h i t e

c t u r e

F a c t o r y

9 7 8 ,

B e i j i n g , C h i n a

“ A c k n o w

l e d g i n g t h e

i n e v i t a b l e c o n f r o n t a -

t i o n o f o l d a n d n e w ,

t h e p r o p

o s a l i s

i n t e n d e d

a s a n a l t e r -

n a t i v e t o

t h e w h o l e -

s a l e d e m

o l i t i o n o f t h e

e x i s t i n g

a r t s f a c i l i -

t y … T h e p r o j e c t , t h u s ,

i s a b o u t

a s t r a t e g y o f

i n b e t w e e n s . ”

E v e n t - C i t i e s 3

( C o n c e p t v s .

C o n t e x

t v s .

C o n t e n

t )

p u b l i s h e d

“ T h e r e i s

n o a r c h i t e c -

t u r a l s p a

c e w i t h o u t

s o m e t h i n g t h a t h a p -

p e n s i n i t , n o s p a c e

w i t h o u t c o n t e n t .

M o s t a r c

h i t e c t s

b e g i n w i t h a p r o g r a m ,

t h a t i s , a

l i s t o f u s e r s ’

r e q u i r e m

e n t s

d e s c r i b i n g t h e

i n t e n d e d

p u r p o s e o f

t h e b u i l d

i n g . A t v a r i -

o u s m o m

e n t s i n h i s -

t o r y , i t h a s b e e n

c l a i m e d t h a t p r o g r a m

o f f u n c t i o n c a n b e t h e

g e n e r a t o

r o f f o r m ,

t h a t “ f o r m f o l l o w s

f u n c t i o n , ” o r p e r h a p s

t h a t “ f o r m f o l l o w s

c o n t e n t . ” I n o r d e r t o

a v o i d e n g a g i n g i n a

d i s c o u r s

e o f f o r m p e r

s e o r o f f o r m v e r s u s

T+R5_ac.qxp 10/23/06 3:52 AM Page 14

Documents

10 questions 10 architects