2 Architects10 Questions on ProgramRem Koolhaas +Bernard TschumiQuestions written by Ana Miljacki, Amanda Reeser Lawrence, and Ashley Schafer.

PRAXIS 8 Koolhaas + Tschumi: On Program 7

1. What role does program play in your current practice and how has it evolvedsince it first emerged in your thinking and design? Has the shift of your workfrom paper (both writing and design) to practice changed the way you concep-tualize and/or use program?

KOOLHAAS: Would it be shocking if I claimed that it is no different than it used to be? Itis straightforward. My work with program began as a desire to pursue different meansof expression that were similar to writing screenplays. At an interesting moment myobsession with script writing almost randomly intersected the world of constructivism,and with that I discovered an exceptionally interesting hybrid, where any aspect of dailylife could be imagined and enacted through the architect’s imagination.

I think that there are underlying structures in the process of architectural creationand design that critics never recognize. For instance, the difference between a com-petition and a commission dictates your room to maneuver and has a decisiveimpact on the design. As the Seattle Library was presented to a Board of Trustees ithad to be understood as a linear, logical process. Porto, on the other hand, was acompetition so it could be a totally irrational, insane, and surprising project. Seattlehad 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 dialecticdimension to this project, which was not my motivation, but became a tool for a cer-tain explanation of the project.

Program increasingly has another connotation for me, which is closer to agenda. Ihave been trying to find ways that we could circumvent or avoid the architect’s pas-sivity and by this I mean his or her dependence on the initiatives of others. Howeverit is framed and pursued, our agenda/program is an important term for me, to theextent that—contrary to my longstanding reputation as a capitalist sell-out andcynical bystander in the process of globalization—I was actually very interested inselective participation. The key is being “selective” while also looking for strategiesthat would allow us to pursue (programmatically) our own interests. AMO has beenan important part of that initiative, affording us a greater means to redefine the ini-tial project brief, through the addition of political or cultural dimensions. We havejust completed a competition in Dubai for a vast museum that includes componentsof 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 practicethat really interests me.

Brief is merely an architectural word, but for me program is a word that exceedsthat sheer limitation. I am not suggesting that we are not interested in briefs—weare 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. Inthat sense I wouldn’t claim any sophistication or uniqueness in our approach.

TSCHUMI: My current practice explores a number of dif-ferent issues and concepts. Program is only one of them.Envelopes, movement vectors, and, more recently, a newquestioning of contexts are among our lines of research.The shift from paper to practice really happened with theshift from The Manhattan Transcripts of 1978-81 to LaVillette in 1982-83, since I had consciously entered theLa Villette competition in order to move from “invented”programs to a “real” program, from pure mathematics toapplied mathematics.

What strikes me is that some of the theoretical themesfrom years past are still present in our work today, but nowpractice precedes theory as often as theory once pre-ceded practice. It is a very fluid relationship. For example,the recent foreword on “Concepts, contexts, contents” inEvent-Cities 3 was my conscious attempt to post-theorizewhat I had learned from our practice.

In our recent projects, concepts often begin as muchwith a strategy about content or program as with a strat-egy about contexts. For example, in our conceptualizationof Dubai, a “cultural island” with an opera house, we pur-posefully revisited an earlier programmatic concept (thestrips of our opera house in Tokyo of 1986) by combining itwith our recent research on double envelopes.

44

68

69

70

72

73

74

Bor

n, R

otte

rdam

,T

he N

ethe

rland

s

Enr

olls

at

Arc

hite

ctur

alA

ssoc

iati

on,

Lond

on

Gra

duat

es f

rom

Arc

hite

ctur

alA

sso

ciat

ion ,

Lond

onT

hesi

s: E

xodu

s or

the

Vol

unta

ry P

rison

ers

of A

rchi

tect

ure

Stu

dies

at

Cor

nell

wit

h U

nger

s

Vis

itin

g fe

llow

at

the

Inst

itut

e fo

rA

rchi

tect

ure

and

Urb

an S

tudi

es(IA

US

),N

ew Y

ork

Bor

n, L

ausa

nne,

Sw

itze

rlan

d

Gra

duat

es f

rom

ET

H, Z

uric

h

Beg

ins

teac

hing

at t

heA

rchi

tect

ural

Ass

ocia

tion

,Lo

ndon

2. What is the relationship between program and form? And event? And poli-tics? (Feel free to answer any one or all three of these questions)

We have learned that there is no given relationship between program and form. In the pastthree years we’ve engaged in radical experimentation that at times produced an extreme rela-tionship between program and form while at others produced no relationship, which simplyshows how unbelievably unstable, unspecific, and also inconsistent it can be. It is impossible toabstract from these projects a single direction for the office, but the relationship of form andprogram is always a large preoccupation. The fact that the users of these projects have appropri-ated them all with relish is incredibly significant to me. None of them suffers from the slightestdysfunction or offense to its users. The Dutch Embassy employees are unbelievably happy touse it the way it was intended to work, even though that was not obvious when it was designed.

Although form and politics is a tempting subject, I’ll address your question about program andpolitics. Contrary to our official stance as cynical bystanders, we have been trying to find ways tocreate positions that enable us to address what interests us rather than being an extension ofthe market economy or developers’ desires or individuals’ desires, which intensely begs the ques-tion of politics. For instance there is a very strong connection to politics in the CCTV building. Noother political system today would collect so many programs together in a single structure andcreate as many interconnections between different components in a single entity. In the West,the equivalent of the CCTV program would have been dismantled and distributed, while in China,the consolidation is relished. There is a direct correlation between centralization of program andthe presence of the state. We are not so much flirting with authoritarian regimes as investigatingthe world and what systems enable what type of architecture.

The relationship between program and formcan be one of reciprocity, indifference, or con-flict. Let me explain. Reciprocity is when youshape the program so that it coincides with theform, or shape the form so that it reciprocatesthe configuration you gave to the program.Indifference is when a selected form canaccommodate any program, often resulting in adeterministic form and an indeterminate pro-gram. And with conflict you let program andform purposefully clash—i.e., pole vaulting inthe chapel or the running track through thelibrary reading room—so as to generate unex-pected events.

But you must decide which one to use. That’swhere architecture begins. There is no valuejudgment here. All three are fine, depending onyour objectives for a given project.

A program is never neutral. The people whodraft it are full of preconceptions. The firstthing an architect needs to do is to dismantlethat program and redirect it. As an architect,you need to have an agenda. My agenda is oftenabout generating public spaces or spaces ofencounters, like the generators and the court-yard in the Miami School of Architecture or thecentral linear court in the Athletic Center inCincinnati. Program is not the only issue toaddress, but it is often what you start with.

Events? Events are different from programs.A program relies on repetition and habit; it canbe written down and be prescriptive. In con-trast, an event occurs unexpectedly. Yourdesign may contribute to conditions for somefuture, unknown event to occur, but you do not“design” the event. Programs and politics?Programmatic configurations are always politi-cal: a house with a corridor serving privaterooms has different political implications than ahouse as a large loft space without doors.

Cafe + Meeting

F25Cafe + Meeting

F25

VIP Lounge

VIP (B1)

VIP(F1)

VIP(B1)

20002000

StudioStudio

800Studio

800Studio

Staff / Selcted. Audience

LOOP

VIP/ Actors

1

F1F1

400Studio

400Studio

400Studio

400Studio

F1

B2

Studio

250250StudioStudio

250250StudioStudio

F9

Central Kitchen

Canteen

Canteen

Staff Cafe

F50

F52F51

F49F48F47

F46F45F44F43F42F41

F40F39

F38F37

F36F35F34

F33F32F31

F30F29F28F27

F26F25F24

F23F22F21

F20F19F18F17

F16F15F14F13F12F11

F10F09

F08F07

F06F05F04F03F02

F01B01B02B03

F39

F38

F37

F32

F30

F29

F28F27

F26

F25

F24

F23

F22

F21

F20

F19

F18

F17

F16

F15

F14

F13

F12

F11

F10

F09

F08

F07

F06

F05

B02B01

B03

F04

F03

F02

F01

11

4

13

2

9

14

1

15

7

VIP Lounge

Lobby

F02

VIP

VIP LoungeF02

Lobby

Lobby

Lobby

Lobby

Lobby

Lobby

Lobby

Lounge

LoungeAudience

Audience

F1

F03F02

F01F01F01B01B01B01B01B02B02B02B02B03

LOOPLOOP

F1

1111

VIPVIPVIP/ Actors

VIPVIPVIP/

VIPVIPVIPVIP Lounge

VIPVIPVIP Lounge

Lounge

Lounge

Lounge

Lounge

Lounge

Lounge

ransfer Lobby

ransfer Lobby

ransfer Lobby

ransfer Lobby

ransfer Lobby

ransfer Lobby

ransfer Lobby

ransfer Lobby

ransfer Lobby

ransfer Lobby

ransfer Lobby

ransfer Lobby

ransfer Lobby

ransfer Lobby

ransfer Lobby

ransfer Lobby

F1

Staff Canteen

Studio

Marketing Dept.

Sports H

all

Gym

Health C

enter

Open StudiosOpen Studios

250

210

150

150

80

80

80

80

80

80

B1

B1F1

Actors

Actors/ Seclected Audience

VIP L

ounge

+ Meetin

g

Staff

F38

Broadcasting

F37

Sky Lobby

Sky Lobby

Public Lobby

TOW

ER II

Lobby

TOW

ER I

Lobby

F38

Cafe + Meetin

g

Cafe + Meetin

gF20

Staff Cafe

Staff Cafe

Staff Cafe

F38 Sky Lobby

Sky Lobby

Sky Lobby

Sky Lobby

Sky Lobby

Sky Lobby

Sky Lobby

Sky Lobby

Sky Lobby

Sky Lobby

Sky Lobby

F38

Executive Floor

F42

Executive Floor

Fou

nds

OM

A

Leav

es N

ew Y

ork

and

the

IAU

S;

teac

hes

at t

he A

A,

Lond

on

Pub

lishe

sD

eliri

ous

New

Yor

kB

y se

para

ting

ext

eri-

or a

nd in

terio

r ar

chi-

tect

ure

and

deve

lop-

ing

the

latt

er in

sm

all

auto

nom

ous

inst

all-

men

ts—

[Sky

scra

pers

]ca

n de

vote

the

ir ex

te-

riors

onl

y to

for

mal

-is

m a

nd t

he in

terio

rson

ly t

o fu

ncti

onal

ism

.In

thi

s w

ay, t

hey

not

only

res

olve

for

ever

the

conf

lict

betw

een

form

and

fun

ctio

n, b

utcr

eate

a c

ity

whe

repe

rman

ent

mon

olit

hsce

lebr

ate

met

ropo

li-ta

n in

stab

ility

CO

MP

ET

ITIO

N

Pan

opti

con

Pris

on,

Arn

hem

, T

he N

ethe

rland

s“M

oder

n ar

chite

ctur

eis

bas

ed o

n a

dete

r-m

inis

tic c

oinc

iden

cebe

twee

n fo

rm a

ndpr

ogra

m, i

ts p

urpo

seno

long

er a

n ab

stra

c-tio

n lik

e ‘m

oral

impr

ovem

ent’

but

a lit

-er

al in

vent

ory

of a

llth

e de

tails

of d

aily

life.

”

CO

MP

ET

ITIO

NP

arc

de la

Vill

ette

, Par

isP

rogr

am “i

s no

t de

fini-

tive

: it

is s

afe

to p

re-

dict

tha

t du

ring

the

life

of t

he p

ark,

the

prog

ram

will

und

ergo

cons

tant

cha

nge

and

adju

stm

ent.”

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

Leav

es L

ondo

n,M

oves

to

New

York

; tea

ches

at

the

IAU

SP

ublis

hes

Adv

erti

sem

ents

for

Arc

hite

ctur

e,

“Arc

hite

ctur

e is

defi

ned

by t

heac

tion

s it

wit

ness

esas

muc

h as

by

the

encl

osur

e of

its

wal

ls.”

Pub

lishe

sS

cree

npla

ys

Arc

hite

ctur

e w

ill b

ede

fine

d as

the

con

-ve

rgen

ce o

f ob

ject

s,ev

ents

and

pla

ces.

Suc

h co

nver

genc

ein

tens

ifie

s, r

einf

orce

san

d ac

cele

r ate

s”

Fir

st e

xhib

its

The

Man

hatt

anTr

ansc

ript

s“T

he T

rans

crip

ts a

reab

out

a se

t of

dis

-ju

ncti

ons

amon

g us

e,fo

rm a

nd s

ocia

l val

-ue

s…Th

e no

n-co

inci

-de

nce

betw

een

mea

ning

and

bei

ng,

mov

emen

t an

d sp

ace,

man

and

obj

ect

is t

hest

arti

ng c

ondi

tion

of

the

wor

k…U

ltim

atel

yth

e Tr

ansc

ript

s tr

y to

offe

ra

diff

eren

t re

ad-

ing

of a

rchi

tect

ure

inw

hich

spa

ce, m

ove-

men

t an

d ev

ents

are

inde

pend

ent,

yet

stan

d in

a n

ew r

ela-

tion

to

on e

ano

ther

so t

hat

the

conv

en-

tion

al c

ompo

nent

s of

arch

itec

ture

are

bro

-ke

n do

wn

and

rebu

iltal

ong

diff

eren

t ax

es.”

CO

MP

ET

ITIO

N

Parc

de

la V

illet

te,

Pari

s, W

inne

rC

ompl

eted

, 19

98

“At

La V

illet

te (o

rany

-w

here

els

e fo

rtha

tm

atte

r) t

here

is n

olo

nger

any

rela

tion

-sh

ip p

ossi

ble

betw

een

arch

itec

ture

and

pro

-gr

am, a

rchi

tect

ure

and

mea

ning

.”

Pub

lishe

s S

pace

s an

dE

vent

s“T

here

is n

o sp

ace

wit

hout

eve

nt, n

oar

chit

ectu

re w

itho

utpr

ogra

m…

”

PRAXIS 8 Koolhaas + Tschumi: On Program 9

3. How would you trace the genealogy of program?

Programs are as old as architecture. The first Greek temples began with pro-gram, not form. Most architects are blinded by form and ignore the potential ofprograms to generate forms. Think of department stores and railway stations inthe 19th century: programs came first. It’s the same with the merging of air-ports and shopping malls today.

What struck me early on was that most architects are unbelievably passivetowards programs. They accept them in a completely uncritical way, dress themup with forms, and thereby miss major opportunities. I admit to having been veryirritated vis-à-vis the prevalent ideologies of the seventies, whether the mod-ernist “form follows form” dictum or the subsequent “form follows historical allu-sion” of architectural postmodernism. The programmatic dimension had becomean abandoned territory since the days of the early 20th century avant-gardes,including constructivism and surrealism. In my case, I was also interested in the-oretical issues of intertexuality—mixing spaces and uses in odd or unexpectedconfigurations, intersecting spatial envelopes with movement vectors.

If you mean the genealogy of program in my work, I wouldtrace it to my childhood. Even then, I was interested in organi-zation; I was completely hypnotized by how urban systemswere organized, or how different cultures imagined cities. Ithink that must be simply an unconscious preoccupation.

Everyone who uses the term organization immediatelyannounces a space between rigor and default, or betweenconformity and independence. Organization is the back-ground, and the tension that interests me is created betweencompliance and independence. When layered with script writ-ing and constructivism, this tension lead me to a particulardefinition of program, borne out of a particular moment. Thisidea of program is very similar to the program of DeliriousNew York, rather than the generic term of program that couldhave any contents. During my time in New York, I was trying toassert that the city, or its architecture, did not just have a pro-gram but was in fact a program. That was the intention andambition of the book.

Fou

nds

OM

A

Leav

es N

ew Y

ork

and

the

IAU

S;

teac

hes

at t

he A

A,

Lond

on

Pub

lishe

sD

eliri

ous

New

Yor

kB

y se

para

ting

ext

eri-

or a

nd in

terio

r ar

chi-

tect

ure

and

deve

lop-

ing

the

latt

er in

sm

all

auto

nom

ous

inst

all-

men

ts—

[Sky

scra

pers

]ca

n de

vote

the

ir ex

te-

riors

onl

y to

for

mal

-is

m a

nd t

he in

terio

rson

ly t

o fu

ncti

onal

ism

.In

thi

s w

ay, t

hey

not

only

res

olve

for

ever

the

conf

lict

betw

een

form

and

fun

ctio

n, b

utcr

eate

a c

ity

whe

repe

rman

ent

mon

olit

hsce

lebr

ate

met

ropo

li-ta

n in

stab

ility

CO

MP

ET

ITIO

N

Pan

opti

con

Pris

on,

Arn

hem

, T

he N

ethe

rland

s“M

oder

n ar

chite

ctur

eis

bas

ed o

n a

dete

r-m

inis

tic c

oinc

iden

cebe

twee

n fo

rm a

ndpr

ogra

m, i

ts p

urpo

seno

long

er a

n ab

stra

c-tio

n lik

e ‘m

oral

impr

ovem

ent’

but

a lit

-er

al in

vent

ory

of a

llth

e de

tails

of d

aily

life.

”

CO

MP

ET

ITIO

NP

arc

de la

Vill

ette

, Par

isP

rogr

am “i

s no

t de

fini-

tive

: it

is s

afe

to p

re-

dict

tha

t du

ring

the

life

of t

he p

ark,

the

prog

ram

will

und

ergo

cons

tant

cha

nge

and

adju

stm

ent.”

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

Leav

es L

ondo

n,M

oves

to

New

York

; tea

ches

at

the

IAU

SP

ublis

hes

Adv

erti

sem

ents

for

Arc

hite

ctur

e,

“Arc

hite

ctur

e is

defi

ned

by t

heac

tion

s it

wit

ness

esas

muc

h as

by

the

encl

osur

e of

its

wal

ls.”

Pub

lishe

sS

cree

npla

ys

Arc

hite

ctur

e w

ill b

ede

fine

d as

the

con

-ve

rgen

ce o

f ob

ject

s,ev

ents

and

pla

ces.

Suc

h co

nver

genc

ein

tens

ifie

s, r

einf

orce

san

d ac

cele

r ate

s”

Fir

st e

xhib

its

The

Man

hatt

anTr

ansc

ript

s“T

he T

rans

crip

ts a

reab

out

a se

t of

dis

-ju

ncti

ons

amon

g us

e,fo

rm a

nd s

ocia

l val

-ue

s…Th

e no

n-co

inci

-de

nce

betw

een

mea

ning

and

bei

ng,

mov

emen

t an

d sp

ace,

man

and

obj

ect

is t

hest

arti

ng c

ondi

tion

of

the

wor

k…U

ltim

atel

yth

e Tr

ansc

ript

s tr

y to

offe

ra

diff

eren

t re

ad-

ing

of a

rchi

tect

ure

inw

hich

spa

ce, m

ove-

men

t an

d ev

ents

are

inde

pend

ent,

yet

stan

d in

a n

ew r

ela-

tion

to

on e

ano

ther

so t

hat

the

conv

en-

tion

al c

ompo

nent

s of

arch

itec

ture

are

bro

-ke

n do

wn

and

rebu

iltal

ong

diff

eren

t ax

es.”

CO

MP

ET

ITIO

N

Parc

de

la V

illet

te,

Pari

s, W

inne

rC

ompl

eted

, 19

98

“At

La V

illet

te (o

rany

-w

here

els

e fo

rtha

tm

atte

r) t

here

is n

olo

nger

any

rela

tion

-sh

ip p

ossi

ble

betw

een

arch

itec

ture

and

pro

-gr

am, a

rchi

tect

ure

and

mea

ning

.”

Pub

lishe

s S

pace

s an

dE

vent

s“T

here

is n

o sp

ace

wit

hout

eve

nt, n

oar

chit

ectu

re w

itho

utpr

ogra

m…

”

4. New York, 1976: You were pursuing research and developing theories of pro-gram that spawned what became for both of you seminal publications: DeliriousNew York and The Manhattan Transcripts. What was so urgent about the issueof program at this moment? What made New York such fertile ground—both asa working environment and as a subject—at that particular time?

Today there’s a total banality of travel and intellectual trafficthat didn’t exist in the seventies. As a very technical European, Iam deeply influenced by almost any of the “isms” that havecomprised Europe’s history. Therefore I was ambitious enoughnot so much to want my own “ism” but to look at the world interms of “isms.” On the one hand, I felt a real disenchantmentwith the slackening of modernity that was an outcome of‘flower-power’ or the emergence of postmodernism. And yet Iwas simultaneously keenly aware of how manifestos them-selves had introduced so many failures that the whole typologycould not be rescued.

So I approached New York indirectly, with a manifesto thatconsisted of a volume or quantity of pre-existing evidence. Itook a journalistic but also a personal approach, which I had toshield behind America. Bernard Tschumi’s project seems muchmore clearly a manifesto, or at least it more openly uses thetraditional methodology and appearance of a manifesto.

I came to New York from London because of an interest in the art scene, whichseemed 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. For me, architecture was a blankpage: everything seemed to need to be invented. I became obsessed with NewYork City itself, a city in which everything seemed possible. I also watched a lotof 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 mydefinition of architecture: as concept and experience, or the definition ofspace and the movement of bodies within it.

Vill

a da

ll’Ava

,P

aris

, Fra

nce

Com

plet

ed, 1

99

1“H

e w

ante

d a

glas

sho

use.

She

wan

ted

asw

imm

ing

pool

on

the

roof

. The

oret

ical

ly, i

tw

ould

be

poss

ible

to

see

the

Eiff

el T

ower

whi

le s

wim

min

g”.

CO

MP

ET

ITIO

N

The

Hag

ue C

ity

Hal

l, T

he H

ague

,T

he N

ethe

rland

s“It

s un

stab

le c

onfig

u-ra

tion

allo

wed

us...a

fter

our

pro

ject

for

Par

c de

la V

illet

te,

to r

eexp

erim

ent

wit

hth

e re

lati

onsh

ipbe

twee

n sp

ecifi

city

and

inde

term

inac

y,th

is t

ime

in a

bui

ldin

g.”

EX

HIB

ITIO

N

Dec

onst

ruct

ivis

tA

rchi

tect

ure,

MoM

A, N

ew Y

ork

CO

MP

ET

ITIO

N

Bib

lioth

èque

Nat

iona

le d

eF

ranc

e, P

aris

Hon

orab

le M

enti

on“T

he a

mbi

tion

of

this

proj

ect

is t

o rid

arc

hi-

tect

ure

of r

espo

nsi-

bilit

ies

it c

an n

olo

nger

sus

tain

and

to

expl

ore

this

new

fre

e-do

m a

ggre

ssiv

ely.

Itsu

gges

ts t

hat,

liber

at-

ed f

rom

its

form

erob

ligat

ions

, arc

hite

c-tu

re’s

last

fun

ctio

nw

ill b

e th

e cr

eati

on o

fth

e sy

mbo

lic s

pace

sth

at a

ccom

mod

ate

the

pers

iste

nt d

esire

for

colle

ctiv

ity.

””

CO

MP

ET

ITIO

N

Cen

ter

for

Art

and

Med

iaT

echn

olog

y,K

arls

ruhe

, win

ner

Vid

eo P

avili

on,

Gro

ning

en,

The

Net

herla

nds

Eur

alill

e, L

ille,

Fra

nce

Com

plet

ed, 1

99

4“In

thi

s fin

-de-

sièc

le,

‘pro

gram

s’ h

ave

beco

me

abst

ract

inth

e se

nse

that

the

yar

e no

long

er c

on-

nect

ed t

o a

plac

e or

aci

ty; t

hey

float

and

grav

itat

e op

port

unis

-ti

cally

to

that

sit

e-w

hich

off

ers

the

high

-es

t nu

mbe

r an

d qu

ali-

ty o

f co

nnec

tion

—w

hich

see

ms

near

est

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

CO

MP

ET

ITIO

N

New

Nat

iona

lTh

eate

ran

dO

pera

Hou

se,

Toky

o, J

apan

Sec

ond

Pri

zeW

e ab

ando

ned

trad

i-ti

onal

rul

es o

f co

mpo

-si

tion

and

har

mon

y,re

plac

ing

them

wit

h a

mod

e of

org

aniz

atio

nba

sed

not

on “f

orm

follo

ws

func

tion

,”“f

orm

fol

low

s fo

rm” o

rev

en “f

orm

fol

low

sfi

ctio

n” b

ut r

athe

ron

brea

king

apa

rt t

hetr

adit

iona

l com

po-

nent

s of

the

the

ater

and

oper

a ho

use…

No

mor

e ar

tful

art

icul

a-ti

ons

amon

g th

e au

di-

tori

um, t

he s

tage

, the

foye

r, th

e gr

and

stai

r-ca

se; a

new

ple

asur

elie

s in

the

par

alle

l jux

-ta

posi

tion

of

inde

ter-

min

ate

cult

ural

mea

n-in

gs…

App

oint

ed D

ean,

Col

umbi

aU

nive

rsit

y, G

SA

PP

EX

HIB

ITIO

N

Dec

onst

ruct

ivis

tA

rchi

tect

ure,

MoM

A, N

ew Y

ork

CO

MP

ET

ITIO

N

Bib

lioth

èque

Nat

iona

le d

eF

ranc

e, P

aris

“Tra

nspr

ogra

mm

ing:

Com

bine

d tw

o pr

o-gr

ams,

reg

ardl

ess

ofth

eir

inco

mpa

tibi

li-ti

es, t

oget

her

wit

hth

eir

resp

ecti

ve s

pa-

tial

con

figu

rati

ons.

Ref

eren

ce: p

lane

tari

-um

+ r

olle

r-co

aste

r.””

CO

MP

ET

ITIO

N

Cen

ter

for

Art

and

Med

iaTe

chno

logy

,K

arls

ruhe

3rd

Pri

ze

Gla

ss V

ideo

Pavi

lion,

Gro

ning

en,

The

Net

herl

ands

PRAXIS 8 Koolhaas + Tschumi: On Program 11

5. Tell us about your time at the Institute for Architecture and Urban Studiesand how it influenced your development as an intellectual and as a designer?Who were your allies there?

It was a time when the Institute was probably much less rigorous and much less rigid in itsalliances. There was not a single person in that period in New York that I was not at somepoint, 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] atCornell 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 beteaching there that year, as well as Herbert Damisch, another French intellectual with whomI became close friends. He introduced me to Foucault, so even before arriving in New York Ispent a year in America immersed in French Intellectual culture, which reinforced my alreadyconsiderable involvement with Roland Barthes’ work.

Weirdly enough I think I was more intellectual than any of them, but I was working on aproject 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 thanarchitectural. Maybe Delirious New York is about architecture, but it is more a literary cre-ation—more writing than thinking.

The Institute for Architecture and Urban Studies,with its conjoined publications, was one of the onlyarchitectural settings at the time that graspedarchitecture as part of a rigorous intellectual dis-course. But many of the interests of the Institutewere quite distant from my own. Again, I felt closerto the New York art scene of the time. I was at theInstitute for just one year, 1976. Perhaps beingthere sharpened my desire to challenge the for-malized discourse on the primacy of form. I beganThe Manhattan Transcripts immediately afterleaving the Institute. Allies? Ironically enough, thekey people at the Institute really became myfriends only after I left.

6. What was the status of program in this laboratory of Eisenman-inspired formalism?

I wrote Delirious New York when I returned to London. I did the research for itin 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 ofallies, Peter has a rare and unbelievable generosity to create and support afield in which other people flourish. Probably he is partially motivated out of akind 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 theentire 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 thematerial I was researching. I was an intelligent person dealing with thedebased material that nobody could understand. I had the best of both worlds.

In the early Institute years, Eisenman wrote an editorial inOppositions called “Postfunctionalism” which dismissed programand function as part of a 500 year old, pre-industrial humanistpractice. So a redefinition of program was certainly not part ofthe Institute’s agenda. Yet, as is often the case, what is hidden isas interesting as what is in full view. Anthony Vidler’s texts andlectures on Boullée, Ledoux, and Lequeu were extraordinarily per-ceptive, for example, showing programmatic rituals and spatialsequences in the architecture of Lequeu’s lodges. Far from beingpre-industrial, his lectures suggested bridges to the most con-temporary art practices, including modes of notation used in per-formance art. But the Institute’s prevalent discourse then wasautonomy. My inclinations were more towards intertextuality.

Vill

a da

ll’Ava

,P

aris

, Fra

nce

Com

plet

ed, 1

99

1“H

e w

ante

d a

glas

sho

use.

She

wan

ted

asw

imm

ing

pool

on

the

roof

. The

oret

ical

ly, i

tw

ould

be

poss

ible

to

see

the

Eiff

el T

ower

whi

le s

wim

min

g”.

CO

MP

ET

ITIO

N

The

Hag

ue C

ity

Hal

l, T

he H

ague

,T

he N

ethe

rland

s“It

s un

stab

le c

onfig

u-ra

tion

allo

wed

us...a

fter

our

pro

ject

for

Par

c de

la V

illet

te,

to r

eexp

erim

ent

wit

hth

e re

lati

onsh

ipbe

twee

n sp

ecifi

city

and

inde

term

inac

y,th

is t

ime

in a

bui

ldin

g.”

EX

HIB

ITIO

N

Dec

onst

ruct

ivis

tA

rchi

tect

ure,

MoM

A, N

ew Y

ork

CO

MP

ET

ITIO

N

Bib

lioth

èque

Nat

iona

le d

eF

ranc

e, P

aris

Hon

orab

le M

enti

on“T

he a

mbi

tion

of

this

proj

ect

is t

o rid

arc

hi-

tect

ure

of r

espo

nsi-

bilit

ies

it c

an n

olo

nger

sus

tain

and

to

expl

ore

this

new

fre

e-do

m a

ggre

ssiv

ely.

Itsu

gges

ts t

hat,

liber

at-

ed f

rom

its

form

erob

ligat

ions

, arc

hite

c-tu

re’s

last

fun

ctio

nw

ill b

e th

e cr

eati

on o

fth

e sy

mbo

lic s

pace

sth

at a

ccom

mod

ate

the

pers

iste

nt d

esire

for

colle

ctiv

ity.

””

CO

MP

ET

ITIO

N

Cen

ter

for

Art

and

Med

iaT

echn

olog

y,K

arls

ruhe

, win

ner

Vid

eo P

avili

on,

Gro

ning

en,

The

Net

herla

nds

Eur

alill

e, L

ille,

Fra

nce

Com

plet

ed, 1

99

4“In

thi

s fin

-de-

sièc

le,

‘pro

gram

s’ h

ave

beco

me

abst

ract

inth

e se

nse

that

the

yar

e no

long

er c

on-

nect

ed t

o a

plac

e or

aci

ty; t

hey

float

and

grav

itat

e op

port

unis

-ti

cally

to

that

sit

e-w

hich

off

ers

the

high

-es

t nu

mbe

r an

d qu

ali-

ty o

f co

nnec

tion

—w

hich

see

ms

near

est

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

CO

MP

ET

ITIO

N

New

Nat

iona

lTh

eate

ran

dO

pera

Hou

se,

Toky

o, J

apan

Sec

ond

Pri

zeW

e ab

ando

ned

trad

i-ti

onal

rul

es o

f co

mpo

-si

tion

and

har

mon

y,re

plac

ing

them

wit

h a

mod

e of

org

aniz

atio

nba

sed

not

on “f

orm

follo

ws

func

tion

,”“f

orm

fol

low

s fo

rm” o

rev

en “f

orm

fol

low

sfi

ctio

n” b

ut r

athe

ron

brea

king

apa

rt t

hetr

adit

iona

l com

po-

nent

s of

the

the

ater

and

oper

a ho

use…

No

mor

e ar

tful

art

icul

a-ti

ons

amon

g th

e au

di-

tori

um, t

he s

tage

, the

foye

r, th

e gr

and

stai

r-ca

se; a

new

ple

asur

elie

s in

the

par

alle

l jux

-ta

posi

tion

of

inde

ter-

min

ate

cult

ural

mea

n-in

gs…

App

oint

ed D

ean,

Col

umbi

aU

nive

rsit

y, G

SA

PP

EX

HIB

ITIO

N

Dec

onst

ruct

ivis

tA

rchi

tect

ure,

MoM

A, N

ew Y

ork

CO

MP

ET

ITIO

N

Bib

lioth

èque

Nat

iona

le d

eF

ranc

e, P

aris

“Tra

nspr

ogra

mm

ing:

Com

bine

d tw

o pr

o-gr

ams,

reg

ardl

ess

ofth

eir

inco

mpa

tibi

li-ti

es, t

oget

her

wit

hth

eir

resp

ecti

ve s

pa-

tial

con

figu

rati

ons.

Ref

eren

ce: p

lane

tari

-um

+ r

olle

r-co

aste

r.””

CO

MP

ET

ITIO

N

Cen

ter

for

Art

and

Med

iaTe

chno

logy

,K

arls

ruhe

3rd

Pri

ze

Gla

ss V

ideo

Pavi

lion,

Gro

ning

en,

The

Net

herl

ands

7. What was the relationship between this early research and writing and theradical reconceptualization of program evidenced in your design for the Parcde la Villette?

My work on The Manhattan Transcripts began with a tripartite definition ofarchitecture as space, action, and movement. The resulting mode of nota-tion was used throughout the Transcripts and led directly to the La Villetteprinciple of superimposing points (of activities), lines (of movement), andspaces (of appropriation). The precedent for my point grid was interestingin 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 programs.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. Itproved a great way to explode the park’s programmatic complexity andreorganize it around the points of intensity of the folies. Simultaneously, Iwas 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 ofhorizontal skyscraper. The relationship to Delirious New York wasso unbelievably literal that, as our practice evolved, it has inevitablybecome more indirect. At first those ideas worked as an example orprototype, but then it became simply an influence or area of atten-tion. I still notice occasionally that the early research returns in analmost literal way, certainly in CCTV. So it’s a source that we feelfree to ignore, but there’s always a pull. Except when there’s a kindof anti-pull. Or when it has no relevance whatsoever. For instancewhen 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 or refine.

to a

ll ot

her

plac

es.”

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

CO

MP

ET

ITIO

N

JRR

ail S

tati

onK

yoto

, Jap

an“D

ispr

ogra

mm

ing:

Com

bini

ng t

wo

orm

ore

prog

ram

s,w

here

by a

req

uire

dsp

atia

l con

figu

rati

onof

pro

gram

A c

on-

tam

inat

es p

rogr

am B

and

B’s

pos

sibl

e co

n-fi

gura

tion

. The

new

prog

ram

B m

ay b

eex

trac

ted

from

the

inhe

rent

con

trad

ic-

tion

s co

ntai

ned

inpr

ogra

m A

, and

B’s

requ

ired

spa

tial

con

-fi

gura

tion

may

be

appl

ied

to A

.”

CO

MP

ET

ITIO

N

Le F

resn

oy,

Tour

coin

g,

Fra

nce,

W

inne

rC

ompl

eted

, 19

98

Eve

nt-C

itie

s(P

raxi

s) p

ublis

hed

“…th

e ca

use-

and-

effe

ct r

elat

ions

hip

sanc

tifi

ed b

y m

od-

erni

sm, b

y w

hich

form

fol

low

s fu

ncti

on(o

rvi

ce v

ersa

) nee

dsto

be

aban

done

d in

favo

rof

pro

mis

cuou

sco

llisi

ons

of p

ro-

gram

s an

d sp

aces

, in

whi

ch t

he t

erm

sin

term

ingl

e, c

ombi

ne,

and

impl

icat

e on

anot

her

in t

he p

ro-

duct

ion

of a

new

arch

itec

tura

l rea

lity.”

EX

HIB

ITIO

N

Ligh

tC

onst

ruct

ion,

MoM

A, N

ew Y

ork

CO

MP

ET

ITIO

N

MoM

A E

xpan

sion

,N

ew Y

ork

Fin

alis

t“[T

he G

arde

n’s]

Pro

gram

mat

ic f

lexi

-bi

lity

and

soci

alsp

ace

prov

ides

plac

es f

orac

tivi

ties

and

art

form

s th

atar

e no

t ea

sily

con

-ta

ined

wit

hin

conv

en-

tion

al e

xhib

itio

n ga

l-le

ries

. Our

conc

ept

exte

nds

this

qua

lity

thro

ugho

ut t

heM

useu

m in

the

for

mof

mul

tipl

e co

urts

.”

PRAXIS 8 Koolhaas + Tschumi: On Program 13

8. Some critics have written about the return of the megastructure, not only inyour practice but also in other architect’s designs. Do you agree, and to whatwould you attribute the recuperation of this type? How is this ‘new’ megastruc-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 thatarchitecture meets megalomania, and megalomania isdebased. But fortunately the force of the market flushed itaway 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, formwas discredited, and perhaps also the possibility for architects’participation and complicity with the market economy. Nowwe’re all looking for something which gives us not so muchpower—because I don’t think many people are nostalgic forpower, and it’s still a very dirty word—but perhaps a largerscope of what architecture could do, or could say.

The recent Factory 798 project in Beijing started with our wish to save theliveliest cultural center in China from being razed to make way for ten millionsquare feet of residential towers. After talking to the artists and galleriststhere, we proposed to keep the art program below and put the housing pro-gram above, hovering over the existing art neighborhood. The vertical supportpoints were located anywhere we could place them between the existing build-ings on the ground, so that the resulting “random” grid became a lattice. Theproject generated an enormous amount of media coverage since people saw itas a way to keep the old while moving forward with the new. Maybe in part dueto the response to our project, the government decided not to go ahead withdemolition. So maybe we saved the neighborhood but ultimately lost a project.

I do not think the project could have been done elsewhere but China. Free-market economy and megastructure are two terms that rarely go together.Who will pay for megastructures? Today’s capital is transient, while megas-tructures are not. So maybe you can call the newest megastructures a resur-gence of criticality. (What an ugly word!) Megastructures often act asmanifestos. Our Factory 798 project was a buildable manifesto.

to a

ll ot

her

plac

es.”

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

CO

MP

ET

ITIO

N

JRR

ail S

tati

onK

yoto

, Jap

an“D

ispr

ogra

mm

ing:

Com

bini

ng t

wo

orm

ore

prog

ram

s,w

here

by a

req

uire

dsp

atia

l con

figu

rati

onof

pro

gram

A c

on-

tam

inat

es p

rogr

am B

and

B’s

pos

sibl

e co

n-fi

gura

tion

. The

new

prog

ram

B m

ay b

eex

trac

ted

from

the

inhe

rent

con

trad

ic-

tion

s co

ntai

ned

inpr

ogra

m A

, and

B’s

requ

ired

spa

tial

con

-fi

gura

tion

may

be

appl

ied

to A

.”

CO

MP

ET

ITIO

N

Le F

resn

oy,

Tour

coin

g,

Fra

nce,

W

inne

rC

ompl

eted

, 19

98

Eve

nt-C

itie

s(P

raxi

s) p

ublis

hed

“…th

e ca

use-

and-

effe

ct r

elat

ions

hip

sanc

tifi

ed b

y m

od-

erni

sm, b

y w

hich

form

fol

low

s fu

ncti

on(o

rvi

ce v

ersa

) nee

dsto

be

aban

done

d in

favo

rof

pro

mis

cuou

sco

llisi

ons

of p

ro-

gram

s an

d sp

aces

, in

whi

ch t

he t

erm

sin

term

ingl

e, c

ombi

ne,

and

impl

icat

e on

anot

her

in t

he p

ro-

duct

ion

of a

new

arch

itec

tura

l rea

lity.”

EX

HIB

ITIO

N

Ligh

tC

onst

ruct

ion,

MoM

A, N

ew Y

ork

CO

MP

ET

ITIO

N

MoM

A E

xpan

sion

,N

ew Y

ork

Fin

alis

t“[T

he G

arde

n’s]

Pro

gram

mat

ic f

lexi

-bi

lity

and

soci

alsp

ace

prov

ides

plac

es f

orac

tivi

ties

and

art

form

s th

atar

e no

t ea

sily

con

-ta

ined

wit

hin

conv

en-

tion

al e

xhib

itio

n ga

l-le

ries

. Our

conc

ept

exte

nds

this

qua

lity

thro

ugho

ut t

heM

useu

m in

the

for

mof

mul

tipl

e co

urts

.”

All of the above. Most projects start with a program. First, you have to understandthe 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 spatialconnections 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 yourarchitectural form.

At Lerner Hall, 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 verticalsocial space of sorts. But a program always has to be inserted into a given site,which often has multiple constraints, whether physical or otherwise; in other words,it has a context. That in turn affects the selection or the 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 thecampus is half a level higher than Broadway. I could link these two levels by a rampand 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 for diagrams, butthis one is simply an illustration to enable others to under-stand our process. It’s not at all a diagram, but a drawingthat came after the fact. Hidden in it is a more simple read-ing of which elements of a particular kind of building can bestable, and which have to remain volatile. This is simply anend product, a retroactive illustration of what, in a moreprivate sense, is a way of thinking.

The real diagram is the one that addresses stabilityand instability. In other projects there were diagrams,barcodes of stability and instability, or defined and unde-fined spaces.

9. How does the above drawing represent program? Is this a diagrammaticdevice, an operative tool, a formal construct, a descriptive idea, or a combina-tion of these or none of these?

Edu

cato

rium

,U

trec

ht, T

heN

ethe

rland

sC

ompl

eted

19

97

“Big

ness

, Or

the

Pro

blem

of

Larg

e”pu

blis

hed

inD

omus

, “In

Big

ness

, the

faça

de b

ecom

es d

is-

conn

ecte

d fr

om t

hepr

ogra

mm

atic

ele

-m

ents

insi

de.

Pro

gram

cha

nges

,bu

t fa

çade

rem

ains

stab

le...

The

art

ific

iali-

ty a

nd c

ompl

exit

y of

Big

ness

rel

ease

func

tion

fro

m it

sde

fens

ive

arm

or t

oal

low

a k

ind

of li

que-

fact

ion;

pro

gram

mat

-ic

ele

men

ts r

eact

wit

h ea

ch o

ther

to

crea

te n

ew e

vent

s—B

igne

ss r

etur

ns t

o a

mod

el o

f pr

ogra

m-

mat

ic a

lche

my.

”

EX

HIB

ITIO

N

Ligh

tC

onst

ruct

ion,

MoM

A, N

ew Y

ork

S,M

,L,X

Lpu

blis

hed

Pro

gram

me

(glo

ssar

yen

try)

: “T

he s

low

rea

l-iz

atio

n th

at t

heex

cite

men

t of

asc

hem

e is

not

in it

sou

trag

eous

com

po-

nent

s, b

ut is

the

mos

tm

odes

t pr

ogra

mm

e.”

—P

eter

Sal

ter

CO

MP

ET

ITIO

N

MoM

A E

xpan

sion

, N

ew Y

ork

“Bec

ause

an

enti

rely

new

bui

ldin

g w

ill c

on-

tain

the

ent

ireM

useu

m p

rogr

am it

will

hav

e th

e ad

van-

tage

s of

Big

ness

:‘p

rogr

amm

atic

hybr

idiz

atio

n, p

roxi

mi-

ties

/fric

tion

s/ov

er-

laps

/sup

erpo

siti

ons,

the

enti

re a

ppar

atus

of m

onta

ge in

vent

edat

the

beg

inni

ng o

fth

e ce

ntur

y to

org

an-

ize

the

rela

tion

ship

sbe

twee

n in

depe

nden

tpa

rts…

”’

99

00

01

02

03

04

05

06

CO

MP

ET

ITIO

N

Sch

ool o

fA

rchi

tect

ure,

Flo

rida

Inte

rnat

iona

lU

nive

rsit

yM

iam

i, F

lori

daW

inne

r, C

ompl

eted

, 20

03

“Her

e, w

hat

a bu

ild-

ing

does

bec

omes

as

impo

rtan

t as

wha

t it

look

s lik

e. T

he b

uild

-in

g m

ust

act

as a

gene

rato

r, ac

tiva

ting

spac

es a

s w

ell a

sde

fini

ng t

hem

.”

CO

MP

ET

ITIO

N

Dow

nsvi

ew P

ark,

Toro

nto,

Can

ada

EX

HIB

ITIO

N

Wex

ner

Cen

ter

for

the

Art

sPe

rfec

t A

cts

ofA

rchi

tect

ure

Fact

ory

97

8,

Bei

jing,

Chi

na“A

ckno

wle

dgin

g th

ein

evit

able

con

fron

ta-

tion

of

old

and

new

,th

e pr

opos

al is

inte

nded

as

an a

lter

-na

tive

to

the

who

le-

sale

dem

olit

ion

of t

heex

isti

ng a

rts

faci

li-ty

…Th

e pr

ojec

t, t

hus,

is a

bout

a s

trat

egy

ofin

betw

eens

.”

Eve

nt-C

itie

s 3

(Con

cept

vs.

Con

text

vs.

Con

tent

)pu

blis

hed

“The

re is

no

arch

itec

-tu

ral s

pace

wit

hout

som

ethi

ng t

hat

hap-

pens

in it

, no

spac

ew

itho

ut c

onte

nt.

Mos

t ar

chit

ects

begi

n w

ith

a pr

ogra

m,

that

is, a

list

of

user

s’re

quir

emen

tsde

scri

bing

the

inte

nded

pur

pose

of

the

build

ing.

At

vari

-ou

s m

omen

ts in

his

-to

ry, i

t ha

s be

encl

aim

ed t

hat

prog

ram

of f

unct

ion

can

be t

hege

nera

tor

of f

orm

,th

at “f

orm

fol

low

sfu

ncti

on,”

orpe

rhap

sth

at “f

orm

fol

low

sco

nten

t.” In

ord

erto

avoi

d en

gagi

ng in

adi

scou

rse

of f

orm

per

se o

rof

for

m v

ersu

sco

nten

t, t

he w

ord

“for

m” i

s re

plac

edhe

re w

ith

the

wor

d“c

once

pt.”

Can

one

ther

efor

e su

bsti

tute

“for

m f

ollo

ws

func

-ti

on” w

ith

an a

lter

na-

tive

for

mul

atio

n,na

mel

y, “c

once

pt f

ol-

low

s co

nten

t”?

PRAXIS 8 Koolhaas + Tschumi: On Program 15

I can’t deny that I’m perversely interested in these ‘attributions.’ I have such a vast attentionspan that I can’t deny that I follow them. But I think that at this point it is not attribution. Theextent of media coverage has reached complete insanity. It is sad that the discipline is sodependant 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’veeffectively left the discipline. I have almost no friends left in architecture. My intimatefriends 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 ofcourse makes everyone who is regurgitated bitter. So that even if you produce somethinggood, there is a cynical view of it from the beginning. So while I’m increasingly disenchantedwith the practice of being interviewed, I hope this questionnaire produces something newor at least something less than totally predictable.

Look, I do not think that architecture must beginwith form. It begins with a concept or an idea. Someof these concepts or ideas may be programmatic.Architecture is the materialization of a concept,and I feel no qualms about calling the program amaterial, much as concrete walls or glass enclo-sures are materials. You can also use programs theway Malevich or Mondrian transformed painting, orJoyce and Schönberg transformed writing andmusic. Most interesting, however, is to design newconditions for living, whether urban or otherwise.

10. Recently, various critics have argued that you are responsible for inspiringan entire body of work regarding program, both pedagogical projects and alsotrends in architectural production outside of academia. What is your reactionto this type of ‘blame:’ acknowledgment, or attribution?

Edu

cato

rium

,U

trec

ht, T

heN

ethe

rland

sC

ompl

eted

19

97

“Big

ness

, Or

the

Pro

blem

of

Larg

e”pu

blis

hed

inD

omus

, “In

Big

ness

, the

faça

de b

ecom

es d

is-

conn

ecte

d fr

om t

hepr

ogra

mm

atic

ele

-m

ents

insi

de.

Pro

gram

cha

nges

,bu

t fa

çade

rem

ains

stab

le...

The

art

ific

iali-

ty a

nd c

ompl

exit

y of

Big

ness

rel

ease

func

tion

fro

m it

sde

fens

ive

arm

or t

oal

low

a k

ind

of li

que-

fact

ion;

pro

gram

mat

-ic

ele

men

ts r

eact

wit

h ea

ch o

ther

to

crea

te n

ew e

vent

s—B

igne

ss r

etur

ns t

o a

mod

el o

f pr

ogra

m-

mat

ic a

lche

my.

”

EX

HIB

ITIO

N

Ligh

tC

onst

ruct

ion,

MoM

A, N

ew Y

ork

S,M

,L,X

Lpu

blis

hed

Pro

gram

me

(glo

ssar

yen

try)

: “T

he s

low

rea

l-iz

atio

n th

at t

heex

cite

men

t of

asc

hem

e is

not

in it

sou

trag

eous

com

po-

nent

s, b

ut is

the

mos

tm

odes

t pr

ogra

mm

e.”

—P

eter

Sal

ter

CO

MP

ET

ITIO

N

MoM

A E

xpan

sion

, N

ew Y

ork

“Bec

ause

an

enti

rely

new

bui

ldin

g w

ill c

on-

tain

the

ent

ireM

useu

m p

rogr

am it

will

hav

e th

e ad

van-

tage

s of

Big

ness

:‘p

rogr

amm

atic

hybr

idiz

atio

n, p

roxi

mi-

ties

/fric

tion

s/ov

er-

laps

/sup

erpo

siti

ons,

the

enti

re a

ppar

atus

of m

onta

ge in

vent

edat

the

beg

inni

ng o

fth

e ce

ntur

y to

org

an-

ize

the

rela

tion

ship

sbe

twee

n in

depe

nden

tpa

rts…

”’

99

00

01

02

03

04

05

06

CO

MP

ET

ITIO

N

Sch

ool o

fA

rchi

tect

ure,

Flo

rida

Inte

rnat

iona

lU

nive

rsit

yM

iam

i, F

lori

daW

inne

r, C

ompl

eted

, 20

03

“Her

e, w

hat

a bu

ild-

ing

does

bec

omes

as

impo

rtan

t as

wha

t it

look

s lik

e. T

he b

uild

-in

g m

ust

act

as a

gene

rato

r, ac

tiva

ting

spac

es a

s w

ell a

sde

fini

ng t

hem

.”

CO

MP

ET

ITIO

N

Dow

nsvi

ew P

ark,

Toro

nto,

Can

ada

EX

HIB

ITIO

N

Wex

ner

Cen

ter

for

the

Art

sPe

rfec

t A

cts

ofA

rchi

tect

ure

Fact

ory

97

8,

Bei

jing,

Chi

na“A

ckno

wle

dgin

g th

ein

evit

able

con

fron

ta-

tion

of

old

and

new

,th

e pr

opos

al is

inte

nded

as

an a

lter

-na

tive

to

the

who

le-

sale

dem

olit

ion

of t

heex

isti

ng a

rts

faci

li-ty

…Th

e pr

ojec

t, t

hus,

is a

bout

a s

trat

egy

ofin

betw

eens

.”

Eve

nt-C

itie

s 3

(Con

cept

vs.

Con

text

vs.

Con

tent

)pu

blis

hed

“The

re is

no

arch

itec

-tu

ral s

pace

wit

hout

som

ethi

ng t

hat

hap-

pens

in it

, no

spac

ew

itho

ut c

onte

nt.

Mos

t ar

chit

ects

begi

n w

ith

a pr

ogra

m,

that

is, a

list

of

user

s’re

quir

emen

tsde

scri

bing

the

inte

nded

pur

pose

of

the

build

ing.

At

vari

-ou

s m

omen

ts in

his

-to

ry, i

t ha

s be

encl

aim

ed t

hat

prog

ram

of f

unct

ion

can

be t

hege

nera

tor

of f

orm

,th

at “f

orm

fol

low

sfu

ncti

on,”

orpe

rhap

sth

at “f

orm

fol

low

sco

nten

t.” In

ord

erto

avoi

d en

gagi

ng in

adi

scou

rse

of f

orm

per

se o

rof

for

m v

ersu

sco

nten

t, t

he w

ord

“for

m” i

s re

plac

edhe

re w

ith

the

wor

d“c

once

pt.”

Can

one

ther

efor

e su

bsti

tute

“for

m f

ollo

ws

func

-ti

on” w

ith

an a

lter

na-

tive

for

mul

atio

n,na

mel

y, “c

once

pt f

ol-

low

s co

nten

t”?