THE PARADOX OF ANARCHITECTURE by Andrew K Green

Lincoln School of Architecture BA (Hons) Architecture

THE PARADOX OF ANARCHITECTURE

By Andrew K Green

CONTENTS Synopsis

List of Illustrations

Introduction

Question

Literature Review

Hypothesis

Methodology

Structure

Chapter 1- Anarchitecture Prologue

Gordon Matta-Clark

Robin Evans

Edward Suzuki

Lucien Kroll

Habitats Nomades

The Space Hijackers

Chapter 2- Theory

Lebbeus Woods

Architecture is a political act

Free-zones

Heterarchy

Chapter 3- Practice

Herman Hertzberg- Central Beheer

Ralph Erskine- The Arc

Zaha Hadid- BMW Central Building

Conclusion

Appendices

Glossary

Bibliography

SYNOPSIS

Societies are chaotic and confused. Modern cities are becoming homogeneous elements of a hierarchical, corporately dominated whole. Anarchitecture is a relatively unaccustomed term, convoluted representations exist within literature and the media. This study proposes to analyse the current state of anarchitecture, evaluating the inadequacies in past research studies. The investigation also aims to pin point certain tensions, conflicts and revolts against the current state of architecture, resulting in progressive rationale for the current status of anarchitecture. I believe that, although the theory of anarchitecture claims to implement social change, this theory has rarely extended beyond theoretical boundaries and found material form. I propose that this theory should be challenged against practical examples of how to instigate social change. This hypothesis will help decipher whether there is value within the theory or whether the authors who instigate this theory are just participating in a type of egocentric publicity, using anarchitecture as a guise to post-rationalise there work. The paper attempts to review the points brought up in past theory and then challenge them against existing, tangible points of practice, to assess and challenge the contradictions within the theory, and attain an insight into the current paradox of anarchitecture.

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Fig.1.1. Gordon Matta-Clark, Splitting, Black and white photo collage, 40 x 30 inches,1974. [Source: Diserens, Corinne. ed. Gordon Matta-Clark. (London, New York: Phaidon Press, 2003) Page.1] Fig.1.2. Gordon Matta-Clark, Splitting, Black and white photo collage, 30 x 40 inches,1974. [Source: Diserens, Corinne. ed. Gordon Matta-Clark. (London, New York: Phaidon Press, 2003) Page.144-155] Fig.1.3. Gordon Matta-Clark, Splitting, 322 Humphrey Street, Englewood, New Jersey, 1974. [Source: Lee, Pamela M. Object to be destroyed; the work of Gordon Matta-Clark. (London: MIT Press, 2000) Page xi] Fig.1.4. Gordon Matta-Clark, Anarchitecture Group, NYC, 1974. [Source: Lee, Pamela M. Object to be destroyed; the work of Gordon Matta-Clark. (London: MIT Press, 2000) Page.106] Fig.1.5. Gordon Matta-Clark, Projects for anarchitecture published in Flash Art, June 1974. [Source: Diserens, Corinne. ed. Gordon Matta-Clark. (London, New York: Phaidon Press, 2003) Page.158] Fig.1.6. Ordering physical support systems to minimize mess. [Source: Evans, Robin. Translations from Drawing to Building and Other Essays, Towards Anarchitecture, 1970. (Singapore: Craft Print, 1997) Page.26] Fig.1.7. Ohkura Building, 1981. [Source: Suzuki, Edward. Anarchitecture, Edward Suzuki. 1947/1987. (Japan: Okamura Printing Industries, 1987) Page.31/ additional cards] Fig.1.8. Onward Daikanyama fashion Building, 1986. [Source: Suzuki, Edward. Anarchitecture, Edward Suzuki. 1947/1987. (Japan: Okamura Printing Industries, 1987) Page.31/ additional cards] Fig.1.9. The Space Hijackers; Members collage. [Source: Priestley, Robin, 1999. The Space hijackers. (Robin Priestley). Availiable from: http://www.spacehijackers.co.uk (25/10/06).] Fig.1.10. The Space Hijackers; UK Government in 100% Support, PR- offensive/ Image Montage. 2006. (Is the UK government doing a good job/ Anti-Terror finger print scanner/ Click here to show your support of our Governmentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s war effort). [Source: Own Images. 28/11/06] Fig.1.11. Anarchitecture Week flyer. 2005. [Source: Greenman, 2005. anarchitecture Week 2005. Availiable from: http://www.anarchitectureweek.co.uk/ (23/08/06).] Fig.2.1. High Houses, Sarajevo. Sectional Illustration. 1994. [Source: Woods, Lebbeus. Radical Reconstruction. (New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 1997) Page.89] Fig.2.2. Berlin Free Zone. 1990. [Source: Woods, Lebbeus. Anarchitecture: Architecture is a political act. (New York: St Martins Press, 1992) Page.106-107] Fig.2.3. Zagreb Free Zone. 1991. [Source: Woods, Lebbeus. Anarchitecture: Architecture is a political act. (New York: St Martins Press, 1992) Page.113]

Fig.2.4. Zagreb Free Zone, Model. 1991. [Source: Woods, Lebbeus. Anarchitecture: Architecture is a political act. (New York: St Martins Press, 1992) Page.123] Fig.3.1.. Herman Hertzberger; Centraal Beheer Office Building. Apeldoorn, Netherlands. Exterior. 1972. [Source: Hertzberger, Herman. Lessons for Students of Architecture. (Rotterdam, Netherlands: 010 Publishers, 1991) Page133] Fig.3.2. Herman Hertzberger; Centraal Beheer Office Building. Apeldoorn, Netherlands. [Source: Hertzberger, Herman. Lessons for Students of Architecture. (Rotterdam, Netherlands: 010 Publishers, 1991) Page.23] Fig.3.3. Herman Hertzberger; Centraal Beheer Office Building. Apeldoorn, Netherlands. Structural Diagram. 1968. [Source: Hertzberger, Herman. Lessons for Students of Architecture. (Rotterdam, Netherlands: 010 Publishers, 1991) Page.135] Fig.3.4. Herman Hertzberger; Centraal Beheer Office Building. Interior Balcony. [Source: Hertzberger, Herman. Lessons for Students of Architecture. (Rotterdam, Netherlands: 010 Publishers, 1991) Page.195] Fig.3.5. Herman Hertzberger; Centraal Beheer Office Building. . Individual Office Space. [Source: Hertzberger, Herman. Lessons for Students of Architecture. (Rotterdam, Netherlands: 010 Publishers, 1991) Page.24] Fig.3.6. Herman Hertzberger; Centraal Beheer Office Building. 1968-72. Interior Organisation. [Source: Hertzberger, Herman. Lessons for Students of Architecture. (Rotterdam, Netherlands: 010 Publishers, 1991) Page.24] Fig.3.7. Ralph Erskine; The Ark. Sketch of the interior atrium. [Source: Pearman, Hugh. Blueprint Extra 10/ The Ark London/ Architect Ralph Erskine. (London: Wordsearch Ltd, 1993 Page.17] Fig.3.8. Ralph Erskine; The Ark. Conceptual sketch showing the central space. [Source: Pearman, Hugh. Blueprint Extra 10/ The Ark London/ Architect Ralph Erskine. (London: Wordsearch Ltd, 1993 Page.9] Fig.3.9. Ralph Erskine; The Ark, Hammersmith, London. 2007. [Source: Own Photograph. 04/01/07] Fig.3.10. Ralph Erskine; The Ark, Hammersmith, London. Interior atrium space. 1990. [Source: Pearman, Hugh. Blueprint Extra 10/ The Ark London/ Architect Ralph Erskine. (London: Wordsearch Ltd, 1993 Page.25] Fig.3.11. BMW Central Building, External Feature. Courtesy of Helen Binet. 2006 [Source: ZHA. BMW Central Building. Audio Visual resource on Cd-rom. (London: Zaha Hadid Architects, 2005) Images folder] Fig.3.12. BMW Central Building, External Columns. Courtesy of Helen Binet. 2006 [Source: ZHA. BMW Central Building. Audio Visual resource on Cd-rom. (London: Zaha Hadid Architects, 2005) Images folder] Fig.3.13. BMW Central Building, External Plan. 2006 [Source: ZHA. BMW Central Building. Audio Visual resource on Cd-rom. (London: Zaha Hadid Architects, 2005) Drawings/ Dwg folder] Fig.3.14. BMW Central Building, Central Office Space. Courtesy of Helen Binet. 2006 [Source: ZHA. BMW Central Building. Audio Visual resource on Cd-rom. (London: Zaha Hadid Architects, 2005) Images folder]

Fig.3.15. BMW Central Building, Programmatic Layout Diagram. 2006 [Source: ZHA. BMW Central Building. Audio Visual resource on Cd-rom. (London: Zaha Hadid Architects, 2005) Diagrams folder] Fig.3.16. BMW Central Building, Internal Office Space, Small Cascade. Courtesy of Helen Binet. 2006 [Source: ZHA. BMW Central Building. Audio Visual resource on Cd-rom. (London: Zaha Hadid Architects, 2005) Images folder] Appendix A, (i,ii,iii). Gordon Matta-Clark, Projects for anarchitecture in letters to the group, December 1973. See appendix A. [Source: Diserens, Corinne. ed. Gordon Matta-Clark. (London, New York: Phaidon Press, 2003) Page.144-155] Appendix C- Space Hijackers; UK Government in 100% Support, PR- offensive, Sticky Labels. [Source: Priestley, Robin, 1999. The Space hijackers. (Robin Priestley). Availiable from: http://www.spacehijackers.co.uk/images/projects/voting/selection.pdf (25/10/06).] Appendix D. The Space Hijackers; UK Government in 100% Support, PR- offensive/ Image Montage. [Source: Own Images. 28/11/06] Appendix F. BMW Central Building, ground, first and second floor plans. [Source: ARK532: Building Study. 2006. (Own collection, 2006) Building study 06 folder] Original images from: ZHA. BMW Central Building. Audio Visual resource on Cd-rom. (London: Zaha Hadid Architects, 2005) Drawings/ Dwg folder]

INTRODUCTION

The conception of the study began from a general interest as to what is indicated by the term anarchitecture, arising from confusion within contemporary literature surrounding its definition. Anarchitecture is said to have been conceived in the early nineteen seventies, by the artist Gordon Matta Clark (Gausa, Etal, 2003: 47). The term has subsequently been used by a number of architects, designers and artists to illustrate the theory behind their work. It is apparent that anarchitecture is a product of negative issues about the world we live in, a response to conflicts within society, corporate occupation of space, political and economic empowerment, restrictions and regulations, hierarchical control and architecture for the sake of commerce. All of these issues can lead to animosity.

The thesis is primarily a comparative study into literature and media surrounding anarchitecture, an experimental investigation into the animosity which surrounds the architectural term. Convoluted representations of anarchitecture exist within literature and the media, it is these conflicting and contrasting perceptions of anarchitecture throughout architectural discourse that have lead me to write my dissertation on the subject. A fundamental motive for conducting the research was the fact that there was a very limited amount of available and accessible literature. It is this scarcity of directly available publications on the subject that has inspired and motivated my research into this relatively diverse and complex subject, primarily intended to develop an original contribution to research, architectural debate and discourse. Another principal objective in undertaking this study was to discover more about the current state of the built environment and the predominant sociopolitical consequences of architecture, more importantly, to fundamentally begin to understand my role as an architect within contemporary society, and how, as a developing architectural professional, I can aspire to implement change and improvement within society.

My research is different from past studies because other literature surrounding the subject has not yet challenged the pretence of anarchitecture, comparing it against real issues. I intend to then challenge the points of theory against tangible examples of built architectural work and practical strategies, to see whether the main points within the theory of anarchitecture can be used to implement social change. Which leads onto my research question; Can anarchitecture provide societal utopia?

I have reviewed all available and accessible publications in reference to anarchitecture and selected the most poignant literature and periodical references for further analysis. The review of literature and periodicals aims to reanalyse past research and each piece of literature was chosen to enable a thorough variation of scope throughout the paper. The study opens up the opportunity to discuss the work of a number of respective visionary architects, to assess and synthesise diversity within the theory, vision and ideology of these contemporary figures. Precursors include; architects; Lebbeus Woods, Edward Suzuki and Lucien Kroll. In addition to architects, anarchitecture is linked to many other theorists, designers, artists and groups, theorists; Robin Evans and Stanley Aronowitz, Street artist; Banksey and Collectives; The Space Hijackers.

The predominant publications include; -Lebbeus Woods: Anarchitecture: Architecture Is a Political Act -Anarchitecture; works by Gordon Matta-Clark -Edward Suzuki- Anarchitecture -Translations from Drawing to Building (AA Documents 2) Towards Anarchitecture.

I have looked at the wider context relating the topic to, utopia, anarchy, aesthetics, the practice of architecture, construction and society, reviewing books in relation to; Architecture and Society, Utopian Vision and Ideals, Technoscience and Cyberculture, Nomadic Architecture, Anaesthetics and Reconstruction, VHS rentals, including; ‘My Architect’; Luis I. Kahn. ‘The Participatory Process’; Lucien Kroll. ‘An Egalitarian Architecture’; Ralph Erskine.

The study aims to discuss and analyse current contradictions in the theoretical and philosophical issues surrounding the work of architects, artists, theorists and selective radical polemical groups. It attempts to review points brought up in past theory challenge and compare it against current, existing issues surrounding anarchitecture and society. I hope that my research may aim to solve issues regarding contradictions and inconsistencies within relative literature and aim to point out issues which may help resolve controversies within society. This leads onto my hypothesis; Anarchitecture is predominantly theoretical. Therefore, I believe it has little to offer in practical terms and that there are existing practical examples of how to implement social change.

I approached the study with an open mind to review past theory and develop an individual and unique standpoint on anarchitecture. Through the medium of an original, rigorous and refreshing piece of academic research I aim to develop a unique, contemporary perspective on academic writing. I intend to thoroughly engage with the context, research, ideas and information, thus expanding my capacity to learn and reason. The study also gives the opportunity to pursue critical academic research, isolated from the design studio, increasing my knowledge of the benefits of research and development to further enrich my progression as a confident, independent critic of the built environment.

The Lincoln Great Central Warehouse Library has been the hub from which I have I thoroughly engaged with the research process, taking full advantage of all resources accessible to me. I have been able to access; reliable literature, VHS and periodical publications. I have searched through the library catalogue to source publications in the core collections and through the inter-library loans service in conjunction with the COPAC, Hull and British Libraries. On campus search engines such as, Electronic Journals A-to-Z and the Architectural Periodicals Index on CD have been utilized. The internet has been utilised as a dominant source of information from which to access; metasearch engines, web directories, portals and information gateways, online library catalogues and websites of organisations like the ODPM, CABE, and although much of the information available on the internet is largely unreliable, It also helps provide links to more reliable sources, such as literature and periodical search engines such as; RIBA bookshops and library catalogues, Amazon.co.uk, artbook.co.uk, trianglebookshop, BHI, Google Book Search and Google Scholar.

The narrow scope of the subject has forced me to take my research to the wider international field, I have purchased literature and copies of journal articles from international booksellers and databases in Europe and America, including; Amazon.com/ca/co.jp/de/fr, Abebooks, abaa.org, Columbia Universities and AIA library catalogues, Ingentaconnect, SwetsWise, American Humanities Index and findarticles.com. In some cases, because of the divergent context of the research, selected literature and periodicals have been unattainable from both international booksellers and the inter-library loans service. I have been unable to source literature and periodicals, titles such as;

-‘Anarchitecttura, Matta-Clark’ Architecttura Cronache E Storia’ Vol.44 / No.513-514, 1998. -The Slide Towards Anarchitecture Architect (London). Vol.2 / No.4, April 1972. -‘The Anarchitecture of Lucien Kroll’ WONEN- TA/ BK. No.12, June 1976. -‘The Anarchitecture of Lucien Kroll’ Archives De L’Archre Mod. Bull D’Info. No.8, May 1976. -Maisons Vivantes/ Habiter un Monde/ Habitats Mobiles (Collection AnArchitecture) Denis Couchaux, 1980.

I took the initiative to email a number of in people in relation to my ongoing research. I have emailed; Edward Suzuki Architects; for translation of handwriting from his 1987 publication; Anarchitecture, the precursors of anarchitecture week, Space Hijackers and anarchitecture blogspot for their personal positions on anarchitecture, Zaha Hadid Architects for any relative information on BMW Central Building. Subsequently, I have been able to translate the majority of Edward Suzuki’s writings and have received a informative email and cd-rom from Zaha Hadid architects on the BMW Central Building in Leipzig, including electronic periodical data, cad documents, texts and photographic documents. I have also become an official member of ‘The Space Hijackers’ group, taking part in an experiment entitled; ‘UK Government In 100% Support: PR- Offensive’, which has consequently led to the organisation of an interview, from which I have planned a specific tailored research visit to London where I aim to meet up with the precursors of ‘The Space Hijackers’ & ‘Anarchitecture Week’.

The essay is structured to initially provide a general overview of the subject, introducing the reader to architects, artists, theorists and groups associated with anarchitecture. Then it will go on to discuss selective works and begin to analyse and challenge theories against tangible sources of evidence. The initial chapter will introduce the reader to the predominant issues and theory surrounding anarchitecture. The following chapter concentrates on the writings of Lebbeus Woods, analysing and challenging issues and arguments in his theory of anarchitecture. Chapter three will review the work of three practicing architects, looking for points of practice which implement social change. Finally, I intend to summarise the previous chapters and reiterate the principal issues, comparing and challenging the points of theory against tangible examples of practical evidence.

Chapter 1- ANARCHITECTURE PROLOGUE

The initial chapter aims to further investigate the work and theory surrounding anarchitecture, introducing the reader to the predominant precursors, issues and theory surrounding anarchitecture, providing an overview of the context which then goes on to, deconstruct, interrogate and challenge the paradoxical issues within the research. Although, what is denoted by this literature and what is indicated by each author’s theory is often contradictory and confused, yet, all seem to have one thing in common, to re-think, or re-configure architecture or society as a result of the state of architecture The Metapolis Dictionary of Advanced Architecture defines anarchitecture as; Anarchitecture is a term that was introduced by Gordon Matta Clark in New York in 1973. It refers to a constructional practice in confrontation with the conventions of Architecture (capitalised). Also, and in the same sense, it can refer to an anarchist architectural practice. JOSE PEREZ DE LAMA” (Gausa, Etal, 2003: 47).

Gordon Matta-Clark, born in 1943, studied architecture at Cornell University between the years of 1962 and 1968 (Lee. 2000: 34). An architect who practiced as an artist in Central New York City, “the violent anti-architect and inventor of ‘anarchitecture’; cult hero of the Downtown '70s; earnest follower of the Land artists” (Vidler, 2003: 75). After his early and sudden death in 1978 at the age of thirty five (Diserens, 2003: 6), it was only up until around the turn of the 21st century that Matta-Clark began to receive recognition for his work. The most poignant and frequently published work being that of ‘Building Cuts’, whereby Matta-Clark took a chainsaw to the shell of abandoned buildings, exposing the interiors. Perhaps most famously; ‘Splitting’, 322 Humphrey Street, Englewood, New Jersey, 1974. See fig 1.1 - 1.3.

My initial preconception was to understand Gordon Matta-Clark’s work as anti-architecture, as if he disliked architecture or the conditions it created. However, I have located evidence which quotes Matta-Clark, “The term does not imply anti-architecture but is, rather, an attempt at clarifying ideas about space which are personal insights and reactions rather than formal social and political statements” (Lee, 2000: 104). Also, in a another quote by Gordon Matta-Clark, taken from an interview with Liza Bear in 1974, around the time of ‘Splitting’ he said “Most of the things I‘ve done that have ‘architectural’ implications are really about non-architecture, about something that’s an alternative to what’s normally considered architecture” (Diserens, 2003: 154).

Fig.1.1. Splitting; Black-and-white photo collage, 40 x 30 inches.

Fig.1.2. Splitting; Black and white photo collage, 30 x 40 inches.

Fig.1.3. Splitting, 322 Humphrey Street, Englewood, New Jersey.

In 1973, Matta-Clark, established the Anarchitecture group. The group included around a dozen young artists from a variety of disciplines (Diserens, 2003: 154). In 1974, an article, showcasing the work of the anarchitecture group was published in Flash Art (Lee, 2000: 105)..

Fig.1.4. Anarchitecture Group, 112 Greene Street, NYC.

Fig.1.5. Projects for anarchitecture published in Flash Art, June 1974.

Fig.1.6. Projects for anarchitecture in letters to the group, Dec1973. See appendix-A; (i-iii).

These images reflect destruction and decay which imply the group’s collective interest in the left over unwanted voids and urban spaces. The notes contain humorous anecdotes of projects for anarchitecture, which reflect the groups ideological and sociological interests. Following analysis, I have come to realise that Matta-Clark’s work was as much about the photograph or film used to capture it as it was about the physical object. Due to demolition, the objects were visible only for a short period of time and the photography became a focus for which most people have experienced his work. To me, his work almost seems to detach itself from architecture, proposing an alternative to the norm. Developed from a societal concern, his work is never dictated or controlled by architecture and I believe, this is why he was able to call it anarchitecture.

Throughout my research I have come to realise that the most commonly termed ‘creator’ of anarchitecture throughout discourse is Gordon Matta-Clark. However, I have found evidence that may challenge these presumptions. Robin Evans is a successful theorist, architect and historian. After completion of his diploma at the Architectural Association in 1969 his diploma thesis was published in a leading architecture journal, which then launched his career as a theorist (Evans, 1997: 278). It was in the following year, 1970 that he wrote; ‘Towards Anarchitecture’, an essay taken from the book Translations from Drawing to Building and Other Essays published by the AA in 1997 (Evans, 1997: 10-11). This is evidence that notions of anarchitecture existed before the work of Gordon Matta Clark.

In ‘Towards Anarchitecture’ Evans focuses discussion around topics such as; utopia, hierarchy, homogenisation, culture and freedom. He talks of, “physical support systems, used to guide patterns of human development” (Evans, 1997: 26) which in turn have either “positive, negative or synthetic interference” (Evans, 1997: 14). Positive being comparative to a telephone, negative to a prison cell and synthetic to the environment around us. Evans also refers to “cultural relativity” (Evans, 1997: 24), denoting the way that change in one part of a specific culture will be systematically accompanied by change in another culture. “Robin Evans envisioned an anarchitecture conceived to function as the tectonics of non-control” (Díaz Sánchez, 2004: 100).

Fig.1.7. Physical Support Systems to minimize mess.

Overall, from reviewing and considering the text, I have come to the conclusion that Evans considered the contemporary condition as an almost matrix like concept where societies are subconsciously controlled by a series of preconceived systems, as if mankind is reliant on social or political dogmas. Thus, anarchitecture is what Evans envisioned as an alternative to the environment and systems that control our lives. An environment without control.

Next I wish to consider the work of Edward Suzuki, in particular, his theory of anarchitecture. Edward Suzuki is a practicing Japanese architect who predominantly practiced in Tokyo, Japan throughout the late 1980’s and early 1990’s. Suzuki had practiced for over a decade before his theory of anarchitecture was published. It came about around the time when he had begun to move towards commercial design projects, when he was beginning to get noticed on the New York architecture scene, in October 1987, when Japanese design was becoming internationally renowned within the architectural, fashion, industrial and interior design industries (Truppin, 1988: 128).

On the cover of the July 1988 edition of Interiors journal, Andrea Truppin, author of the article; ‘Japan Design’, similarly quotes Suzuki as “the creator of anarchitecture” (Truppin, 1988: 1). This fundamentally goes against the evidence of both Robin Evans in 1970 and Gordon Matta-Clark in 1973.

In October 1987 Edward Suzuki Associates published; Anarchitecture. I purchased the publication from a New York bookseller. The document showcases work from the early seventies through to 1987. Inside the book is a series of handwritten text excerpts, however, the majority of the handwritten text is highly illegible, and I have had to contact Edward Suzuki Associates for a translation of the text. The full document can be found in the appendices section of this paper, Refer to appendix B.

As a child I remember hiding always under the large dining table and curiously tearing apart all the toys my parents bought me. It is ironical that I am now an architect. Reflecting upon it, though, it seems quite natural that behind every man's desire to be creative there is perhaps a stronger passion to be destructive. This is what anarchitecture is all about. Unlike that of other animals, however, man’s aggressiveness is unique in that as far as we can see it serves no biological or social purpose. Man kills for joy. Man kills for greed. Man kills for the sake of it. Just as the roots of human destructiveness are deeper than those that meet the eye, I feel anarchitecture also is concealing some potential I haven’t yet discovered. So far I seem to have only scratched the surface (Suzuki, 1987: 3).

The handwritten citations portray Suzuki’s ideological standpoint and I feel this is an interesting architectural position, focusing on humanity’s primitive desire to be destructive. The theory seems to revolve around the concept or notion of duality, encompassing paradoxical elements such as, “anarchy and order” and “creation and destruction” (Truppin, 1988: 128). To a certain extent, by practicing his theory, Suzuki’s work challenges my hypothesis. However, I am unsure whether his buildings implement his theory. I feel they are representative of his theory, but in a crude and banal way, anarchitecture portrayed by the material destruction of the structure.

Suzuki uses the term anarchitecture in quite a literal sense to describe, anarchy and destruction, similar to the “anarchist architectural practice” (Gausa, Etal, 2003: 47). On the whole, I feel his work does not attempt or proclaim to instigate social change and is starkly characteristic of its post-modern condition, his theory often represented by surface instead of substance.

Fig. 1.8. The peeling away of different layers of the structure & façade to reveal the companies new image

Fig. 1.9. A component of the building lays on the pavement as if crumbled away from the existing shell.

In the essay entitled, ‘Visualizing and Producing Anarchic Spaces’ taken from the 1996 publication Technoscience and Cyberculture. Stanley Aronowitz, puts forward notion that we are existing in anarchic space, therefore governments, corporations and architects design to control this chaos and anarchy (Aronowitz, 1996; 280). As if all architecture is designed to control human behaviour and society, “The control of behaviour is easier than the control of thought” (Aronowitz, 1996; 291). Similarly this notion is echoed within contemporary cinema. Initially, the 2002 film, Equilibrium, set within a totalitarian society which is manufactured around the creation of uniform individuals through sedation to suppress human emotion (Wimmer, 2002). Secondly, the 2005 blockbuster, Aeon Flux, set centuries in the future, the last remaining city on earth, a perfect society, controlled by scientists and governmental control (Kusama, 2006). Both films follow how a central character rebels against this control which may allude to an abstract reflection of real problems within modern society.

Another architect and theorist said to have been linked with the theory of anarchitecture is Belgian architect, Lucien Kroll. Unfortunately, I have been unable to track down many of the periodical titles I have found that relate to Krollâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s theory of anarchitecture. I have been able to track down a 1987 VHS publication entitled The participatory process, and a chapter titled Anarchitecture taken from the 1984 book; The Scope of Social Architecture. The two sources fail to provide a definition as such, although, Kroll often makes reference to; social approaches to housing, design as politics and embracing the participation of all involved in the process of architecture (Hatch, 1984: 167).

During my research into anarchitecture, I came across a series of books entitled collection anarchitecture. The collection includes titles such as; Maisons Vivantes, Habiter un Monde, Habitats Mobiles, Habitats Nomades and Constructions nomads. Roughly translated, this means; Living Houses, Houses of the World, Mobile Habitation and Nomadic Architecture. Nevertheless, because of the divergent context of the research and the French origin of the publications, selected copies are unattainable in the UK. The two copies I managed to track down were accessed through the inter library loans service. These publications made me come to the conclusion that the use of the word anarchitecture is often used to describe habitations, structures or dwellings which are not directly architectonic, as if the work presented is not-architecture or is proposing an alternative to the norm of what is considered architecture in a literal sense.

In the final part of this chapter I intend to discuss is the work of the Space Hijackers. The Space Hijackers are an active non governmental group, a collective of self titled secret agents who oppose the current social, cultural and political condition. The way corporate architecture dominates urban space, which is fuelled by societyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s growing obsession with commerce and consumption. Founded in 1999 and primarily manifested and promoted over the internet, the Space Hijackers describe themselves as;

The Space Hijackers are Anarchitects, we oppose the hierarchy that is put upon us by Architects, Planners and owners of space. We are attempting to corrupt the culture of architecture, and destroy the hierarchies that exist. The world is moving faster and faster towards a state of global capitalism, meaning that corporations and institutions are playing an ever-increasing and more important role within our lives. Space is designed to affect our moods, and put us into the frame of mind that companies require in order to be in a position to compete with their rivals, to do this they use both the language of their architecture and knowledge of how we react to space (Priestley: 1999).

Fig. 1.10. The Space Hijackers; Members collage.

On the 12th of November, I applied to join the Space Hijackers. Application is assessed through a questionnaire, which I subsequently learned is viewed with extreme stringency on a part of the assessor. One month and a number of persuasive emails later, I am now an official member, a Secret Agent, or maybe even an ‘Anarchitect’. In the confirmation email, Robin from the Space Hijackers included an experimental project that I could try out, entitled, UK Government in 100% Support, PR- offensive. Refer to appendix C and D.

Centralised around the concept of 1984 style public voting scheme and inaugurated from the quote "You are either with us or with the terrorists" George W Bush. These mandatory pedestrian crossings had been converted into voting boxes. The beauty of these machines being that there is only one button to press. Who needs choice when the government can make decisions for you?” (Priestley: 1999).

Fig. 1.11. The Space Hijackers; UK Government in 100% Support, PR- offensive/ Image Montage.

The site I decided to use was in central Lincoln on arguably the busiest pedestrian crossing in the city. The stickers were placed on either side of the level crossing and I recorded the event with photography and digital video. In most cases people’s reaction was that of confusion or reluctance, but I feel more than anything else, people found it amusing. In the case of the sticker which asks ‘Is the UK Government doing a good job?’, after a short while someone had moved the sticker so that the option of ‘no’ was highlighted. When I returned the next day, the stickers were gone. I am unsure exactly what I learnt from the whole experience apart from it informed me that the majority of people disagree with the decisions made by the government and subsequently have complete disregard for any governmental control. In June 2005, The Space Hijackers organised Anarchitecture Week.

A celebration of resistance to the corporate occupation of space. Anarchitecture Week celebrates the misuses, subversions, and hijacks of contemporary architecture in a fun and informative way, exploring architecture and the built environment from the perspective of those who try to reclaim control over their own environment (Greenman: 2005).

The week included a series of events, for example; Hijackers Training Camp/ Spoof Planning Permission Applications/ The Brighton to London Crazy Golf Tournament/ Using a parking meter space as a rented office/ Staging Half Price Sales in numerous stores around Oxford & Regent Street/ Inner-City Midnight Cricket/ Tube Train Trapeze

Fig. 1.12- Anarchitecture Week flyer 2005.

On Thursday 4th of January, I organised a trip to London to meet up with a few members of the space hijackers to ask a few informal questions, the results of which are highlighted in appendix E. When I arrived in London, I met up with one of the founding members, Robin Priestley, who told be about the groups collective philosophy and his own personal views toward architecture, “Even though we do not design or own the space, as users of space we can begin to redesign it, and change the way that it works” (Priestley: 2007: appendix E). He also told me he believed that public space is becoming more and more politicized and there is not enough freedom for architects, many are forced to take on commissions from corporations, which subsequently lead to the creation of hierarchical space which is what the space hijackers so profoundly oppose. I asked him if he disagreed with the work of any particular architect, he instantly replied with Richard Rogers and Norman Foster (Priestley: 2007: appendix E), and I recently found an interactive game on the hijackers website entitled, “Get Rogers, an interactive adventure that takes you out on a Space Hijacker mission, you must stop the evil Richmond Rogers from controlling all of London with his mind controlling building” (Priestley: 1999).

On the whole, after reviewing the work and meeting up with the hijackers, I believe the use of the word anarchitecture fundamentally revolves around the union anarchy and architecture, encompassing their position towards the existent socio-political condition, I feel as if they blame architecture as they believe it is the dominant tool used by corporations to control and dictate our lives. Nevertheless, their work highlights real concern about negative factors active within today's society and aims to inspire societal change.

Overall, this review of relative literature and theory and work surrounding anarchitecture has shown me that the majority of the information on the subject is predominantly theoretical. What is denoted by this literature and what is indicated by each authorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s theory is often contradictory and confused. These similarities and contradictions within theoretical perspectives result in the current convoluted depiction of anarchitecture. However, whilst each individual position proposed in the literature takes a unique standpoint on anarchitecture, it collectively reverts back to negative issues active within society and often embodies a radical social agenda, all of which proposing an alternative to the current situation.

Chapter 2- THEORY

The next chapter will focus discussion on the theory, vision and philosophy of Lebbeus Woods. I intend to use Woods’ 1992 publication Anarchitecture: architecture is a political act as a benchmark for which to challenge the collective theory of anarchitecture. I intend to discuss and analyse the implications of the text, challenging points of theory against my research question and hypothesis.

In my opinion, Woods is the most influential successor of anarchitecture, I feel that the text holds dominance over other literature because, he is a contemporary architect and theorist whose work has received widespread international acclaim. Anarchitecture: architecture is a political act is the most widely produced publication under the title of anarchitecture which also has the most extensive theoretical perspective and is considered to be one of Woods’ best works, containing an overview of his life and career. The theory also reiterates principles brought up in past theory and is representative of the radical socialist agendas proposed by many of the previous writers.

Woods was born in America in 1940 where he studied architecture at both Illinois and Purdue Universities, he then moved to New York where he lectures at the Cooper Union School of Architecture and in 1998 became one of the founding members of the RIEA; The Research Institute for Experimental Architecture. Woods is a remarkable draftsman, I often find myself seduced by his drawings which I find manage to expand the imagination of what is considered architectonically possible. Although, whilst Woods’ illustrative and formative exploration is of vast distinction, I often feel empty and confused when I consider the theory behind it. The text is laden with pretentious language, for example; “Ontogenetics, Epitemological, McLuhanesque, Sumerism (Woods, 1992: 816), which often makes his writing illegible and difficult to follow.

Fig. 2.1. High Houses, Sarajevo.

In ‘Anarchitecture: architecture is a political act’, Woods refers to “The painful dimensions of the present” (Woods, 1992: 9), denoting his constant struggle against authoritarian control, arguing that, “architecture, as a practice, is bounded by precise practical considerations - technical, economic, legal, cultural - that restrict imagination and invention” (Woods, 1992: 9). Although Woods is qualified and widely considered as an architect, it seems apparent to me that he has evolved into a philosopher. I feel this is predominantly because Woods’ vision is way ahead of its time and the monotonous realities of practice de-motivated his imagination, forcing him out of the industry and into theory and education of architecture. “The best architects today have few commissions, or none at all” (Woods, 1992: 9). This is largely an egocentric statement, indicating that he regards his theory as being superior to that of

any other practicing architect. His proposals are a response to this often negative social, cultural and political condition, which I feel embody an underlying utopian vision, a want or need to reconfigure architecture and society. To challenge these social and cultural dogmas, Woods proposes new ways of living, Free-zones, which are implemented by freespace structure.

Fig. 2.2. Berlin-Free-Zone- 1990

Fig. 2.3. Zagreb-Free-Zone, 1991. Drawings.

These â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Free-zonesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; generate cultural regeneration of societies and the freespace structures within them are mobile units of habitation, the concept of which centres around the individual. Part of an experimental and intellectual elite, these single entities are free to inhabit the space anyway they like, communicating with other similar individuals via the means of powerful technologically advanced communicative devises which occupy the structures. (Woods, 1992: 9). His work often responds to countries cities in crisis or devastated by war, cities that have no cultural social order, for example;

‘Berlin-Free-Zone’ 1990 which was created after the breaking down of the Berlin Wall and ‘ZagrebFree-Zone’ 1991, the design of which proceeded the mass civil war in Croatia.

Fig. 2.4. Zagreb-Free-Zone, 1991. Model.

Within the text Woods refers to a trip to Sao Paulo in Brazil were he was asked, as an architect what would he propose to solve Sao Paulo’s epidemic social imbalance, to which he replied,

“there is not much that can be done for a city that has been ravaged by hierarchy, politics and economy, to solve Brazils problem, they need to solve the culture and sociology of hierarchy” (Woods, 1992: 18). Woods argues that modern cities are essentially hierarchical and that he opposes this authority which is inflicted upon us, alienating people from each other (Woods, 1992: 11), It is his nihilistic view which puts forward the notion of ‘heterarchy’. “Within the historical and hierarchical city, the heterarchical city, the free-zone is constructed” (Woods, 1992: 8). The freespace structures separate themselves from other infrastructure, they reinvent society by creating this a heterarchical city; a city free from authoritarian control. “The difference between hierarchical and heterarchical is the difference between being and becoming” (Woods, 1992: 11). See Glossary.

In reference to my research question; Can anarchitecture provide societal utopia? In direct response to Woods theory, I do not believe it can. His theory goes against the notion of a societal utopia being an ideal basis for civilised society as a cohesive whole, and It seems apparent that Woods’ ideological and utopian vision is centred around the individual and often refers to “self sustaining individuals” and “the creation of self invention” (Woods, 1992:17). Also quoting, “The structures are a tool, extending individual capacities to do so, to think, to know, to become, also to pass away, to become an echo, a vestige, a soil for other acts, moments, individuals” (Woods, 1992:10). On the outset this may seem anthropocentric and I cannot help but feel that this is perhaps an extension of his life which he has spent much on his own.

I believe that the theory presented by Lebbeus Woods is often contradictory and flawed in a number of ways. His philosophical standpoint fundamentally opposes hierarchy, quoting that “hierarchical cities alienate you from others” (Woods, 1992: 11). However, his proposals of freespace structures embrace the individual, and are said to be inhabited by an elite, which together, impose a strict hierarchy. The text fails to define what is indicated by the term anarchitecture, and just holds it under the guise of architecture is a political act. I also find it coincidental that his theory seems to be inherently linked to the work of his predecessors, although without ever crediting them within the text, indicating that the theory of anarchitecture was preconceived by him, his theory being similar to that of, Lucien Kroll, Robin Evans, Edward Suzuki and Gordon Matt-Clark. Therefore, I believe that the

term anarchitecture has been adapted from past theory to advertise and publicise his work, using the theory of anarchitecture as a form of intellectual grooming and to essentially post-rationalise his work. His theory holds profound statements purporting to revolutionize society, his proposals promising political and cultural transformation, however, this is only ever proclamation, his vision has not yet become reality and there is still no tangible evidence to back up this theory. Which backs up my hypothesis that the theory of anarchitecture has little to offer in practical terms.

Chapter 3- PRACTICE

This chapter aims to look at existing architects whose work aims to implement society for the better, referring to examples of built work and discussing practical examples of how to implement social change. In particular, I intend to discuss and compare the work of three architects whose work reinterprets or challenges social conventions; Herman Hertzberger’s, Centraal Beheer Office Building, Ralph Erskine’s, London Ark, and Zaha Hadid’s BMW Central Building in Leipzig. I have chosen these three examples because they are each over a decade apart and I feel they represent a broad spectrum of radical social practice. In reference to my hypothesis; Anarchitecture is predominantly theoretical. Therefore, I believe it has little to offer in practical terms and that there are existing practical examples of how to implement social change. The case studies aim to pick up on points that are missed within the literature and theory of anarchitecture. Looking for tangible points of practice that actually work to instigate social change which may challenge the pretence of anarchitecture.

Herman Hertzberger is a Dutch architect, born in 1932 and graduated architecture school in 1958. His work is interested in improving human environments as a response to the social needs of its users. In 1968, Hertzberger began work on the Centraal Beheer Office Building, in Apeldoorn, The Netherlands, which up until to now, remains one of his most revered buildings, and is seen as “a pioneering example of office-as-community” (Pearman, 1993: 7).

Fig 3.1. Herman Hertzberger; Centraal Beheer Office Building. Apeldoorn, Netherlands.

Fig 3.3. Structural Diagram.

Fig 3.2. Central Space.

Fig 3.5. Individual Office Space

Fig 3.4. Internal Balcony.

Fig 3.6. Interior Organisation

The Centraal Beheer building is essentially a complex of individual block components, each containing individual office spaces which are articulated around a central core. Each employee was given their own individual space, in which to adapt and interpret any way they liked, “the interior finishing was deliberately left to the users of the building” (Hertzberger, 1991: 23), enabling employees to personalize their own space and apply their character to the collective working environment. The central zone was primarily designed and intended as a social space from which staff could leave their individual workspace for breaks within the shared communal area. Hertzberger later went on to reiterate these principles throughout many of his buildings, such as his; Apollo School, Spangen Music Centre, Housing in Rotterdam, Montessori School and Documenta Urban Dwellings.

On the whole his work is a reflection of an interest in both individual and social needs, I feel this may have been a response to the impersonal uniformity of the Cartesian grid which was applied to the majority of office environments at the time, consequently the building has become an iconic and humane representation of 1970’s freedom and personal expression.

Secondly, I wish to discuss the work of Ralph Erskine, 1914-2005. Erskine was an English, self titled functionalist architect who spent the majority of his practicing career in Sweden. In the late 1960’s Erskine returned to England, designing a Post-Graduate College in Cambridge and the notorious ‘Byker Wall’ housing scheme in Newcastle. It was not until 1990 that Erskine was commissioned to design a large office building in Hammersmith district of London which was to be later titled, the Ark. At the time Erskine referred to Hammersmith as a run-down and challenging environment devoid of any culture or society (Pearman, 1993: 8). From this developed a response that showed consideration for the social needs of its occupants through the development of human relationships, exclusion of hierarchies and fusion of social groups, proposing new social relationships such as, Young & Old, Employer and Employee, Man & Woman, Black & White, Manager & Cleaner. (Pidgeon, 1990: 8).

Fig.3.7. Sketch of the interior atrium.

Fig.3.8. Conceptual sketch of the central space.

During my trip to London on the 4th of January, I caught the tube to Hammersmith to visit the Ark. I had heard a rumour that the building was currently unoccupied, but unfortunately, when I arrived I was not allowed inside the building and could not see up past the initial internal levels. The interior spaces are flexible and were primarily intended as a place for small businesses to interact within open plan environments, consisting of a series of floors organised around an inner atrium space, dominated by a central cockpit which Erskine envisioned as the nucleus of social activity. Protruding platforms and walkways direct users around the building where there are a series of meeting and recreational spaces including, a rooftop viewing platform, a gift shop and the archetypal British institution, a pub.

Formatively Erskine’s internal protruding levels and offset balconies seem to adopt principles and replicate physicality’s of Hertzberger’s Centraal Beheer Building. Even so, I feel Erskine’s building optimistically aims to create an atmosphere which influences and inspires the break down of hierarchical boundaries within an office building which reacts to the social requirements of its employees, a humane and egalitarian architecture.

Fig.3.9. The Ark, Hammersmith, London.

Fig 3.10. Interior Atrium Spaces.

Next I wish to discuss the work of Zaha Hadid, in particular the 2005 BMW Central Building in Leipzig, Germany. I have selected the building because I believe it is reflective of the current status of contemporary architecture. For decades, many people believed that Zaha’s radical sinuous architecture would never make it past the drawing board, critics saying, “her organic shapes were intriguing but could never be built” (Mason: 2005). However, the BMW building is just one of a series of Hadid buildings that are currently going up around the globe, Hadid’s response to the critics was “I was going to always say time will tell. But, I mean, time is telling now” (Mason, 2005: 1). The design was largely informed by movement and the building is essentially a knot which connects three production facilities, the plan indicates the way that the administration building sits in the centre of the facility, connecting: A-Paint Shop, B-Body-in-White, C-Assembly. Refer to Fig 3.12 and appendix F. “The Central Building is the active nerve-centre or brain of the whole factory complex. All threads of the building’s activities gather together and branch out again from here” (ZHA, 2005: BMW Leipzig txt final doc).

Fig 3.11. BMW Central Building, External Feature.

Fig 3.12. BMW Central Building, External Columns.

Fig 3.13. External Plan.

Fig.3.14. BMW Central Building, Central Office Space.

The building integrates innovative production methods, conveyor belts run overhead, transporting cars between facilities, the interior office space is bright and open-plan which enables the integration of all workers, “The weaving together of blue collar workers, white collar workers, management, design and production, all in one space” (ZHA, 2005: Interview), this stratagem avoids hierarchy or separation into social categories, consequently “preventing the establishment of exclusive domain” (Slavid, 2005: 24).

Fig 3.15. Programmatic Layout Diagram.

The diagram communicates the way that the programmatic elements are linked together as one cohesive whole. White collar and Blue Collar functions are located both floors and social spaces, such as lockers and washrooms are placed at meeting points between facilities. The main offices are located on the small cascade in the centre of the building and the entrance on the far right directs users through the central space to the restaurant, which is located near the far end of the building at a confluence point between two facilities, drawing all employees from the different zones together in one area. The building is also open to the public, offering tours around the facility and includes a gift shop, exhibition space, canteen, auditorium and a marketplace.

Fig.3.16. BMW Central Building, Internal Office Spaces, (Small Cascade)

In reference to a social agenda, this case is interesting because one argument against Hadid is that the building was not initially proposed to respond to the social needs of its users, it was an issue that arose during the design stages of the building and was implemented as a design strategy for further activity (ZHA, 2005: Phase 2 Explanatory Text doc). â&#x20AC;&#x153;The idea that the central building is a social melting pot is a nice aspiration, but slightly absurdâ&#x20AC;? (Long, 2005: 15). Nevertheless, whether the social agenda was initially intended or not, I still feel the completed building is a product of a positive attitude towards equality which has resulted in a building that has become a great example of new attitudes towards the modern workplace, positively pushing concern for societal issues into the 21st century and inspiring hope for the future of architecture.

CONCLUSION

To briefly summarise the main points of theory brought up in chapters one and two, Robin Evans envisioned a society devoid of control, an alternative to systems which control peoples’ lives. Gordon Matta-Clark used the term to simply separate his work from architecture and provide an alternative to the norm. Edward Suzuki’s theory is related to mankind’s natural reaction to be violent and destructive, specifically his own instincts, which he quite literally took out on his buildings. The Space Hijackers adapted the phrase to portray their anarchist position towards the current sociopolitical condition. Finally, Lebbeus Woods put forward the notion of ‘heterarchy’, which is implemented by the design of individual environments entitled, ‘Free-zones’ and ‘freespace’ structures.

I believe that the theory of anarchitecture is collectively developed from a societal concern, each theoretical position opposes hierarchy and in most cases is proposing an alternative as a direct response to the current, predominantly negative social, political and architectural situation. This paradox within anarchitecture often proposes an idealistic, utopian condition which purports to instigate social change. However, there is no tangible evidence to back up the theory, indicating that it would never be successful within architectural practice. In my opinion, it more often than not seems that anarchitecture is a product of the architects requiring theory for their work and I believe that they use the term to post-rationalise their ideas and define their individual ideology, resultantly the theoretical perspectives often appear selfish and egotistical, which in terms of social practice, almost conclusively renders the theory of anarchitecture irrelevant.

The case studies discussed in the previous chapter provide existing points of practice which I believe challenge the pretence of anarchitecture, and instead of just stating the negatives of hierarchy and promising social transformation, they actually break down social boundaries and work against hierarchical order. To concisely reiterate upon the predominant principles of practice, Herman Hertzberger,s work was focused around Improving human environments through the creation of individual spatial units and social environments, in the case of the Centraal Beheer Office Building, each employee was given their own personal space within a series of office blocks, which are articulated around a centralised social area. Ralph Erskine is interested in human relationships,

exclusion of hierarchies and similarly, he designed open plan office environments organised around a series of recreational spaces within a central, socially orientated zone. Zaha Hadid believes that â&#x20AC;&#x153;Architecture is about wellbeingâ&#x20AC;? (ZHA, 2005: Interview), the BMW Central Building closely integrates all workers into one space, hybridising social and hierarchical groups, thus preventing the establishment of exclusive domain. The points listed above are proof of existent, architectural examples and solutions working to implement social change, however, no matter how abstract the concepts or strategies behind each individual buildings are, these ideas of practice collectively revolve around the breaking down of social and hierarchical boundaries, which backs up my hypothesis that; Anarchitecture is predominantly theoretical, Therefore, I believe it has little to offer in practical terms and that there are existing practical examples of how to implement societal change.

In retrospect, I believe that the current literature surrounding anarchitecture is inadequate because it fails to solve societal issues which the theory is predominantly focused around. I believe that my research challenges the pretence of anarchitecture by documenting tangible points of social practice which work to implement social change by breaking down and eliminating social boundaries, making it evident that it is possible to reconfigure society through architecture, which confirms my hypothesis and subsequently answers my Research Question, Can anarchitecture provide societal utopia?, to which I have come to the conclusion that, no it cannot. I fundamentally believe that there is not enough evidence to prove that the theory of anarchitecture could implement social change and at this point in time these theoretical proposals just exist within discourse, and this shall remain until the theory of anarchitecture is put into practice.

APPENDICES APPENDIX A, (i,ii,iii) Gordon Matta-Clark, Projects for anarchitecture in letters to the group, December 1973.

APPENDIX B- Translation of Edward Suzukiâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s handwriting. As a child I remember hiding always under the large dining table and curiously tearing apart all the toys my parents bought me. It is ironical that I am now an architect. Reflecting upon it, though, it seems quite natural that behind every man's desire to be creative there is perhaps a stronger passion to be destructive. This is what anarchitecture is all about. Unlike that of other animals, however, manâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s aggressiveness is unique in that as far as we can see it (serves) no biological or social purpose. Man kills for joy. Man kills for greed. Man kills for the sake of it. Just as the roots of human destructiveness are deeper than those that meet the eye, I feel anarchitecture also is concealing some potential I haven? yet discovered. So far I seem to have only scratched the surfaceÂˇ Edward Suzuki Life (as) idea. I. The orange on the (side) is, during the two week course of this exhibit, undergoing a process of chemical (metabolism) toward decomposition generally called death. However, scientists cannot assert at which point the orange dies, and for that matter at which point the orange comes to be. Even if still photos were to be taken depicting split-second images of the orange at each instant of its existence., one cannot pick out from such a (series) one (single) picture clearly hinting at the precise instant of life or death. Alas, there is no threshold of life and death. Only ideas. Life (as) idea. II. As is evident in the photograph there was once a cube in this spot. This cube was the (soul) this building- and now it is gone. However, that is not to say that the cube is lifeless, however formless. On the contrary, precisely on account of its physical non-existence the life of the cube becomes more meaningful and significant. Very often (in our daily lives) (we tend to take things and persons around us for granted. Only when they (disappear) do one become truly aware of their existence. Life does not die. Life ?is? an idea.

Anarchitecture is born from such an idea of life, critical and ambiguous moment(s) of tension between dualities, ambivalences, and contradictions.

APPENDIX C- Space Hijackers; UK Government in 100% Support, PR- offensive, Sticky Labels.

APPENDIX D- Space Hijackers; UK Government in 100% Support, PR- offensive. Clockwise from top left; ‘Anti-Terror finger print scanner’/ Central Lincoln Crossing/ Small Child/ Confused Man/ Shocked Man/ Amused Man/ Distressed Man/ ‘Click here to show your support of our Government’s war effort’/ ‘Is the UK government doing a good job?’

APPENDIX E- Interview questionnaire. Priestley, Robin. (2007). Interview, which took place at Forest CafĂŠ, London on Thursday 4th January 2007.

What would you suggest or imply is indicated by the term Anarchitecture? The idea behind it was that with normal architecture there is a too clear a defined owner/user relationship. If we could begin to create projects which added to the history of the space and change the way that people thought about or remembered a space. Then even though we didn't design or own the space, as users of space we could begin to redesign it, and change the way that it worked. Making built space less hierarchical, as everyone is taking part in deciding how it is perceived and used. Do you feel architects are quick to give into commerce? The problem architects face in my view is that they can't just build things. Instead they have to be commissioned by a corporation or institution or some other wealthy body, which has its own set of vested interests. No matter how equal and free an architect may try to design a space, the interests in the company will begin to have an effect on the space and set up rules governing it. If architects don't go for commissions then they often find themselves designing virtual spaces for competitions. There has to be another way where architects and users of space can design cities without the input of corporations, commerce and institutions. That's what we try to do a bit. Who is your favourite architect? I honestly don't know? I liked Constant (from the Situationist International) with his new bablylon project (where people could remodel the streets as they walked through them) although it always felt as though he was a "genius" who allowed the lesser public play HIS game. What is your favourite building? I really like the Musee D'Orsay in Paris, it feels like you are exploring the place and making up your own route as you go, as opposed to being led around a pre-set course. I love the Southbank and new city hall in London (although this is probably just because they are great to skateboard on). Who is your least favourite architect? I think Richard Rogers and Norman Foster go hand in hand. Although they both have some environmental concerns I think their collaborative ego's make up for any ethics they have. And there really is only so much glass I can handle.

As part of the Space hijackers, what subversions, misuses and hijacks have you been involved in? I was one of the founders, so I have pretty much been involved in them all. Highlights for me were the Circle Line Parties (getting 2000 people down onto the tubes for a party with live Dj's a Samba Band, Naked pole dancers, Disco Lights and tequila) although they became a victim of their own success, and we have had to make any others we have much more secret now. The Anarchist Vs Capitalist cricket matches were great, where we would challenge city boys to midnight drunken cricket matches in the concrete squares of the City of London. Recently I enjoyed sneaking up one morning and replacing a bunch of public benches Camden Council had removed (It was in order to get rid of homeless people??) and an action we did with the new SOCPA zone, setting up a border control and scanning people's brains for subversive thoughts.

APPENDIX F- Zaha Hadid BMW Central Building, ground, first and second floor plans, including key.

E-MAILS

Edward Suzuki esa@edward.net My name is Andrew Green, I am a third year architecture student from the University of Lincoln in the UK. I am currently undertaking research into anarchitecture for my RIBA part 1 dissertation. In reference to; Suzuki, Edward. (1987) Anarchitecture, Edward Suzuki. 1947/1987. Which I have recently purchased from a New York book seller. I am having trouble translating the handwritten text. Please could you forward to me a translation of the text to help with my research? Thank you for any time you may have taken in processing my request. Andrew David Green from: Andrew Green" <greenjunkie@hotmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 11:26 AM Subject: Anarchitecture

ReplyDear Mr. Green, Thank you for your interest in Anarchitecture. Sorry for the delay in answering. Please find below the words that you were not able to decipher. Refer to appendix A. I hope this answers your query. Regards, Edward Suzuki

Subject: Re: Anarchitecture <esa@edward.net> 29 November 2006 02:18:46

The Space Hijackers

i) mail@spacehijackers.co.uk My name is Andrew Green. I am a third year architecture student from the University of Lincoln. I am currently conducting research for my dissertation, the title of which is; â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;The Paradox of Anarchitectureâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;. I have already researched the work of Lebbeus Woods, Gordon Matta-Clark, Edward Suzuki, and I too do not wish to become another corporate drone architect. I am now interested in reviewing the work of non-governmental groups, such as yourself and the precursors of anarchitecture week.

I find your work bold and inspiring & have taken part in a few ‘anarchitect’ tasks myself! Like urban letterboxing and UK government in 100% support, PR offensive. I was wondering if it would be possible to meet with one of your associates to have a brief informal chat about anarchitecture? At a mutually convenient location, date and time, On your terms… Thank you. Regards, Andrew Green. from: Andrew Green" <greenjunkie@hotmail.com> Thursday, November 16, 2006 at 10:35:45

Reply-

Hello there, I would be more than willing to meet up with you if you are ever in London, and I'm sure a few of the others would be up for a chat over a pint or cup of tea. Let me know when you are next in the area and we can hook up. Cheers, Until then, you can try out an experiment in a city near you. Follow this link; http://www.spacehijackers.co.uk/html/projects/voting/index.html print off the pdf and follow the instructions. Let us know how it goes?! Robin & the other bandits at Space Hijackers 0787 6067703 <robin@spacehijackers.org> 17 November 2006 15:24:30

ii) robin@spacehijackers.org Is it more convenient for you to meet up mid week or at the weekend? Im hoping to get down to London in the next few weeks… Regards, Andrew Green. (Now an official member of the space Hijackers!) from: Andrew Green" <greenjunkie@hotmail.com> December 28th, 2006 at 19:42:06

ReplyHey, Yeah, Its probably better mid week Im off work & will be in central London on the first Thursday in January if you can make it down then? We can meet at The Forest bar. Give me a ring when your abouts.

Mob, 0787 6067703 <robin@spacehijackers.org> 29 December 2006 10:52:41

Hello again Robin. I can't thank you enough for agreeing to meet up & answering all my questions. I encountered a few problems with uploading the questionnaire onto the website like you suggested, but not to worry. To format my dissertation correctly, I need to get hold of interviewees Surnames, If thatâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s ok? And also, if you know who is the author or originator of the Space Hijackers and anarchitecture week websites. Cheers, Andrew. from: Andrew Green <greenjunkie@hotmail.com> January 20th, 2007 at 22:09:32

Reply-

Hello there, My full name is Robin Priestley, and as it happens I also design the site and was one of the founding members of the Hijackers. Agent Greenman also does a lot of work on the site with the more tech stuff and he designed the anarchitecture week site. Good luck with the dissertation, where abouts are you studying? Take care, Robin <robin@spacehijackers.org> 20 November 2007 17:23:03

Zaha Hadid Architects i) mail@zaha-hadid.com I am a third year architecture student from Lincoln School of architecture. I am currently in the process of research for my dissertation, the title of which is 'The Paradox of Anarchitecture'. Which analyses the theory surrounding Anarchitecture and challenges it against tangible sources of evidence. Included in the thesis is a case study of BMW Central Building in Leipzig.

It calls upon points of; "The weaving of blue collar workers, white collar workers, management, design & production, all in one space" I am interested to know whether the building was designed with social issues as one of the key factors? If so; what are the key contemporary design strategies that were implemented? Thank you for any time you may have taken in processing my request. Regards, Andrew Green.

ReplyDear Andrew, In response to your request please see the attached datasheet on the BMW building. I have also included a text by Patrik Schumacher which I am sure you will find helpful with its discussions of Fordism. Regards, Sarah Nuragic and Contemporary Art Museum â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Cagliari, Italy

Zaha Hadid Architects is pleased to announce that the Practice has won a prestigious international competition to design the new Nuragic and Contemporary Art Museum in Cagliari, Italy Sarah Schuster Press and Exhibitions ZAHA HADID Architects Studio 9, 10 Bowling Green Lane, London EC1R 0BQ Tel +44 (0)20 7253 5147, Fax +44 (0)20 7251 8322 e-mail sarah.s@zaha-hadid.com http://www.zaha-hadid.com

Sarah Schuster <Sarah.Schuster@zaha-hadid.com> 20 November 2006 19:31:32

ii) Sarah.Schuster@zaha-hadid.com Thanks for your informative email. Is the Patrik Schumacher text taken from the 2005 Guggenheim publication? Would it be possible to meet up with an associate involved with the design and construction of BMW

central building, to answer a few questions and have a brief informal discussion around the social aspects of the completed building? This would be an enormous benefit to my ongoing research into the socius of contemporary architecture. Regards, Andrew Green.

From: Andrew Green [mailto:greenjunkie@hotmail.com] Sent: 20 November 2006 21:41

ArchNet Please could you provide me with a link to The First Aga Khan Public Lecture: Zaha Hadid. I am having difficulty tracking it down. I am also interested in any information you may have on Zaha Hadid and her relation to the Aga Khan Award for Architecture. Thanks for any time you may have taken processing my request. Regards, Andrew Green.

from: Andrew Green" <greenjunkie@hotmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2006 ??:?? ?? Subject: Anarchitecture

Reply-

Dear Andrew, I am not sure what you intend by the First Aga Khan Public Lecture; could you elaborate? Zaha Hadid served on the 1998 Master Jury for the AKAA, and she served on the 2001 Award Steering Committee, also for the AKAA. Beyond this, which is available at www.akdn.org, I am unaware of any other connection between Ms. Hadid and the Aga Khan Award for Architecture. Best regards, O. Celine ArchNet Administrator Ophelia Celine oceline@MIT.EDU 30 November 2006 18:45:23

GLOSSARY Anarchitecture- Anarchitecture is a term that was introduced by Gordon Matta Clark in New York in 1973. (Gausa, Etal. 2003: 47) Commerce- 1. the buying and selling of goods and services. 2. (Literary) social relations Ephemeral- lasting only for a short time Entropy/ Entropic- lack of pattern or organization Freespace- a construction free of preconceived value, use or meaning, an element in a heterarchy (Woods. 1992: 142). Free-zone- heterarchy of freespaces, pattern of urban order based on knowledge and performance; a system opposing mass culture; a subversion of hierarchies (Woods. 1992: 142). Generic- of a whole class, or group, or genus. Relating to or descriptive of an entire group or class; general. Normative. Globalisation- growth to a global or worldwide scale; "the globalization of the communication industry Habitat- occupation of a dwelling place/ A structure that affords a controlled environment for living Heterarchy/ Heterarchical- a spontaneous lateral network of autonomous individuals, a system of authority based on the evolving performances of individuals, eg, a cybernetic circus (Woods. 1992: 142). Hierarchy- a system of people or things arranged in a graded order. Hijack- to seize control of or divert Homogenisation/ Homogeneity- to make different elements the same or similar Manifestation- to show, reveal or display/ a divine being, or an idea, is revealed Multivalent- many and varied/ many shapes or forms/ several components. Ontology/ Ontogenetic- the study of the nature of being./ development of an individual organism. Sociopolitical- of or involving political and social factors. Status Quo- The existing condition or state of affairs. Subversion- attempting to weaken or overthrow a government or an institution. Utopia- â&#x20AC;&#x153;any real or imaginary society, place, or state considered to be perfect or ideal/ An ideally perfect place, especially in its social, political, and moral aspects. Happiest basis for civilised community/ societyâ&#x20AC;? (2 Simple Software. 2002.).

BIBLIOGRAPHY 2 Simple Software. (2002) Collins dictionaries, Version 1.0.0. Cd-rom. Intense Educational.

Aronowitz, Stanley. Menser, Michael. Martinsons, Barbara. Eds. (1996) Visualizing and Producing Anarchic Spaces. Technoscience and Cyberculture. New York: Routledge.

Borden, Iain. Ruedi, Katerina. (2000) The Dissertation; An Architecture Student’s Handbook. Oxford: Reed Educational and Professional Publishing Ltd..

Celant, Germano. Ramirez-Montagut, Monica. eds. (2006) Zaha Hadid; Guggenheim Museum. New York: Guggenheim Museum Publications

Coleman, Nathaniel T. (2005) Utopias and architecture. London: Routledge

Cooper, Jerry. (1988) ‘China- China; Edward Suzuki applies his Principles of Anarchitecture to three recent projects’ Interior Design. Vol.8 / No.2 (April) Page; 40 – 44. Available from: http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb3082/is_198804/ai_n7745960

Couchaux, Denis. (2004) Habitats nomades (AnArchitecture) Paris: Alternative et paralléles

Couchaux, Denis. (1980) Constructions nomades (AnArchitecture) Paris: Édition Alternative et parallèles

Díaz Sánchez, María, Eugenia. (2004) Architectures of Poetry. Amsterdam: Rodopi.

Diserens, Corinne. ed. (2003) Gordon Matta-Clark / survey by Thomas Crow ; essays by Judith Russi Kirshner and Christian Kravagna. London, New York: Phaidon Press.

Dovey, Kim. (1999) Framing Places: mediating power in built form. London: Routledge.

Dutton, Thomas A. Hurst Mann, Lian. eds. (1996) Reconstructing architecture: critical discourses and social practices. London: University of Minnesota Press

Evans, Robin. (1997) Towards Anarchitecture. 1970. Translations from Drawing to Building and Other Essays (AA Documents 2.) Singapore: Craft Print.

Gausa, Manuel. Guallart, Vicente. Muller, Willy. Soriano, Federico. Porras, Fernando. Morales, Jose. Eds. (2003) Metapolis Dictionary of Advanced Architecture: City, Technology and Society in the Information Age. Barcelona: Ingoprint SA.

Graafland, Arie. (2000) The Socius of Architecture: Amsterdam. Tokyo. New York. Rotterdam: 010 Publishers.

Greenman., 2005. Anarchitecture Week 2005. London. Available from: http://www.anarchitectureweek.co.uk/ [Accessed 23rd Aug 2006].

Hatch, Richard. Eds. (1984) The Scope of Social Architecture. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

Hertzberger, Herman. (1991) Lessons for Students of Architecture. Rotterdam, Netherlands: 010 Publishers.

Hollier, Denis. (1989) Against architecture : the writings of Georges Bataille / Denis Hollier / translated by Betsy Wing. London: MIT Press.

Kahn, Luis I. My architect. London: BBC4 , 2006. [720.92 kah]

Kroll, Lucien. (1987) Lucien Kroll; The participatory process. VHS. Publication unknown.

Kusama, Karyn. (2006) Aeon Flux. DVD. Paramount Pictures.

Leach, Neil. (1999) Rethinking Architecture. London: Routledge.

Leach, Neil. (1999) The Anaesthetics of Architecture. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT press.

Lee, Pamela M. (2000) Object to be destroyed; the work of Gordon Matta-Clark. London: MIT Press. Long, Kieran . (2005) ‘Zaha Hadid’s new BMW factory in Leipzig’. ICON. 003 (July) Page; 15.

Mason, Anthony. (2005) Celebrated Female Architect. CBS News. Available from: www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/12/04/sunday/main1095213.shtml (16.04.06)

McGuirk, Justin. (2003) ‘Gordon Matta-Clark’ ICON. 003 (June) Page; ??–??.

Noever, Peter. ed. (1997) Anarchitecture; works by Gordon Matta-Clark. Los Angeles: MAK Center for Art and Architecture.

Pearman, Hugh. (1993) Blueprint Extra 10/ The Ark London/ Architect Ralph Erskine. London: Wordsearch Ltd.

Pidgeon, Monica. (1990). Ralph Erskine; An Egalitarian Architecture. The Eric Lyons Memorial Lecture. VHS. London: Pidgeon Audio Visual for Sussex Video.

Priestley, R., 1999. The Space Hijackers Official Website. London: Robin Priestley. Available from: http://www.spacehijackers.co.uk [Accessed 25th Oct 2006].

Priestley, Robin. (2007). Interview, which took place at Forest Café, London on Thursday 4th January 2007.

Slavid, Ruth. (2005) ‘Motor Skills; Zaha in Leipzig’ The architects Journal. Vol.221 / No.19 (May) Page; 24 – 36.

Suzuki, Edward. (1987) Anarchitecture, Edward Suzuki. 1947/1987. Okamura. Japan: Edward Suzuki. Okamura Printing Industries

Truppin, Andrea. (1988) ‘Japan Design. Edward Suzuki, creator of anarchitecture’ Interiors. Vol.147 / No.12 (July) Page; 127 – 150.

Tafuri, Manfredo. (1979) Architecture and Utopia: design and capitalist development. London: MIT Press.

Vidler. Anthony. (2003) ‘Splitting the difference: Anthony Vidler on Gordon Matta-Clark - Book Review’ ArtForum. (June) Page; 75 – 81. Available from: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0268/is_10_41/ai_103989783. 02/09/06

Wimmer, Kurt. (2002) Equilibrium. DVD. Dimension Films.

Woods, Lebbeus. (1992) Anarchitecture: Architecture Is a Political Act (Architectural Monographs, No 22 Academy Editions.) New York: St Martins Press.

Woods, Lebbeus. (1997) Radical Reconstruction. New York: Princeton Architectural Press.

ZHA. (2005). BMW Central Building. Audio Visual resource on Cd-rom. London: Zaha Hadid Architects.