YEAR 4 STUDIO A 2021/22 UNLOCKING LOCKE by andrewstoane

E C P I U C E C P I U C E C P I U C

Q U A L I T L I M A T O L O G A L E O E C O L O G N C L U S I V I T N I V E R S A L I T I T Y - C E N T R I C I T

Y Y Y Y Y Y

ther ise

Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

O W

Q U A L I T L I M A T O L O G A L E O E C O L O G N C L U S I V I T N I V E R S A L I T I T Y - C E N T R I C I T DJCAD Architecture Year 4 2021/22 Studio Brief Q U A L I T L I M A T O L O G A L E O E C O L O G N C L U S I V I T N I V E R S A L I T I T Y - C E N T R I C I T

U N L O C K I N G L O C K E | Andy Stoane

Beyond the figure-ground. The complexity of the urban section, illustrated through an image of London around Tottenham Court Road / Centre Point from Crossrail. The 3D model shows structure and space above and below the datum we conventionally recognise as “ground.” These “public” spaces make up a complex matrix of public realm activity which reaches far beyond the convention of street. You will engage with the full scope of this section.

L L L D G A O

O N D O E I T H # E I T H # U N D E R A N T O N Y W H E R T H E R W I S

N 1 2 E N E E

DJCAD Architecture Year 4 2021/22 Studio Brief

LAND, AND T AVAILABLE AN AS PRIVATE PR BECOME THE TYPE OF ACC SOCIETY.” Raquel Rolnik

THE WAY IT IS ND ACCESSIBLE ROPERTY, HAS HEGEMONIC CESS IN OUR 3

STUDIO A UNLOCKING LOCKE Andy Stoane T H I S S T U D I O I S F O R C A M P U S S T U D E N T S O N LY When and why did we start to squander our public spaces? When did our cities become little more than tools for capital accumulation? The Politics of Ground “What a democratic politics requires is the fostering of a multiplicity of public spaces of agonistic confrontation” said the political theorist Chantal Mouffe.1 Current arguments about “public spaces” are bookended by two oppositions, both prefigured philosophically by centuries-old theories. Neoliberal propertarianism is often justified by John Locke’s seventeenth century “labour theory of property,” which gives the right to appropriate private property when labour is applied to it. Conversely, contemporary ideas of “the commons” are supported by Jean Jacques Rousseau’s eighteenth century contention that “the fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth itself to nobody.” As the pendulum relentlessely swings in favour of propertarianism, the appropriation of private urban property more often than not involves the expropriation of these public spaces to which Mouffe refers. Location The studio will locate in London’s Elephant and Castle, the site of current controversial processes of gentrification. The processes here involve the demolition of the public Heygate Estate - home to more than 3,000 people - and the Elephant & Castle Shopping Centre, with its public plaza and integrated train and tube stations. These are soon to be replaced with private capital investment-driven projects. In projects such as this, piecemeal “social“ projects at best form small, isolated pockets of resistance to “development,” the mechanism through which the city and its grounds become subsumed into power relations which support, and often accelerate, existing societal inequalities. These resistances are either isolated and ineffective, or are co-opted into pragmatic managerial processes, the aims of which are simply to advance the interests of the market. Misson Locke’s theory was qualified by an important proviso – that, while individuals have a right to the appropriation of private property, the right only exists “at least where there is enough, and as good, left in common for others.” Our studio will not be premised by a naïve belief in the impossibility of a philanthropic property market, nor an endorsement of “the urban commons,” but by a fiction where the “Lockean Proviso” is turned. The real “right” will be for the common good, with the left-over being for individuals. Becoming what economic geographer David Harvey describes as “insurgent architects,” you will resist both pragmatic “development” and co-opted policy-driven “social” processes, instead trying to find new narratives for a collective and pluralistic city – narratives that are unifying and total instead of atomising and fragmented.2 We will look to the continuity of the city as a means of individual and collective integration. As Manfredo Tafuri described it in Architecture and Utopia, the multiplicity of the residential cell forming “a public solicited and rendered critically participant in the act of creation.”3 Mouffe contests that a new “unifying story” is necessary to bind together the fragmented forms of resistance to the hegemony of the post-political oligarchy. “The democratic principle of liberty and equality has to impose itself as the new matrix of the social imaginary.”4 Social movements that are able to sketch out “a radical imaginary” of what an alternative society might look like are the most likely to achieve social change she says. You will sketch out a radical imaginary, finding new compact grounds that are continuous (vertically and horizontally), equitably distributed, and fully engaged in the intensity and complexity of the metripolitan field. You will re-draw boundaries between public and private spaces, beyond the limiting register of figure-ground. You will model new physical and spatial forms for a new societal formation. You will share a physical stuio and your field work with our year 5 sister-studio, The Glamour Unit. While you explore how people might dwell in our fiction, they will explore how they might play. There will inevitably be much overlap and reciprocity. Chantal Mouffe, “Some Reflections on an Agonistic Approach to the Public” in Making Things Public: Atmospheres of Democracy, ed. Bruno Latour and Peter Weibel (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2005), 804-7. 2 David Harvey, Spaces of Hope (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2000). 3 Manfredo Tafuri, Barbara Luigia La Penta (Translator), Architecture and Utopia: Design and Capitalist Development (Massachusetts: MIT Press, 1976), 132-133. 4 Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe, Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical Democratic Politics (London: Verso, 2014), 138. 1

Beyond the figure-ground. The Complexity of the urban section, illustrated through an image of London Liverpool Street from Crossrail. The 3D model shows structure and space above and below the datum we conventionally recognise as “ground.” You will engage with the full scope of this section.

Figure to figure. Mapping of Hong Kong, Sha Tin, from Cities Without Ground: A Hong Kong Guidebook by Adam Frampton, Jonathan D Solomon and Clara Wong. The book presents mappings of non-ground-based, publicly accessible areas of Hong Kong, which the authors consider as “a template for public space within future cities undergoing intense densification (and subject to changing weather).”

1924: Architecture at itsArchitecture most socially efficacious 1924: at its most

socially efficacious.

of thehouse,” Constructivist “commune house,” Stroyykom RSFSR. M.O. Axonometric of theAxonometric Constructivist “commune Stroyykom RSFSR. M.O. Barshch The andcombination V.N. Vinogradov. The and combination of technological and spatial innovation Barshch and V.N. Vinogradov. of technological spatial innovation attempted to bring about revolutionary consciousness, through attempted toabring aboutsocial a revolutionary social consciousness, through the activities the activities of the of home. the Bolshoviks, “social condensers” were condensers” were designed “[i]n order theFor home. For thesuch Bolshoviks, such “social designed “[i]n order to facilitate a rapid and painless transition to higher social forms to facilitate a rapid and painless transition to higher social forms of housekeeping . . .” of housekeeping . . .”

1930: Architecture as capitalist reform

1930: Architecture as capitalist reform.

Designed after the 1929 crash, Le Corbusier’s Ville Radieuse with its verdant public Designed after the 1929 crash, Le Corbusier’s Ville Radieuse with its verdant public grounds and continuities of public programmes running through raised “dwelling grounds continuities of public programmes running through raised “dwelling unities.” was an attempt to elevateand architecture above Fordist principles. In Manfredo unities” wasadvanced an attempt to elevate Tafuri’s words “even today, the most and formally elevatedarchitecture hypotheses of above Fordist principles. In Manfredo bourgeois culture in the field of architectural designtoday, and urbanism.” Tafuri’s words “even the most advanced and formally elevated hypotheses of

bourgeois culture in the field of architectural design and urbanism.” 1956-1982: A “Public City.” Prefigured by Keynesian economic principles of public spending, London’s Barbican Prefigured by Keynesian public spending, London’s Barbican podium is a is economic a hybridprinciples publicofarts-orientated “artificial” containing more than twenty hybrid public arts-orientated “artificial” podium containing more than twenty different different public programs, two large residential squares and had a car free site. With public programs, two large residential squares and had a car free site. With a residential a residential population of up and to a6,000 population of up to 6,000 people in three forty-storey towers series ofpeople seven- in three forty-storey towers and a storey slab blocks, it was designed as a drive to increase residential population of as a drive to increase the residential series of seven-storey slab the blocks, it was designed the inner city in a time of urban retrenchment. Homes were rented from, and the population of the inner city in a time of urban retrenchment. Homes were rented entire complex was managed by, the Corporation of London. from, and the entire complex was managed by, the Corporation of London. Note the complexity of the section. 1956-1982: A “Public City”

1980 onward: Capital Accumulation

1980 onward: Capital Accumulation.

The rise of the neoliberalism, privitisation “the right to buy” subsumed the and city, and The rise of theand neoliberalism, privitisation “the right to buy” subsumed the city, the residential lives of and its citizens, deeper into imperatives capital accumulation. the residential lives of itsof citizens, deeper into imperatives of capital accumulation. Gentrification - defined by Neil Smith as “…the process by which working class Gentrification - defined by Neil Smith as “…the process by which working class residential neighbourhoods are rehabilitated by middle class homebuyers, land-lords residential neighbourhoods rehabilitated by middle class homebuyers, landand professional developers” – became the de facto modus are operandi of urban lords professional developers” – gentrification became the de facto modus operandi of urban “development.” Elephant and and Castle, the site of current controversial processes, has seen years of protest, particularly from the Latinthe American “development.” Elephant andlargely Castle, site of current controversial gentrification shop and stall owners.processes, has seen years of protest, particularly from the largely Latin American shop

and stall owners. Protests rarely As capital investment floods in and Protests are rarely successful. As capital investment floodsare in and the citysuccessful. changes, thedisplaced city changes, original are displaced through the increase in property original communities are through the increasecommunities in property prices. A series of development tactics are often used to minimise commitments to local people, local used to minimise commitments to prices. A series of development tactics arewith often government often either complicit in the process or powerless through pressures to local people, with local government often either complicit in the process or powerless accept lucrative investment. through pressures to accept lucrative inward investment.

SOCIAL TO PROPRIETARIAN AR41001

In our studio’s fiction, where Locke’s proviso is turned, we will first return to “the social age” of architecture. This was an age before architecture was annexed to capital, where you might well find the best, mosttalented architects working for local councils on public housing projects. In the words of Mark Swenarton (Cook’s Camden: The Making of Modern Housing), through their inventiveness and creativity, [these] architects have made a fundamental difference to the form of housing and thereby to the lives of the mass of the population.” (13) Those early architects of mass housing, at the beginning of the twentieth-century, grasped the Fordist order of western capitalism and turned it on its head politically - into a mission for egalitarian reform. Industrial production, they thought, could be used to create a fairer society, its structures playing out in a differently organised city, liberating the working class from labour and providing good, affordable housing. As Deborah Gans puts it in her essay “Big Work: Le Corbusier and capitalism,” the objective of most avant-garde movements of this period was “the reduction of work in hand towards the elimination of a permanent working class.” In 1930s Britain, there was a plan for social regeneration through a programme of modernist architecture, most of which would be realised after the World War II. The Housing Act of 1930 required councils to prepare slum clearance plans for the first time, resulting in pioneering projects such as Berthold Lubetkin’s Spa Green Estate in Clenkenwell, London, conceived in the late 1930s and built between 1946 and 1949. Modernist housing was formally, spatially and symbolically able to instantiate new ideas for collective spaces, shared facilities and suitable densities. But despite the newly elected Labour government in 1945 introducing acts to broaden this form of “council housing” for “general needs” rather than for the working class only, the programme as a mechanism to transform a broader attitude toward “the welfare state” was short lived, successive governments adopting a much more conciliatory approach to “housing provision.” The programme peaked around 1968, before being dismantled altogether by Margaret Thatcher’s government in the 1980s. While such socially reformist ideas in the UK at their peak led to around thirty percent of all housing and around fifty percent of rental housing being “council housing,” the use of modernist architecture for urban social regeneration existed as a fifty year reformist experiment, with arguably only a couple of decades focussed on the creation of a true “welfare state,” where housing provision, and welfare generally, were part of an understanding of collective responsibility rather than a safety net for poverty. Postmodern anxieties – not least the Vietnam War, the Cold War, civil unrest and arguably most importantly, peak-oil predictions - led to uncertainties that struggled to maintain any foundational stabilities upon which the “machine-age” optimism of modernism was predicated. In 1966, architect Robert Venturi launched an attack on modernist housing. “. . . I am for messy vitality over obvious unity . . .” he said in Complexity and Contradiction in Architecture. What became a central trope of postmodernism - “the everyday is vital, the totalising force of unity in design is an imposition from above” - served as an admonishment of the early twentieth century avant-garde and their ideas of continuity and collectivity. Modernist mass-housing quickly came to be considered as a form of hubris in an age where the promotion of the individual over the collective, and ideals of individual economic emancipation through entrepreneurship were having a corrosive effect, not only on statism, but on the social fabric of the western world. Without the mechanism of the state, architecture uncoupled itself from politics, abandoning its now impossible social mission. In line with the prevailing mood of the nascent neoliberal economy, a generation of postmodern architects turned against that social mission that they themselves were part of, with what the prophetic critic and historian Manfredo Tafuri described as “neurotic attitudes of self-destruction.” In this new pluralistic landscape with its “multiplicity of issues vying for attention” (as Kate Nesbitt refers to it in her book Theorizsng a New Agenda for Architecture: An Anthology of Architectural Theory, 1965-1995), architecture fragmented into multiple factions, competing over just what its new position within capitalism could and should be. Commenting on architecture’s de-politicisation Tafuri notes that architecture is no longer capable of “ . . . analyzing the real causes of the crisis of design,” meaning instead “contemporary criticism concentrates all its attention on the internal problems of design itself.” It had lost its “ideological prefiguration”– and had retreated into its own internal questions, allowing it to be co-opted into the political agenda of late twentieth-century neoliberalism, while indulging in its own “ideological contortions.” 6

ARRIVED AT AN UNDENIABLE IMPASSE, ARCHITECTURAL IDEOLOGY RENOUNCES ITS PROPELLING ROLE IN REGARD TO THE CITY AND STRUCTURES OF PRODUCTION AND HIDES BEHIND A REDISCOVERED DISCIPLINARY AUTONOMY, OR BEHIND NEUROTIC ATTITUDES OF SELF-DESTRUCTION. Manfredo Tafuri

Architecture became servant to processes that placed the operations of the city in the hands of the few through its subsummation into imperatives of capital accumulation. Government policy now tends to serve this end. The idea of using housing as a key determinant in the formation of new societal ideas – a national “housekeeping” as Hannah Arendt would describe it – has been reduced to managerialist strategy. Recognising what capitalist “development” had taken away from architecture and the city as a means of collective integration, Tafuri was to note that a public, once represented in the image of the city through the residential cell, was no longer “critically participant in the act of creation.” In this regard, in the space of forty years, the architecture of housing has shifted from being part of a mission for social reform to being part of a political philosophy that recognises only the laws and logics of markets proprietarianism. The architect’s primary role is the creation of a commodity-form. The centuries old quotations (opposite) that the studio descriptor opens with can be seen to support two radically different views of public space. Locke’s quote supports its appropriation into private property, whereas Rousseau’s promotes the idea of the commons. Our studio will use these bookends to find alternative narratives for a collective and pluralistic city – narratives that are unifying and total instead of atomising and fragmented.2 We will look to the continuity of the city as a means of individual and collective integration. As Manfredo Tafuri described it in Architecture and Utopia, the multiplicity of the residential cell forming “a public solicited and rendered critically participant in the act of creation.”3 David Harvey has commented,

I am increasingly interested in the politics of daily life, to the degree that the qualities of daily life are partly embedded in the nature of the environments we construct. This entails a constructivist kind of approach. Without being environmental determinists, we could say that as we create environments, environments create us. This is part of what I call dialectical utopianism, a condition that I hope architecture practice can situate itself within.

We will attempt to situate ourselves within this sphere.

THOUGH THE EARTH, AND ALL INFERIOR CREATURES, BE COMMON TO ALL MEN, YET EVERY MAN HAS A PROPERTY IN HIS OWN PERSON: THIS NO BODY HAS ANY RIGHT TO BUT HIMSELF . . . IT BEING BY HIM REMOVED FROM THE COMMON STATE NATURE HATH PLACED IT IN, IT HATH BY THIS LABOUR SOMETHING ANNEXED TO IT, THAT EXCLUDES THE COMMON RIGHT OF OTHER MEN: FOR THIS LABOUR BEING THE UNQUESTIONABLE PROPERTY OF THE LABOURER, NO MAN BUT HE CAN HAVE A RIGHT TO WHAT THAT IS ONCE JOINED TO, AT LEAST WHERE THERE IS ENOUGH, AND AS GOOD, LEFT IN COMMON FOR OTHERS. John Locke, section 27, 2d Treatise on Government: “Of Civil Government” (Chapter V "Of Property"), 1689

THE FIRST MAN WHO, HAVING ENCLOSED A PIECE OF GROUND, BETHOUGHT HIMSELF OF SAYING ‘THIS IS MINE’, AND FOUND PEOPLE SIMPLE ENOUGH TO BELIEVE HIM, WAS THE REAL FOUNDER OF CIVIL SOCIETY. FROM HOW MANY CRIMES, WARS AND MURDERS, FROM HOW MANY HORRORS AND MISFORTUNES MIGHT NOT ANYONE HAVE SAVED MANKIND, BY PULLING UP THE STAKES, OR FILLING UP THE DITCH, AND CRYING TO HIS FELLOWS, ‘BEWARE OF LISTENING TO THIS IMPOSTER; YOU ARE UNDONE IF YOU ONCE FORGET THAT THE FRUITS OF THE EARTH BELONG TO US ALL, AND THE EARTH ITSELF TO NOBODY.’ Jean Jacques Rousseau, 1775

RESEARCH THE SOCIAL CONDENSER This section of the brief discusses a historic example of architecture at its most socially transformative - the social condenser. Although the processes it set itself against in the early twentieth century were quite different to the those we encounter today, it serves as a historic case-study of an architecture that promotes new forms of the collective. Modern Russian historian, Andy Willimott, in his book Living the Revolution, which provides insight into the lives of “communards” in post-revolution Russia, notes that the early “urban communes,” which were mainly self-organising groups, emerging from various collective origins. Students, radical workers, youths, returning Red Army soldiers – operated “in-between autonomy and authority,” (2) and lived out the revolutionary vision of a new socialist form of human interaction. Toward the end of the 1920s, under Stalin, these rapidly growing, but still relatively “unofficial,” communes became subsumed into the communist party’s official objectives, promoting as they did Lenin’s original support for volunteer social work and the party’s local initiative and social activism. (9) As the commune, or “collective house,” became more “official,” Russian Constructivist architects, and in particular their chief protagonist, Moisei Ginzburg (arguably the parallel figure to Le Corbusier in the West), saw themselves as charged with the task of conceiving architecture that would transition from bourgeois to revolutionary socialist society. Their studtures became know as “social condensers.” Our interest in the social condenser in this studio is in the very direct use of architecture as a tool for social and political transformation. Famously misrepresented by Rem Koolhaas in both Delirious New York and Content as a programmatic hybrid, the Social Condenser uses architecture to interpret, instantiate and realise revolutionary socialist and feminist social structures. It effectively crystallises socio-political ideas into architectural form. UCL Professor of Material Culture, Victor Buchli, describes the social condenser as having a “social mission for enabling a world that is ‘otherwise’.”1 In his 2017 essay Crystallising the social condenser, published in The Journal of Architecture, Michał Murawski describes the social condenser as “suffused with vivid connotations pertaining to electricity, radiation and magnetism, the social condenser is a concept with an extraordinary, totalising reach. In its very formulation, it encompasses society’s economic and material infrastructure, the humdrum minutiae of everyday life as well as the unruly domains of the transcendental and fantastical. Crucially, it also encompasses the entire domain of architectural endeavour: from dwelling and work to public space and everything in between.”2 Architecture is deployed as “as a way to forge radical new kinds of human collectivities: collectivities of cohabitation, of coproduction, of intellectual work; as well as collectivities of affect, beauty, empathy and passion.”3 Victor Buchi. An Archaeology of Socialism, Oxford, Berg, 1999. Michał Murawski (2017) Introduction: crystallising the social condenser, The Journal of Architecture, 22:3, 372-386, DOI: 10.1080/13602365.2017.1322815 3 Douglas Rogers, ‘Postsocialisms Unbound: Connections, Critiques, Comparisons’, Slavic Review, 69, no. 1 (2010), pp. 1–15. 1 2

Plan of Commune House, Stroykom, 1926-30, House, 1929-30, M.O.Barshch and V.N.Vinogradov.

THE SOCIAL CONDENSER IS A CONCEPT WITH AN EXTRAORDINARY, TOTALISING REACH. IN ITS VERY FORMULATION, IT ENCOMPASSES SOCIETY’S ECONOMIC AND MATERIAL INFRASTRUCTURE, THE HUMDRUM MINUTIAE OF EVERYDAY LIFE AS WELL AS THE UNRULY DOMAINS OF THE TRANSCENDENTAL AND FANTASTICAL. CRUCIALLY, IT ALSO ENCOMPASSES THE ENTIRE DOMAIN OF ARCHITECTURAL ENDEAVOUR: FROM DWELLING AND WORK TO PUBLIC SPACE AND EVERYTHING IN BETWEEN. Michał Murawski 11

Ginzburg’s renowned collective house, Narkomfin, constructed in Moscow in 1930, is literally structured for this purpose. As Ginzburg was to note, “. . . we set ourselves the task of creating social and living conditions for the transitional period.” Narkomfin was designed “[i]n order to facilitate a rapid and painless transition to higher social forms of housekeeping . . .” In Narkomfin, collective catering facilities were provided, along with clothes washing, room cleaning, and kindergartens for children. Gintzburg also proposed a communal block, connected via an enclosed bridge and containing “a sports hall, a kitchen, a dining room with recreation room, and a children’s dining room on the roof.” A separate “children’s house” was also to be provided, as well as a “services courtyard” with “a mechanical laundry, drying room, and other service spaces.” The combination of technological and spatial innovation attempted to bring about a revolutionary social consciousness, through the activities of the home. Particularly important was the kitchen. As Willimott points out, “many communards became particularly invested in ‘the battle against the private kitchen’.” Not only was the kitchen a gendered space, enslaving women, but it also acted as a “highly ritualised” environment – “a ‘memory space’ keeping traditional family structures and the old byt alive.” For revolutionary Soviets, “in short . . . the individual kitchen was both immoral and irrational. It was, therefore, branded as ideologically reactionary and fundamentally un-modern.” [willimott]

The Narkomfin Communal House, Moscow, 1929-30, Moisei Ginzburg.

Much is made of the comparison between Narkomfin and its almost contemporaneous Isokon Apartments in London, designed by Wells Wintemute Coates in 1934. Completed four years after Narkomfin, Isokon (or Lawn Road Flats) was constructed privately for furniture entrepreneurs Jack and Molly Pritchard. It contained thirty-two small apartments, supplemented by a communal programme of subsistence. The formal similarities of the two buildings are certainly striking, materially and compositionally, and their intellectual backgrounds may well owe much to the international exchanges of CIAM, within which Ginzburg and Wells Coates had significant roles. But, where Narkomfin’s experiments in collective living were an a priori attempt to “transition” society into a new collective order, Isokon’s collectivity was an a posteriori response to a combination of a growing intelligentsia interested in avant-garde ideas, and the property squeeze in 1930s London, which delivered the need for an affordable new metropolitan residential typology for middle-class single professionals without domestic staff. Where Isokon’s collective dining space was a glamorous restaurant, Isobar, which produced a sophisticated menu for food which could be eaten collectively or transported to apartments via mechanical hoists, Narkomfin’s dining hall was much more of a canteen.

Isokon (Lawn Road Flats), London, 1934, Wells Coates.

TO FACILITATE A RAPID AND PAINLESS TRANSITION TO HIGHER SOCIAL FORMS OF HOUSEKEEPING 13

RESEARCH THE HYBRID Hybridisation is a means of bringing together multiple programmes and multiple registers of public and private into, usually, but not always, one total form. It challenges conventional ownership, stakeholding and compartmentalisation of architectures into territorial components.

“The history of hybrids begins at the end of the 19th century, when the dense city started to accept the overlapping of functions as inevitable. It is inside the metropolises where these mixed organisms arise, helped mainly by centrality’s power as a catalyst.” Javier Mozas, A+T, Issue 32, Autumn 2008, Hybrids II, Low-rise mixed-use

buildings.

Read A+T, Hybrids 1, II & III.

Barbican, London, 1956-82-, Cross

OMA, Bryghusprojektet, Copenhagen, 2008-

Hans Konwiarz, Alsterzentrum Hamburg Model, 1966

Vanke Centre, Steven Holl Architects, Shenzhen, 2006-09.

Project from 2019/20 Dundee studio: Calum Ramsay, The Fuxing Hybrid.

THE HISTORY OF HYBRIDS BEGINS AT THE END OF THE 19TH CENTURY, WHEN THE DENSE CITY STARTED TO ACCEPT THE OVERLAPPING OF FUNCTIONS AS INEVITABLE. IT IS INSIDE THE METROPOLISES WHERE THESE MIXED ORGANISMS ARISE, HELPED MAINLY BY CENTRALITY’S POWER AS A CATALYST. Javier Mozas, Mixed Uses: A Historical Overview. In A+T Hybrids 2 15

RESEARCH 3D MATRICES The following project is an example which compresses a city for 160,000 people into a 600m hybridised cube. It can be considered as a three-dimensional porous mat, with no prioritisation of horizontal or vertical, where public and private space, dwellings, social, institutional and civic facilities all operate in one non-stop three dimensional matrix.

A form of three-dimensional mat: From University of Dundee Year 5 Project: Cube.: Wang Lei, Qiaoyi Wu, Chao Wei, Changda Guo, Shuo Cheng, Jinghui Chen

RESEARCH MEGASTRUCTURE & METABOLISM You will study megastructure, metabolism and other urban models of anticipating growth, change and general indeterminacy. Top left, Cumbernauld town centre (on our doorstep); top right, Sunset Mountain, Caesar Pelli (1972); middle, Kenzo Tange’s Tokyo Bay project; bottom left, Renewal of Tsukiji District, kenzo Tange (1966) Kenzo Tange; bottom right, Kisho Kurokawa’s Nakagin Capsule Tower.

RESEARCH SUBTERRANEAN SPACES In the early twentieth century, subterranean existence had a tendency to be seen as either part of a sciencefiction fantasy or a more dystopian narrative of subjugation. Popular science fiction frequently used the metropolis to illustrate advanced human civilisation through its occupation of the planet, while much filmic and literary work used the city as a metaphor for control and social division.

Right: Cover from Popular Science, August 1925 Below: Still from Fritz Lang’s Metropolis, 1926. Subterranean workers’ city. Both images from Think Deep: Planning, development and use of underground spaces in cities, ITA AITES, itacus, ISOCARP, 2015

Today’s city has seamlessely slipped into these past imaginations, daily metropolitan life continually utilising subterranean spaces which now connect together in multiple infrastructures and programmes. London’s Crossrail project, for example, massively expands the city’s ageing tube system into a spatialised underground world. Even new buildings begin to respond to extreme land costs and height restrictions by burying as much accommodation as possible into the ground. In Hong Kong, one can navigate much of the city through a series of seemingly endless subterranean spaces which include malls, cinemas, transport interchanges, hospitality and leisure facilities, even ice rinks.

Proposed new hotel section, Leicester Square, London. Around 50% of the proposal is subterranean. Image from from Think Deep: Planning, development and use of underground spaces in cities, ITA AITES, itacus, ISOCARP, 2015

Subterranean hybrid spaces in Hong Kong.

RESEARCH ELEVATED GROUNDS Elevated grounds have for a century or so formed part of speculations on future cities. Notable early examples are El Lizitsky’s horizontal skyscaper (1923-25) and Yona Friedman.s Spatial City (1964). Today, as the mapping of Hong Kong below illustrates, reliance on urban artificial grounds in the contemporary compact city is commonplace, pedways, bridges and entangled towers now forming a crutial part of the navigational systems of our cities.

The Vesnins' Narkomtiazhprom. circa 1920s.

El Lissitzky. Horizontal Skyscraper, 1923-25.

People's Commissariat of Heavy Industry. Vesnin, V.Vesnin,1934 and OMA, De Rotterdam, 2013.

Yona Friedman, Spatial City, 1964

Frampton, Solomon, Wong: Cities withoutGround: A Hong Kong Guidebook. Elevated walkways Hong Kong

TASK 1: UNDERSTANDING EFFICACY Overview Through a combination of theoretical investigation, empirical survey, mapping and case study analysis, you will build up a picture of various phenomena affecting cities and their social fields. By operating across disciplinary boundaries and gradually bringing analytical methods and operational scales together, you will be able to consider different methods of engagement with the fabric of your city, in accordance with your emerging interests and preoccupations. Through such analysis, you will slowly but surely glean critical intelligence which can be used to make realistic hypotheses built on intellectually rigorous speculations on futures for your chosen environments. You will make a set of group books, devised to research the core themes of the brief, but also to allow a body of propositional ideas to emerge. The books will explore ideas of spatialised publicity in the city - where public spaces emerged from and what has happened to them - along with architecture’s place in forming them. It might be titles something like: Promoting the Collective: A Study of Architecture’s Forgotten “Public” Mission. Case-studies that might be included: Ledoux – Saline New Lanark Ville Contemporaine and Plan Voisin for Paris. Ville Radieuse and Unite d’Habitation. Plan Obus. Narkomfin and the social condenser generally Isokon Dumboyne Road, Neave Brown Golden Lane Barbican Ivry-sur-Seine and Ensemble Le Liegat. Any others that we agree are relevant. You should also consider the place of neoliberal models (London’s Collective Old Oak for example). Once allowed to melt into the social fabric of the contemporary city, will this housing typology become a genuine new model for urban living under capitalism, or simply another form of capital accumulation for those with money, and a stop-gap pre-property-ladder solution for those who don’t? Is It it a model with social sustainability? Is housing being used to further increase the already exacerbated societal divisions embedded in the city. This is the start of your research. You will read, question, investigate, collect, discuss, debate, test, write, draw and model. All data and other information should be shared. The defined research contexts of the studio should be brought into focus through the theoretical texts and the case studies (given and discovered), upon which you should always reflect and expand. Through expansive reading and discussion, you will begin to formulate critical views on these questions, how they play out in the urban field, and the position of the discipline of architecture within it. This is your opportunity to gather as much relevant information as possible and to distil a set of questions to ask of the field . STAGE OUTPUTS: Week 3: In your sub-groups, you will present a body of research (graphically) which will have yielded a set of clear questions to ask of your urban field.

A PUBLIC SPACE . . . IS ONE TO WHICH ANYONE HAS ACCESS, A SPACE OF OPENNESS AND EXPOSURE. [THESE SPACES] IMPORTANTLY CONTRIBUTE TO DEMOCRATIC INCLUSION BECAUSE THEY BRING DIFFERENTLY POSITIONED STRANGERS INTO ONE ANOTHER’S PRESENCE. Iris Marion Young

METROPOLITAN GROUNDS AR41001

As long ago as 1979, Neil Smith, then a doctoral student working under the supervision of David Harvey, was writing about the “back to the city movement,” using the early gentrification project of Philadelphia’s Society Hill as a case study. Through analysis of property prices, Smith demonstrated that the return to the city was the return of an affluent class only. He quotes the novelist Nathaniel Burt, who observed that “[r]emodeling old houses is, after all, one of Old Philadelphia’s favorite indoor sports, and to be able to remodel and consciously serve the cause of civic revival all at once has gone to the heads of the upper classes like champagne.” However, despite the gentrification project being underway, the suburb would continue to rise as the dominant typology for non-affluent classes. In the UK, the owner-occupier suburb followed America’s lead and the UK housing market is still principally suburban. “Not only do 80% of households live in suburbs but also suburban housing is more likely to be owner-occupied.” In the processes behind the “return to the city,” we can see what were once class-divisions re-forming as what the political theorist Brian Elliott has described as “determinate shared identity” – the now so familiar pattern of urbs as a territory for a single, affluent group, the sub-urbs for others. The city core is becomming the domain of the wealthy. In an attempt to subvert this process - to avoid horizontal spread and to build a dense, compact, pluralistic field - we will need to devise appropriate, new spatial forms. Small-scale, low, traditionally configured neighbourhoods will not suffice. As Lefebvre reminds us, “. . . new social relationships call for new space, and vice-versa.” We will address realistically the staggering scalar change in cities, and the changing social behaviours of its populations. David Harvey has criticised current “New Urbanist” preoccupations for presuming “a fixed, nostalgic view of the wants and needs” of urban citizens, and something that “embed[s] its projects in a restrictive set of social processes.” This we will avoid.

The new urbanism connects to a facile contemporary attempt to transform large and teeming cities, so seemingly out of control, into an interlinked series of ‘urban villages’ where, it is believed, everyone can relate in a civil and urbane fashion to everyone else.

Protest against Elephant and Castle’s gentrification.

THE NEW URBANISM CONNECTS TO A FACILE CONTEMPORARY ATTEMPT TO TRANSFORM LARGE AND TEEMING CITIES, SO SEEMINGLY OUT OF CONTROL, INTO AN INTERLINKED SERIES OF ‘URBAN VILLAGES’ WHERE, IT IS BELIEVED, EVERYONE CAN RELATE IN A CIVIL AND URBANE FASHION TO EVERYONE ELSE. David Harvey

FIELD TRIP LONDON London’s pre-eminence during the industrial revolution and the zenith of the British empire, led to population growth of 1 million to 7 million between 1800 and 1900. The ramifications of such unprecedented growth on metrololitan life shed new light on the need for architecture to adopt a critical position on housing provision through the twentieth century – with solutions as far reaching as the first example of council housing at Arnold Circus / Boundary Estate (1890), the garden city movement (1898), and innovations in low-rise, high density schemes such as Alexandra Road (1968-78) conceived as part of a new egalitarian societal vision. In the UK, such experiments have been long-forgotten – architecture’s socio-political mission abandoned in favour of a market-driven conciliation in housing provision. The ensuing crisis of unaffordability now threatens both the social and economic fabric of the country. In the UK Government’s 2005 Review of Housing Supply, conducted by economist Kate Barker, we were warned of “. . . increasing problems of homelessness, affordability and social division, decline in standards of public service delivery and increase in the costs of doing business in the UK - hampering our economic success.”1 Our inability to provide housing is cited by Barker as “the UK’s biggest policy failure”, with resulting “indefensible economic distortions”2 leading potentially to complete social failure. London will be used as a field city to discover, view and analyse now historic seminal examples of housing typology which responded to the demands of an age which recognised good housing as part of a mechanism for social change. Much of the housing of that era was provided by the state, known in the UK as “Council Housing.” Private acquisition of this housing now means houses constructed in the post-WW2 years for lower-income families sells for millions of pounds on the open market. UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher’s ‘right to buy’3 programme from the 1980s (which incentivised private home ownership as part of a political manifesto) meant public housing assets transferred to the market without replacement, representing a continual escalation of the importance of housing to economic growth. Private accumulation of housing stock has entirely conflated ideas of home and asset - in a society of everrising demand for houses and ever-diminishing availability of land. This has delivered asset structures in which the housing market plays a central macroeconomic role. Its performance imperatives serve to escalate continual under-supply, bringing about ever increasing cost. In such a system there is little space for contributions to discourse on new forms of social organisation. What is the role of the discipline of architecture in this crisis? Must it be one of capitulation to the market or can it have a critical view? Might there be alternate modes of engagement, where new solutions, market-led and otherwise, can promote ideas for collective life - for housing all of our population and for helping avoid both social failure and economic distortion? Alongside illuminating socio-political ideas, the study of London’s seminal twentieth century housing projects aims to develop your understanding of essential parameters in the design of apartment buildings, particularly scale, spatial organisation, access arrangements, relationship between apartments and their common areas, and morphological relationships with the surrounding city. Within these parameters, the key studio themes are embedded. The spatial articulation of a dwelling connects its inhabitants with each other and with their neighbours. The building envelope expands that interaction into the full public realm of the city. It is there that architectural design has the capacity for social transformation. The housing projects are mainly from an age where public housing provision was an important part of our political and economic landscape and where experimentation in housing typology was seen as a vehicle through which a political commitment to provide low and mid-income families with high quality environments could be instantiated. All are all located in London, many around Camden, whose council had an extraordinarily ambitious and prolific housing programme between the mid 1960s and late 1970s. The Barker Review of Housing Supply. (2006) HMSO. Barker, Kate. (2014) Housing: Where’s the Plan?, London Publishing Partnership. 3 Margaret Thatcher’s Government introduced a scheme in 1980 called “right to buy”, under the Housing Act 1980, which offered council tenants the opportunity to purchase their homes at discounted prices, thus transferring housing stock from public to private ownership. 1 2

Base Camp: Barbican, Chamberlin, Powell and Bon, 1956-1982

High rise / high density list:

Low rise / high density list:

Golden Lane Estate, Chamberlin, Powell & Bon, 1952-62 Izokon Building, Lawn Road, Wells Coates, 1934 Keeling House, Bethnel Green, Denys Lasdun, 1957 Highcliffe Drive blocks in the Alton West estate, Roehampton, LCC, 1959 Hallfield Estate, Bayswater, Berthold Lubetkin, Denys Lasdun and Lindsay Drake, 1951-58

Willow Road, Erno Goldfinger, 1939

Winscombe Street, Neave Brown, 1963-66

Alexandra Road, Neave Brown, 1968-78

Trellick Tower, Erno Goldfinger, 1966-72

Fleet Road / Dunboyne Road Estate, Neave Brown, 1971-75

Brunswick Centre, Patrick Hodgkinson, 1967-7 Robin Hood Gardens, Alison and Peter Smithson, 1970 (now demolished)

Raydon Street, Peter Tabori, Camden Borough Council, 1978

Maiden Lane Estate, Gordon Benson and Alan Forsyth, 1979 Lamble Street, Gordon Benson and Alan Forsyth, 1978-80 Branch Hill Estate, Gordon Benson and Alan Forsyth, Hampstead, 1978

TASK 2 UNDERSTANDING THE SITE THROUGH DRAWING THE SITE Find maps, draw the whole vertical section (including the tube and railway), present what was there, what will be there, what might be there. Overview In sub-groups. (Groups should liaise continually –information should be shared – ideas should be cross- fertilised). This stage involves two inter-realted work components: 1. Bringing theoretical investigations to bear on the real urban field. Using a combination of physical (where possible) and digital field work, you will comprehensively study both the totality of a city and fragments of it as defined by their own ongoing research. You will develop an understanding of the history, morphology, political, social and cultural operations in their urban fields and will analyse, key pieces of architecture existing as part of the socio-urban complexions. You will present and discuss new scenarios of various changes, interventions, issues and challenges, and will critique current development scenarios. You will begin to hypothesise on futures. 2. Cutting transects and building your project toolkit. The transect is a line which cuts through your urban field(s), allowing you to focus on occurrences and relationships along its path. We will discuss in studio the best position, geometry and length of the transect. The project toolkit will involve : Constructing a large 3D digital model. Constructing large physical model(s). 2D mappings of the city, including layers of history. Details You will visit (physically or by online means) and comprehensively study Elephant and Castle.You will attempt to understand its history, morphology, and social operations. Using a combination of empirical research from direct observation and desk research, you will unravel the cycles and systems of growth. How are these informed by historical models, and what are the possible future trajectories? These questions will help your sub-group focus on its specific enquiry. This stage should not involve a subjective account, nor a historical overview, but a detailed analysis of how the city operates socially, spatially and formally. You are trying to understand key parameters of type, density, mix, programme, facilities, thresholds – building a picture of how these issues relate to the relationships between individuals and the publics of which they form part. You will present your views on issues and challenges, critiques of current development scenarios, and strategies for bringing together the different scales of investigation . These might be universally applicable strategies for development but with a view toward the development of detailed demonstration projects in Elephant and Castle. STAGE OUTPUTS: Week 5: In your sub-groups, you will reconsider and present all theoretical and empirical research information from earlier stages. This will include: Analysed data; The transect. (Its presentation should not be a single drawing or model, but a series of investigatory pieces of work, using the transect as an analytical method); City-scale drawings and models (inc large sectional models showing urban relationships and disparities); diagrams; montages.; Graphical, modeled and textual information which reflects and builds on an analysis of all your synthesised research and field work.

Transects and linear studies: Left: Dundee Shanghai Studio 2019/20. Right:: Nolli v Piranese, Bryan Maddock. https://thecitythecitythecity.tumblr.com/post/67554157062/nolli-vspiranesi-bryan-maddock; Far right: from Venturi and Scott-Brown, Learning from Las Vegas. The transect should sample the pluralism of the city, cutting through different architecture, spaces and programmes. Your enquiries are very likely to lead you to stray from the line, however, remote pieces must always connect morphologically back to the line, which will be a constant reference in your work. Its presentation should clearly demonstrate through models, drawings and other means, your analysis of the city and how you propose to connect to it and/or intervene in it.

Transect models: Left: Dundee Shanghai Studio 2019/20. Middle: ESALA M.Arch 2018, photos of student degree show models. Island Territories V: Havana, Re-Making Islands, Dismantling Insularity. Tutors: Adrian Hawker and Victoria Clare Bernie. Right: ESALA M.Arch 2018, photos of student degree show models. Para-Situation [Calcutta / Kolkata]. Tutor: Dorian Wiszniewski.

Models and drawings of a transect. Cube: Wang Lei, Qiaoyi Wu, Chao Wei, Changda Guo, Shuo Cheng, Jinghui Chen. Photo: Neil Verow.

Tube axonometric. Available at https://www.ianvisits.co.uk

The site

HEYGATE ESTATE

1974

3000 PEOPLE

ELEPHANT & CASTLE SHOPPING CENTRE - 1962

100 SHOPS

450 TREES

PUBLIC PL A Z A

PUBLICALLY OWNED

INTEGR ATED TUBE AND R AIL

DEMOLISHED

TASK 3 CONSTRUCTING A HYPOTHESIS AND STRATEGY Overview In your groups, will now make fast, detailed spatial propositions at city scale (recommended scale 1:1250 1:500 maximum). All your work from earlier stages will now be hypothesised through real sites in your urban field. Details You will hopefully have built up a good understanding of the losses and gains in the cycles of change occurring across the city. You will have a good understanding of the history, morphology, and social operations of specific territories, including key architecture and other features forming part of the urban complexions. You will now action different methods of engagement in the city and its cycles, processes and social operations. Use all your gathered intelligence to hypothesise on a future for Elephant and Castle as you define it (an Otherwise). What is happening to it? What are its processes of change and how will you intervene? This must be presented as a set of drawings and models that explain your conceptual narrative clearly and sequentially (see OMA’s narrative for the Melun Senart project in SMLXL, p972 for a good example of this). The hypothesis must be informed by the different conceptual logics of the group approaches, as fleshedout over the past few weeks. It MUST represent a “totality” - a unified approach, which is nonfragmented, compact and gentrification-resistant. Your key challenge is one of revanchism. What has been lost? 3000 homes and associated collective spaces, all in public ownership. Your challenge is to reclaim this public territory. You must therefore make at least 3000 homes and the associated facilities necesary for a compact community to support itself. The strategies must also discuss the political logics of the reclamation. The timeline of the long gentrification can be viewed at: https://southwarknotes.wordpress.com/heygate-estate/heygate-timeline/ and further information can be found at: http://heygatewashome.org/ You are strongly encouraged to investigate this process carefully and to situate your own interventions within the timeline.

In doing this you will be looking for a population density much higher than both the Heygate Estate (around 400 people per hectare) and the Barbican Estate (around 500 people per hectare). You will use all of the shopping centre site to achieve this. In addition you can use any residual spaces within the new development to the east of the railway. You MUST incorporate the tube station and the overground station. You will need to WORK FAST- at charrette pace. Pull on the full resources of your team and distribute tasks in the most efficient and productive way. There is a lot of information to pull together and a lot of new work to produce. Use all your skills of argumentation, graphically and in your textual narrative. STAGE OUTPUTS: For Week 6, then refine for week 11: Draw on your full toolkit from earlier stages (including the transect) and put together a presentation. You will ALL present the work, sharing the spoken narrative of a single group presentation. 32

Hypothesising on an urban future of uncontrolled growth of cities: Mélun Senart New Town Competition, OMA, 1987. A series of carefully orchestrated voids, from which the “average-contemporary-everyday ugliness of current European-AmericanJapanese architecture” is banished, ‘irrigate the city with potentials’ to stimulate different programmes and patterns of growth. See: Surrender, Ville Nouvelle Mélun-Senart, France, 1987 – in R. Koolhaas and B. Mau, SMLXL, Rotterdam, 010, Publishers, 1995, p972.

RETHINKING PUBLIC AR41001 AR40007

TASK 4 SPATIO-TECTONIC DETAIL will be added in week 5-6.

“. . . EVERYTHING (‘PUBLIC FACILITIES’, BLOCKS OF FLATS, ‘ENVIRONMENTS FOR LIVING’) IS SEPARATED, ASSIGNED IN ISOLATED FASHION TO UNCONNECTED ‘SITES’ AND ‘TRACTS’; THE SPACES THEMSELVES ARE SPECIALIZED JUST AS OPERATIONS ARE IN THE SOCIAL AND TECHNICAL DIVISION OF LABOUR.” Henri Lefebvre

REMAKING PUBLIC AR40007

TASK 4 SPATIO-TECTONIC DETAIL will be added in week 5-6.

SPACE CRUMBLES, IS EXCHANGED (SOLD) IN BITS AND PIECES, INVESTIGATED PIECEMEAL BY THE FRAGMENTED SCIENCES, WHEREAS IT IS FORMED AS A WORLDWIDE AND, EVEN, INTERPLANETARY TOTALITY.” Henri Lefebvre

STUDIO-SPECIFIC READING Each studio has its own reading material which will help you understand and contribute to specific discourses under investigation. Suggestions are detailed below. In addition, the white coursebook contains a broad, diverse, but non-exhaustive, range of texts on design research, urban theory, architectural, tectonic and material theory, along with various technical publications on drawing, mapping and housing. The texts range from classics such as Lefebvre, Simmel and Arendt, to contemporary discourse such as Brenner/Scmidt, Kaminer and

Space & Politics, Urban: Marion Young, Iris. Inclusion and Democracy, Oxford, Oxford University Press. 2000. Elliott, Brian. Constructing Community: Configurations ofthe Social in Contemporary Philosophy and Urbanism, Lanham, Lexington, 2010. Coleman, Nathaniel, Lefebvre for Architects, Abingdon, Routledge, 2015. Brenner, Neil. New Urban Spaces: Urban Theory and the Scale Question, New York, OUP USA, 2019. Brenner, Neil, Marcuse, Peter, Mayer, Margrit. (eds). Cities for People, Not for Profit: Critical Urban Theory and the Right to the City, Abingdon, Routledge, 2011. Castells, Manuel., Borja, Jordi. Local & Global: Management of Cities in the Information Age, London, Earthscan, 1997. Kofman, Eleonore, and Lebas, Elizabeth. (Eds.). Henri Lefebvre, Writings on Cities, Oxford, Blackwell, 1996. Lefebvre, Henri. The Production of Space, Oxford, Blackwell, 1991. Harvey, David. Spaces of Hope, Edinburgh, Edinburgh University Press, 2000. Harvey, David. Social Justice and the City, London, Edward Arnold, 1973. Marcuse , Peter, Connolly, James, Novy, Johannes, and Olivo, Ingrid, Potter, Cuz, and Steil, Justin. (Eds.). Searching for the Just City: Debates in Urban Theory and Practice, Abingdon, Routledge, 2011. Marcuse, Peter., Madden, David. In Defense of Housing: The Politics of Crisis, London, Verso, 2016. Ryan-Collins, Josh, and Macfarlane, Laurie. Rethinking the Economics of Land and Housing, London, Zed, 2017. Smith, Neil. The New Urban Frontier: Gentrification and the Revanchist City, Abingdon, Routledge, 1996. Arendt, Hannah. 1958. The Human Condition. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Space & Politics: Misc. Ground, Earth, Urban and Architecture: Banham. Rayner. Megastructure: Urban Futures of the Recent Past, New York, Monacelli Press, 2020. Koolhaas, Rem/Obrist, Hans. Project Japan. Metabolism Talks, Taschen, 2011. Kaminer, Tahl. The Efficacy of Architecture: Political Contestation and Agency, Abingdon, Routledge, 2017. Angelil, Marc, and Siress, Cary. Terrestrial Tales: 100+ Takes on Earth, Berlin, Ruby Press, 2019. Colomina, Beatriz., Wigley, Mark. Are We Human?: The Archeology of Design, Zurich, Lars Muller, 2016. Spencer, Douglas. The Architecture of Neoliberalism: How Contemporary Architecture Became an Instrument of Control and Compliance, London, Bloomsbury, 2016. Aureli, Pierre Vittorio. The Possibility of an Absolute Architecture, Cambridge, MIT Press, 2011. Coleman, Nathaniel. Utopias and Architecture, Abingdon, Routledge, 2005. Ginzburg, Moisei. Dwelling: Five Years’ Work on the Problem of the Habitation, London, Ginzburg Design with Fontanka; 01 Edition (23 Nov. 2017) Leach, Neil. (ed.). Rethinking Architecture: A Reader in Cultural Theory, Abingdon, Routledge, 1997. (particularly Jameson’s Is Space Political? and Leach’s Architecture or Revolution). Deamer, Peggy (ed). Architecture and Capitalism: 1845 to the Present, New York, Routledge, 2014. A+T, Issue 32, Autumn 2008, Hybrids II, Low-rise mixed-use buildings. Koolhaas, Rem., Mau, Bruce. S,M,L,XL, Rotterdam, 010 Publishers, 1995. Essays: “Exodus, or the Voluntary Prisoners of Architecture” “Bigness, or the Problem of the Large”, What Ever Happened to Urbanism?. Project: “Surrender, Ville Melun-Sénart, France, 1987”. Koolhaas, Rem., Obrist, Hans Ulrich. Project Japan: Metabolism Talks, Cologne, Taschen GmbH, 2011. Fuller, Buckminster. Operating Manual for Spaceship Earth, Zurich, Lars Muller Publishers, 2008. Tafuri, Manfredo. 1976. Architecture and Utopia: Design and Capitalist Development, translated by Barbara Luigia La Penta. Massachusetts: MIT Press. Tectonic / Material: Hartoonian, Gevork. Crisis of the Object: The Architecture of Theatricality, Abingdon, Routledge, 2006. Paredes Maldonado, Miguel. Ugly, Useless, Unstable Architectures: Phase Spaces and Generative Domains, Abingdon, Routledge, 2019. Cairns, Graham. Reflections on Architecture, Society and Politics: Social and Cultural Tectonics in the 21st Century, Abingdon, Routledge, 2018. Boom, Irma. Rem Koolhaas. Elements of Architecture, Cologne, Taschen, 2018.

Economic: Piketty,Thomas. 2020. Ideology and Capital.. Cambridge / London: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Piketty, Thomas. 2014. Capital in the Twenty-First Century. Cambridge / London: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Papers: Kate Shaw. The Squander and Salvage of Global Urban Waterfronts. Not yet published but hopefully available soon. Kate Shaw (2015) “The intelligent woman’s guide to the urban question”, City, 19:6, 781-800, DOI: 10.1080/13604813.2015.1090182 Michał Murawski & Jane Rendell, “The Social Condenser: A Century of Revolution Through Architecture”, 1917–2017, The Journal of Architecture, 22:3, 369-371, DOI: 10.1080/13602365.2017.1326680, 2017. Think Deep: Planning, development and use of underground spaces in cities, ITA AITES, itacus, ISOCARP, 2015 Websites: SOCKS: a non-linear journey through distant territories of human imagination http://socks-studio.com/ Documentaries: Curtis, Adam. 2011. All Watched Over by Machines of Loving Grace, Episode 1 (BBC Documentary). Manifestos / Surveys: Hertweck, Florian., Marot, Sébastien. The City in the City, Berlin: A Green Archipelago, Zurich, Lars Müller, 2013. Koolhaas, R., Delirious New York: A Retroactive Manifesto for Manhatten, New York, Monacelli Press, 1994. Venturi, R., Scott Brown, D., Izenour, S., Learning from Las Vegas, Cambridge, MIT Press, 1972. Graphical: Bunschoten, Raoul., Urban Flotsam: Stirring the City, Rotterdam, 010 Uitgeverij, 2000. Desimini, J., Waldheim, C., Cartographic Grounds: Projecting the Landscape Imaginary, New York, Princeton Architectural Press, 2016. Atelier Bow-Wow (Yoshiharu Tsukamoto and Momoyo Kaijima). (2014). Atelier Bow-Wow - Graphic Anatomy 2. Toto. (and/or Graphic Anatomy 1).

Semester 1 AR41001

AR40007

Week 0 Welcome Week Thursday 10.0011.00, Library Induction for new students. Friday 12.00 Year Introduction for all students.

HT40003

Semester 2 AR41001 AR40007

Welcome Week

Week 2

Week 3

Week 4

Week 5

Monday: Meeting/lecture [AS]

Thursday: Tutorial

Monday: Meeting/lecture [AS]

Thursday: Tutorial

Monday: Meeting/lecture [AS]

Thursday: Tutorial

Thursday: Tutorial Tuesday: Lecture [YB]

Tuesday: Lecture [YB] Thursday: Tutorial Tuesday: Lecture [LH]

Week 17

Tuesday: Lecture [LH]

Week 13

Week 14

Week 15

Week 16

Thursday: Tutorial Tuesday: Lecture [LH]

Tuesday: Lecture [TG] Thursday: Tutorial Tuesday: Lecture [LH]

Semester 2 AR41001

Week 24

Week 25

AR40007

Monday: Meeting/lecture [AS]

Exhibition Complete Journal V2 Final Submission

Thursday: Tutorial

Exhibition Complete

Monday: Meeting/lecture [AS] Tuesday: Lecture [TG] Thursday: Tutorial Tuesday: Lecture [LH] Thursday: Tutorial

Week 26

Week 27

Week 6

Wee

Mid Review

Thur Tuto Journ Draf Subm

Thursday: Tutorial

Thursday: Tutorial Tuesday: Lecture [LH]

Thursday: Tutorial

HT40003

Week 1

Monday: Meeting/lecture [AS]

HT40003

Tuesday: Lecture [TG]

Review

Thursday: Tutorial Tuesday: Lecture [LH]

Tuesday: Lecture [LH]

Thur Tuto Tuesd Lectu

Week 18

Wee

Monday: Meeting/lecture [AS] Mid Review

Tuesday: Lecture [LH]

Thursday: Tutorial

Mid Review

Week 28

Internal and External Exams

Please note: Some lectures may not be presented live. In this event, they will be uploaded to MyDundee.

Tuesd Lectu

DR AF T

Thur Tuto Tuesd Lectu

Thur Tuto

ek 7

Week 8

Week 9

Week 10

Monday: Meeting/lecture [AS]

Thursday: Tutorial

Monday: Meeting/lecture [AS]

day: ure [YB]

Thursday: Tutorial

rsday: orial day: ure [LH]

Tuesday: Lecture [LH]

ek 19

Week 20

Week 21

rsday: orial day: ure [LH]

rsday: orial

Thursday: Tutorial Tuesday: Lecture [LH]

Final Review / Exhibition

Thursday: Tutorial

VE RS IO N

rsday: orial + nal V1 ft mission

Thursday: Tutorial Tuesday: Lecture [LH]

Week 11

Week 12

Break

Journal V1 Final Submission

Exam Week

Humanities Introduction (Day TBC)

Week 22

Week 23

Monday: Meeting/lecture [AS]

Final Review

Thursday: Tutorial

Break

Journal V2 Draft Submission

Final Submission