Implementing Advanced Knowledge
bits
4.1.2 The ecological Gap Daniel Koehler
The ecological Gap
Forms are no longer superimposed but the result of order which in itself has already to some extent form quality. In: Ludwig Hilberseimer. 1949. Architecture: Structure and form
Mereological considerations on architectural typology
Whether on the house, in the house, or under the house: in any case, the ecological integrity of an architectural object is judged by means of a technical, extra-disciplinary artifact. The cliche for ecological architecture today gives us a response of exclusively technical artifacts, such as solar panels, heat registers, K-values, thatched roofs, hemp fiberboards, mud bricks, rainwater cisterns, geotherms and waste paper insulations. But not by the articulation of the architecture itself. So the question arises: can we show an architectural strategy that is congruent with ecological thought? Is there a disciplinary knowledge in architecture that can be described as ecological? What all the technical assets above have in common is that they (com-) prehend the archi- tectural object to a general term, like as temperature. Using this assumption, subsequent tweaking of the term can improve the form of the house, the architecture itself. Such a strategy is called semantical critique, this is characteristic for the postmodernist discourse: The critique of the content of the formal figure. In the words of Marx such comprehensions builds on a direct link between praxis and practise, ie infrastructure and social fabric1. Each approach accepts the direct, but dichotomous combination of content and figure. Each consequential argument remains a further alteration of the two opposites. Similar to a mathematical equation, an argument on one side leads to a conclusion on the other. In architecture, we are familiar with this equation in the framework of typology: on the one hand we comprehend content with its figure, e.g. the patio-house. On the other hand we comprehend the figure with its program, e.g. the Single-familyhouse. Ironically, we address these both sides as the duck or the shed. With the semantical steps of critique and improvement, is connected the idea that each crisis keeps inherent an account of criticism as the necessary fruit of progress, growth and wealth. But such rhetorical eloquence as a negative departure from modernism seems to be more and more irrelevant2. If global urbanization, the project of modernity, is complete, external criticism is no longer possible. Everything is interiority3, based on modernity. In Cover - Mereological variations of Ludwig Hilberseimer’s Vertical City, by Daniel Koehler 2
this sense, I propose the reorientation of the architectural type that is an historical product of modernism4. I propose the reading of the architectural design of the figure in itself: its mereological composition, the study of the composition of parts, as an alternative to a purely opposing coupling between content and form. In such a reading the form of the architectural type is the way of composing parts. Things are on the one hand not treated as represen- tations, which are the hierarchization of content: the One, or on the other hand as formal characteristics which are the material expression of the Many, but as the negotiation of the One and the Many: the resonance of parts5. Therefore, to examine the modern relation- ship between ecology and architectural type, in the following I will reread one of the most exemplaric encapsulation of environmental issues into the generic type of a room: Ludwig Hilberseimer’s studies on room insolation.
Studies on room insolation
After the closing of the Bauhaus Hilberseimer forced into a niche for political reasons, pub- lished two articles before his departure for America: Room Insolation6 and Room Insolation and Settlement Density7. These are his most technocratic articles, which are studies on solar radiation effecting different types of rooms. The studies were originally developed in the Bauhaus seminar: housing and city planning, taught by Hilberseimer. Since Hilber- seimer’s first plans, the orientation and the influence of the sun played a major role in his urban designs. Obtained bibliographies testify that Hilberseimer extensively addressed the international literature on this subject8. New in these articles is the fragmented-schematic representation of the sun and house under different conditions and their evaluation in graphs. The reason why Hilberseimer establishes a part-relationship between light and room type is the observation that the sun insolation has therapeutic value to human health. Conse- quently, the room and further the house will be aligned towards the highest possible sun insolation. Mark Kilian in his study about Hilberseimer already indicated that the meta- physical significance of the Room-Insolation-Study, the combination of sun and room, has historical origins9. In many cultures the sun had a cultic significance. Buildings were aligned with the sun for centuries. The pyramids of the Incas, Mayans and Egyptians are oriented to specific sun constellations. Baroque residences such as the Versailles of the Roi Soleil are oriented to the south. Not only the residence but also entire baroque city-layouts like Karlsruhe, Hilberseimer’s hometown, were aligned with the sun. Here, in the study of Room-Insolation the room of the individual is aligned towards the sun. Divine myths or glorification of rulers were replaced by the individual in the interplay of nature and culture. The individual becomes the representative of culture. Although the form of representation here is not symbolic. Solar insolation is
measured throughout the day, with the on average best rated sun insolation in the morning10, at a point of day for which one must assume that the inhabitants of an industrial town, are at work or school, but not at home. The evaluation of sun exposure is independent of whether persons are staying in the room or not. Thus, the room is designed according to the condition of the therapeutic sun exposure, but not for the actual residents. Here, the condition for humans is transferred to the room. The room-type is equated with man. The room no longer is a hull for people but inherits the properties of its users, becomes a placeholder. The placeholding or better inheritance is made mereological, through parthood-conditions. The evaluation of various room orientations with respect to their sun exposure takes place through explicit architectural elements: measured and drawn to the light-flooded prisms in the room. “The room size of the sun irradiated air prism and not the striked floor or wall surface is essential.�11 So, in Hilberseimer’s type of the room the technical demand of sun insolation undergoes a translation into the tectonics of the architectural type itself. The light prism as void-volume is not considered as measurement, but becomes an explicit element of the room. As parthoodrelation, the demand becomes the ratio between the volume of the room and the light prism.
Figure 1 - The light-prism is shown as a volume in space; sun penetration study by student Anthony Clyde Lewis, supervised by Ludwig Hilberseimer at the IIT, 1943, Graham Resource Center, Chicago. 4
Towards an autonomous architecture
The insight, that an entity is able to affect things other than itself, was not new, even at the time of Hilberseimer. Already Marx pointed out, that a technical object, in the age of mass production, has no connection with the direct need of the producer, but the need is “posited in the form of the product’s production only as a conveyor of value”12. For Marx, human need was the motivation for a technical object, but unrelated to its impact. In a positive reading Gilbert Simondon developed this idea in his analysis of the technical object further to that “what is inherent in the machine, is human reality, human gesture, which is fixed and crystallized in functioning structures. (. . . ) The modern machines are not mere automata; there are technical beings.”13 The human gesture gives technical objects an inaccessible autonomy through vitality. By this the technical asset as an anthropomorphic composition creates an effect what was introduced recently into the discourse as “strange object”14. With a similar connotation of autonomy, in a retrospective from 1964, Hilberseimer looked back and described the architecture of the 1920s as a trend towards autonomy of architecture15. To trace the specific meaning of autonomy Detlef Mertins, in his posthumous monography on Mies16, pointed out parallels between Hilberseimer’s concept of autonomous form and Emil Kaufmann’s architectural history17. Kaufmann described the development of the architecture of Ledoux to Le Corbusier’s and how architecture is increasingly liberated from the idea of well-formed, whole buildings and how elements detached themselves more from the ensemble to freestanding solitaires to establish their own specific relations to each other. Kaufmann considers a development, which was fronted in German aesthetics18 and especially the Viennese formalist circle, during the second half of the 19th century. In a similar manner already Alois Riegl described, at the turn of the century in Late Roman Art Industry19 the architectural history as a change of the ratio between figure and ground or in Riegl’s terms, as ratio between form and surface. This ratio later becomes crucial for modernists, called by Hilberseimer himself as the ratio between Pattern and Form20. Riegl used the ratio to catagorize art history based on the idea of cultural perception. Shifting the position of observation from a close view to a distant view, the expression of a work of art moved from a form on a not articulated surface, the Egyptian pyramids, to a harmonic form in a surface as landscape, the Greek temple, to a form as figurative surface in the late Roman interior of a basilica. Riegl elaborated his art historical method of cultural perception from a differentiation between a form of existence and form of effects. This understanding of the work of art developed one decade earlier Konrad Fiedler together with Adolf von Hildbrand, which, in the interplay of the autonomous world of forms, the form of existence and the position of the observation, revealed the form of effect21. Fiedler’s and Hildebrand’s concept of the combination of form of existence and effect attempted to apply Kant’s
concept of a-priori-form to art. Cultural historian Helmut Müller-Severs22 showed that Kant based his concept of a-priori form on new new insights in Biology, which had previously rejected the valid theory of pre-formation, the theory that all variation is based on original creations. In opposition to the theory of preformation, a scientific version of Aristotle’s theory of entelechy evolved during this period, that new organisms gradually formulate themselves under the guidance of a building power. Kant’s a-priori category of knowledge then was based on a theory of self-organization of organisms, experienced as an inaccessible autonomy through vitality. Resting on these supports, in the historical description of modernist historians like Riegl or Kaufmann, the architecture detached more and more from the ensemble. As a role model for, at that time in Berlin living architect Hilberseimer, architecture already took on the form of an autonomous block with Schinkel’s buildings23. But, reflecting the Kantian dichotonomy of essence and effect - the real and the sensual - autonomy does not mean a form closed in itself, but rather a form with a specific individual will. A careful examination of the relationship between house and landscape in Schinkel’s works24 makes it noticeable that Schinkel’s buildings specifically develop from an inner order and in response to the landscape. In the most evident case, the residence Charlottenhof25, the internal order of the house establishes the landscape but vice versa the house is dependent on the landscape to build up its internal organization. The shift in the landscape of the chateau was explicitly chosen by Schinkel. Schinkel chose the position of the house consciously between two different plateaus. Furthermore, the projected effect of the location, as “Zwischenraum” (inbetween space), designs the explicit landscape. The real landscape is as artificial as the projected house itself26. Similarly, as Schinkel explains in his theoretical writings, the work of architecture is not intended to stand as a “completed object”, but rather is “to show out into infinity the outspoken idea placed within”. A building “should be thought of as a living action by the composition of diverse life suggestive requirements”27.
The mereological condition of the void
Both examples, Hilberseimer’s room or Schinkel’s house build up mereological conditions with the environment, the light prism or the slope. As part of the room or house the environment becomes articulated as void, the zero placeholding the light or the slope. In a negative way you can read the ecological gap as zero defined by the absence of something, placeholding an external condition. But from a compositional point of view, an external condition can just be described as reaching out. In this way absence turns into an interest, a desire for something. Like arms stretching 6
Figure 2 -The autonomous form of architecture responds to the topography of the place in the reorganization of its internal circulation; Karl Friedrich Schinkel: Schloss Charlottenhof, Potsdam, 1822, Kupferstichkabinett, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin.
towards a desire28, mereological conditions anticipate specific possibilities in an environment. As opposed to describing something discrete as merely something that is, parthood conditions also describe interiority as what is has, or by reaching out beyond it’s exterior, to what it does not have. Describing to have in the opposition of to be has the advantage that in a reversible manner it defines both: who possesses, as well as that which is possessed. Following a Kantian worldview, the aesthetic is produced by the materiality of subjective experience, the external judgement. The Beautiful or its Janus-face the Sublime are not a- priori-categegories. All judgements are dependent on compositional synthesis. For a Kantian the synthesis between Observer and the work of art becomes a thing on its own. In the case of designing an architectural element, subjective judgement as artistic will or intention of use not only creates, but becomes part of the technical object’s composite. Hilberseimer was aware of the figurational self-containenment of an architectural element. Recapitulating the architectural movement towards autonomy during the 1920s he concluded in the words of Mondrian: “Architecture as an art could be realized only with a multiplicity of buildings, with the city itself .”29
Figure 3 -The ecological zero as light prism of a room-type, according to Hilberseimer’s suninsolation study; exemplary room, orientation south-east, 8am-2pm, March 21th, drawing by Daniel Koehler. 8
Large City Architecture as a dialectic of quantities
Only in variety can the individual reach autonomous form expression. And so for Hilberseimer, the figuration of the city is dependent on the ratio of two factors: the cell of the single room and the entire urban organism. Hilberseimer regularly used this metaphor in his texts. However, it is unclear as to which architectural elements are represented by ’cell’ and ’organism’. The ’cell’ and ’organism’ are not strictly defined. Only the difference in quantity and size remains. Hilberseimer mentioned for the first time in 1922 the ratio cell to organism in his essay The high rise30. Here, the cell is the single house and the organism the state. One year later in The will to architecture, the single room is the cell and the city layout the organism31. In the description of the Vertical-City32 the cell alternately is the room, the apartment or the city-block. The city element or the whole metropolis stands for an organism, which is in turn part of a global economy33. The contrast between cell and organism referred to in Hilberseimer, is scale-independent, the relationship between the part and the whole. In his early theoretical texts34 Hilberseimer speaks against land speculation and therefore against a planning role of the plot as the ground for architecture. One repeating aspect of Hilberseimer’s design-series Groszstadtbauten35 (Large City Buildings) is the merging of small-scale plots to provide housing collectives. Property is not defined by individual floor plots per house, but first as a consolidated common property. As a whole, the urban organism Large City Architecture refers to the consolidation of plots, its impact on the size of the resulting “Großform” (large form) and the independence from land-speculation. The sheer quantity leads to an obvious withdrawal of the city-block from its context. Exposed the single room-type an inaccessible vitality of the thing, here the massiveness decelerated the effect and turns into the object’s isolation from context and control. Largeness withdraws as it becomes indescribable through the plot. On the other hand the large quantity of parts has an impact on the consideration of the part, the single cell. Using the example of the window36, Hilberseimer shows how the part- to-whole relationship changes through the increase in quantity. Historically, windows were used to place accents or determine the axes. A perfectly placed architectural element, such as a window, could provide harmony, beauty, and a complete order to the whole, classically described by Alberti as Concinnitas. In contrast, due to the quantity of windows in a combined city-block or high-rise, the emphasis is on rhythm. The window is part of the surface itself. Finally, the mass of windows produces the effect of a grid, an effect what Michael Hays identified as mass ornament37. The grid is not an object in the first place, but the result of the assembly of windows. The quantity of windows absorbs the facade as a
whole to a mereological condition for the part. The possibility of assembly, in modern sense typically the array, is contained within the single window, the single cell. The whole is a part of the cell, for the cell as whole. More general: The whole becomes a part for the part as whole. In a discourse about things this effect is well described as mereological isolation. Here the concept of withdrawal not only occurs between isolated objects, which leads to a form of inaccessible vitality of things, but also it occurs within them. As Peter Wolfendale mentions this “involves the mutual withdrawal between parts,
Figure 4 - Mereological variations of Ludwig Hilberseimer’s Vertical City, model by Daniel Koehler 10
but as well the withdrawal of parts from the wholes they compose, and wholes from the parts they contain.�38 Of course in Hilberseimer’s example, the windows are parts of the facade and parts of a grid. But vice versa the windows are distinct from each other, they can not be comprehended by a grid and produce the facade as their effect. Mereological conditions isolate things from each other. This necessarily leads to compositional gaps and the possibility to re-orientate the technical
Figure 5 -Hilberseimer, Vertical-City, 1924, top: block floor plan with rail system; middle: city plan of the commercial city, floors 1-5; bottom: city plan of the residential city, floors 6-20.
12
object through the reshaping and repurposing of the mereological conditions between the parts of the modern and well-prehended wholes, as the grid of a curtain wall or latent in Hilberseimer’s project the city as such.
The city as the product of mereological isolation
Finally, to reorganize the industrial, infinite city, Hilberseimer promotes object instead of land speculation39. If the soil is no longer the ground of the city, architecture must be economically grounded in other ways. Hilberseimer’s approach is the transformation of architectural elements into economical products: to utilities, which are determined by their intended use40. In the textual description of the Vertical-City41 the apartment, the house and the block are treated as economic products. But similar to the technical approach of a room-type the elements of the Vertical-City are designed as composites through the translation of terms like light insolation, walking distance, accessiblity. Each time, economic value is created by its disposition as an element of the city. Here economic value is understood as an “interest in interests”. As historian Albert Hirschmann showed42, capitalism in its beginning was promoted by thinkers including Montesquieu, Sir James Steuart as the transformation of passion to an interest. Similar to Hilberseimer’s objectspeculation, these early thoughts based on the notion that the interest of capital, as opposed to the landlords, with its fixed property will be able to thwart the efforts (of the state) and to make its intentions to lay hands on private wealth destroyed43. Individuality is obtained by interest. Analogous in the beginning of the city, the Greek polis, the public sphere, the political was sharply distinguished from the house (gr: oikos), the economic. Politics was the word and reason44. Whereas, the economic, the oikos, was the sphere of the family and was understood as composite of house, family and goods. The economic was thought to follow an inaccessable interest, desire. In the ancient line of city-architecture speculation is isolated a part of the house. In this way mereological isolation creates a mobile immovability of reference. Finally, when the whole becomes a part for the part as whole, Hilberseimer’s conception of the city is far from being a
Figure 6 - Mereological variations of Ludwig Hilberseimer’s Vertical City, model by Daniel Koehler
Notes 1. the weakness of the semantic argument is since long time anticipated, see: Claude Lévi- Strauss. 1973. Das wilde Denken. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 154 2. Levi R. Bryant. 2011. The democracy of objects. Open Humanities Press, Ann Arbor, 227. 3. One of the core arguments of ecological thought is exactly this: accepting a largest whole. The most obvious example is Gaia in the work of James Lovelock 4. Mackay and Avanessian 2014, #Accelerate#, 23: “the only radical political response to capitalism is not to protest, disrupt, or critique, but to accelerate and exacerbate its uprooting, alienating, decoding, abstractive tendencies” 5. Bryant 2011, 243-289. 6. Ludwig Hilberseimer. 1935. Raumdurchsonnung. Moderne Bauformen 34: 29–36. 7. Ludwig Hilberseimer. 2.1936. Raumdurchsonnung und siedlungsdichtigkeit. Moderne Baufor- men (Sonderdruck). 8. Ludwig Hilberseimer. 1933. Vorläufiges Literaturverzeichnis: Die Frage der Besonnung im Woh- nungsbau. Ryerson & Burnham Archive Art Institue of Chicago. 9. Markus Kilian. 2002. Großstadtarchitektur und New City: Eine planungsmethodische Untersuchung der Stadtplanungsmodelle Ludwig Hilberseimers. Köln, 93. 10. compare Table 1, p.3 Hilberseimer 1935; and in written description: Ludwig Hilberseimer. 1944. The new city: Principles of planning . Chicago: Paul Theobald, 85 11. Hilberseimer 1935, p. 30. 12. Karl Marx. 1973. Fixed capital. means of labour. machine. In Grundrisse, edited by trans. Martin Nicolaus, pp. 690–700. Penguin, 694. 13. Gilbert Simondon. 2012. Die Existenzweise Technischer Objekte. Zürich: Diaphanes, 11. 14. Ecological thought as the entanglement of strangers: Timothy Morton. 2012. The ecological thought. London: Harvard University Press. 15. Ludwig Hilberseimer. 1964. Contemporary architecture: Its roots and trends. Chicago: Paul Theobald and Company, 104. 14
16. Detlef Mertins and Phyllis Lambert. 2014. Mies. New York: Phaidon, 241–242. 17. Emil Kaufmann. 1933. Von Ledoux bis Le Corbusier: Ursprung und Entwicklung der autonomen Architektur. Stuttgart: Gerd Hatje. 18. For a comprehensive overview on German aesthetics, the Viennese formalist circle and English translations of their key-writings, see: Robert Vischer, Harry Francis Mallgrave, and Eleftherios Ikonomou. 1994. Empathy, form and space: Problems in german aesthetics 1973 - 1893. Santa Monica: Getty Center for the History of Art and the humanities. 19. Alois Riegl. 1901. Spätrömische Kunstindustrie. Wien: Verlag der kaiserlichen und königlichen Hof- und Staatsdruckerei. 20. Pattern and Form is Hilberseimer’s heading of the second part of: Ludwig Hilberseimer. 1955. The nature of cities. Paul Theobald. 21. Adolf Hildebrand. 1918. Das problem der form in der bildenden kunst. Strassbourg: J.H. ED. Heitz, 16–17. 22. Helmut Müller-Sievers. 1997. Self-generation: Biology, philosophy, and literature around 1800. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press. 23. It is worth noting that Ludwig Hilberseimer was a student Friedrich Ostendorf whose teaching was built on Schinkel’s legacy. The connection between Hilberseimer and Schinkel pointed out: Michael William Jennings and Detlef Mertins. 2011. G: Material for elemental form-creation. London: Tate, 76 24. Barry Bergdoll. 1994. Karl Friedrich Schinkel: Preussens berühmtester Baumeister. München: Klinkhardt & Biermann, 103-170. 25. Karl Friedrich Schinkel. 1829. Potsdam-Sanssouci. Schloss Charlottenhof. Kupferstichkabinett, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin. 26. This interpretation is based on a comment of Joost Meuwissen during the defense of the un- derlying doctoral thesis: Daniel Köhler. 2016. A mereological reading of the works of ludwig hilberseimer. 1st ed. Innsbruck: University of Innsbruck Press 27. Karl Friedrich Schinkel. 1967. Gedanken zur Baukunst: Baukunst als Symbol des Lebens. In Karl Friedrich Schinkel: Aus Tagebüchern und Briefen, edited by F. A. Herbig. München, Berlin, and Wien: Henschelverlag, 146.
28. An extensive argument for a concept of radiation builds up Lars Spuybroek, based on his research on Greek aesthetics in: Spuybroek 2014. Charis and radiance: The ontological dimensions of beauty. In Giving and taking: Antidotes to a culture of greed, edited by Joke Brouwer and Sjoerd van Tuinen, pp. 119–149. Rotterdam: NAI 29. Ludwig Hilberseimer. 1964. Contemporary architecture: Its roots and trends. Chicago: Paul Theobald and Company, 116. 30. Ludwig Hilberseimer. 1922. Das hochhaus. Das Kunstblatt (6): 525– 531, p. 526. 31. Ludwig Hilberseimer. 1923. Der wille zur architektur. Das Kunstblatt (7): 133–140, p. 138. 32. Ludwig Hilberseimer. 1927. Groszstadt architektur. Stuttgart: Julius Hoffmann, 17–19. 33. ibid. 102. 34. Ludwig Hilberseimer. 1925a. Bauwirtschaft und Wohnungsbau. Sozialistische Monatshefte 31 (5): 285–291. 35. Ludwig Hilberseimer. 1925b. Groszstadtbauten. Hannover: Apossverlag. 36. Ludwig Hilberseimer. 1927, 100 and Ludwig Hilberseimer. 1922, p. 531 37. Michael Hays. 1992. Modernism and the posthumanist subject. cambridge and massachusetts: mit press, 263. 38. Pete Wolfendale. 2014. Object-oriented philosophy: The noumenon’s new clothes, 15. 39. Hilberseimer 1925a. 40. Ludwig Hilberseimer. 1924. Raumgestaltung. Socialistische Monatshefte (1): 65–66. 41. The title Vertical-City revers to the vertical encapsulation of the city, rather than a horizontal speculation over the plot. 42. Albert O. Hirschman. 1977. The passions and the interests: Political arguments for capital- ism before its triumph. Princeton University Press 43. ibid. 92. 44. Christian Meier. 1985. Politik und Anmut. Berlin: Siedler, 77–78.
Figure 7/8 -The ecological zero as light prism of a room-type, according to Hilberseimer’s suninsolation-study; exemplary room, orientation south-east, 8am-2pm, March 21th, drawing by Daniel Koehler. 16
Copyright © 2014 Institute for Advanced Architecture of Catalonia All rights Reserved.
IAAC BITS
IAAC
DIRECTOR:
IAAC SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE:
Manuel Gausa, IaaC Dean
EDITORIAL COORDINATOR Jordi Vivaldi, IaaC bits Editorial Coordinator
EDITORIAL TEAM Manuel Gausa, IaaC Dean Mathilde Marengo, Communication & Publication Jordi Vivaldi, IaaC bits Editorial Coordinator
ADVISORY BOARD: Areti Markopoulou, IaaC Academic Director Tomas Diez, Fab Lab Bcn Director Silvia Brandi, Academic Coordinator Ricardo Devesa, Advanced Theory Concepts Maite Bravo, Advanced Theory Concepts
DESIGN: Ramon Prat, ACTAR Editions
IAAC BIT FIELDS: 1. Theory for Advanced Knowledge 2. Advanced Cities and Territories 3. Advanced Architecture 4. Digital Design and Fabrication 5. Interactive Societies and Technologies 6. Self-Sufficient Lands
Nader Tehrani, Architect, Director MIT School Architecture, Boston Juan Herreros, Architect, Professor ETSAM, Madrid Neil Gershenfeld, Physic, Director CBA MIT, Boston Hanif Kara, Engineer, Director AKT, London Vicente Guallart, Architect, Chief City Arquitect of Barcelona Willy Muller, Director of Barcelona Regional Aaron Betsky, Architect & Art Critic, Director Cincinnati Art Museum, Cincinnati Hugh Whitehead, Engineer, Director Foster+ Partners technology, London Nikos A. Salingaros, Professor at the University of Texas, San Antonio Salvador Rueda, Ecologist, Director Agencia Ecologia Urbana, Barcelona Artur Serra, Anthropologist, Director I2CAT, Barcelona
PUBLISHED BY: Institute for Advanced Architecture of Catalonia ISSN 2339 - 8647 CONTACT COMMUNICATIONS & PUBLICATIONS OFFICE: communication@iaac.net
Institut for Advanced Architecture of Catalonia Barcelona
18
Pujades 102 08005 Barcelona, Spain T +34 933 209 520 F +34 933 004 333 ana.martinez@coac.net www.iaac.net