The architecture of knowledge by Marieke de Vries

Dogma

fig. 1. La cité Nationale in Genéve. Illustration by Léonie Bischof.

The architecture of knowledge the Mundeanum and the European Capital city Marieke de Vries The Mundeanum represents the pacifistic ideology of the jurist and sociologist Paul Otlet (1866-1944). He thought that by centralizing all the knowledge of the world, major problems could be solved, leading to world peace. Throughout time, Otlet’s Mundeanum and Cité Mondiale evolved in the minds of several architects and urban planners. The first design of the Cité Mondiale was made by Le Corbusier and Pierre Jeanneret in 1928.1 In the following decade, different modernistic urban designs were made implementing the Mundeanum with the aim to express the era of technology and rationalism. Because the Mundeanum was an exemplary embodiment for representing an entity, either the world’s knowledge, a museum, or a Capital City, soon the idea came back in the realisation of the Capital of Europe. Léon Krier and later, a group young architects from the Berlage Institute implemented it in Luxemburg and Brussel. This raises the question whether the Mundeanum as a thing is an essential element of the European Capital City, or not.

It all started with Paul Otlet. As a young jurist he became interested in the possibility of a synthesis of knowledge. He dedicated himself towards the documentation of bibliography, for which he created together with Henri La Fontaine (1854-1943) the Classification Decimale Universelle (CDU). Next to this classification system, Otlet and La Fontaine also established organisations like the Institut International de Bibliographie (fig. 2). With these projects, Otlet became part of an international network and he dedicated himself to the peacemovements and international scientific network, like the Union des Associations Internationalles (UAI). Finally, he created the idea of bringing all these institutions and knowledge together in one World Capital: the Cité Mondiale.2 Le Corbusier, one of the designers addressed

fig. 2. the UDC classification system

by Otlet for designing the Cité Mondiale, describes in his book Precisions the pacific idea of the World City: “The world lives, is agitated, moves, reacts. At certain moments (…) solutions appear to visionary or practical minds. (…) To unite these propositions, to classify them, to coordinate them, make them known, have them discussed a place is needed, a headquarters: in this case, buildings.”3 One of these buildings that Le Corbusier describes was the Mundeanum, which embodied the ambition to “create a centre of centres, a world database of knowledge, education and fraternity among people, a representation of the world and what it contains”.4

into a city. In this, several architects and sites passed by. Important to mention is allegory with the city of Babel (fig. 3), which was made by the American sculpture Hendrik Andersen and his colleague the architect Ernest Hébrad. This international city was based on the master plan for the world exhibition and it drew the attention of Otlet. However, the most known and published design was that by Le Corbusier and Pierre Jeanneret in 1929 for the city of Genève. The physical appearance of the Mundeanum refers back to the Babylonian times, the palace of Khorsabad (fig. 4): the ziggurat. Step by step the building reaches to the Gods, to the ‘truth’. At the same

Architecture of knowledge The physical elaboration of the Mundeanum and the Cité Mondiale was initialized by the Mont des Arts, in Brussels. This site was assigned by King Leopold II for the

time, because of the height of the building, the ziggurat dominates over the city. In this design, Le Corbusier literally interprets the stacking of knowledge into the stacking of platforms (fig. 5).

establishment of several cultural institutions. This first version of the ‘Palais Mondial’ was eventually realised at another site, in a very small version and in an existing building. Otlet searched for a site to elaborate this ‘palace’

Although Le Corbusier states in his essay about the World City (Precisions on the present state of architecture and city planning, 1930) that “architecture is organization”5, and

Dogma fig. 3. the international City of Andersen and Hébrard with in the centre the colossal Tour du Progrès, which would present as the new Babel the world freedom.

fig. 4. the Palace of Khorsabad

that “the projects of the buildings are strictly utilitarian, as functional as the rigor of a machine”6; he also mention architecture has “higher intention than that of simply being useful”7. This ambiguity in his architectural language for the Mundeanum was noticed by Le Corbusier’s colleagues. The publication of the plans for the Mundeanum triggered fierce reactions by contemporary architectural critics regarding the historicist traits and academism, which, in their eyes, ran counter to the functionalist principles of modernist architecture of the CIAM.8 However, the design was quite functional in the eyes of Le Corbusier. “Visitors would walk through a spiral winding down from the top showing human production and visual documentation.”9 The buildings were built “according to the latest formulas, their form is in each case an organism.”10 The vision of

fig. 5. the museum of the World City, in the design of Le Corbusier 1928.

Le Corbusier suited the visions of Otlet perfectly. Otlet was wondering how the world could be envisioned in only one view. This panoramic view, would be achieved at the top of geometric figures like the pyramid and the cone. At the same time, the hierarchic order of knowledge could be translated, in the eyes of Otlet, by terraces of knowledge, radial concentrically organized: “from

fig. 6. sketch of Otlet in order to find a spatial model for his panoramic dream.

abstract to concrete”11 (fig. 6).

The development of the ambiguous World City With the collaboration with Le Corbusier, the connection with the Volkenbond and the support of the director of the International Labour Office, the Cité Mondiale became a great symbol of peace.12 However, Genève was seen as the perfect location for the Cité (because this nation remained neutral during the war), it was never built. In his quest for the realisation of the Cité Mondial, Otlet became more and more desperate. Several times, Otlet found himself new architects and urban planners to design and create his dream, but they were all fruitless.13 When Otlet came across the international competition for designing an urban plan for the Linker Schelde Oever in Antwerpen14, he immediately contacted Le Corbusier to send in a design. This tabula rasa project drawn the attention of 97 design teams from all over the world. And it was surprisingly remarkable that a lot of the designs included an International neighbourhood, a Mundeanum or a Cité Mondiale.15 This is where the term and of the idea of Otlet became more and more ambiguous and attenuated. A lot of architects saw the opportunity of implementing their modernistic ideas of urban planning on the virgin site of the Linkeroever. This was the first actual site where Le Corbusier’s Villa Radieuse was implemented. In this Villa Radieuse the design team, consisting out of Le Corbusier, Victor Bourgeois, Huib Hoste and Felix Loquet, included

fig. 7. The design of the team with Le Corbusier for the Linkeroever, Antwerpen,

also the Mundeanum, in the same formal language as

where they implemented the principles of high rise buildings and the Villa Radieuse.

the design of Le Corbusier in 1928 (fig. 7 and 8). The Mundeanum envisioned the believe in progression. In this he let the people move from the top of the ziggurat, which showed the prehistoric times, to the bottom terraces, which represents the modern times, based on rationality and science.16 The Mundeanum became a (critical) symbol for modernism. For example, the design of Verwilghen and Eggerickx was a “regular modernistic design, where the urban principles of the CIAM where

implemented and resulted in a design with a Mundeanum. The Mundeanum wasn’t a complete city anymore, but only a symbol for documentation, a symbol for scientific urban planning. Secondly, the Mundeanum became a statement against the collage city, a city without a vision that exceeds the context of the city.”17 So, the Cité Mondiale became a substrate for different meanings, formed and modelled depending on its designers.18

Despite all the effort of Otlet, his quest for the realisation

Dogma

The thing of Le Corbusier of the Cité Mondial ends without completion. However, the number of publications and the fact that his legacy came back in several education programs, keeps his vision of the World City alive. The fact that the design of the Mundeanum in the formal language of Le Corbusier (the Ziggurat) was used in the design for the idea of the Cité Mondial in 1928, and again in the design for the Linkeroever of Anvers in 1932, creates a thing out of the fig. 8. the design of the Mundeanum for the Linkeroever in Antwerpen by Le Corbusier.

object. As Brown (2001) states: “It designates an amorphous characteristic or a frankly irresolvable charasteric or a frankly irresolvable enigma.(..) The word things hold within it an (..) ambiguity. It denotes a massive generality as well as particularities.”19

fig. 9a. an over view of Luxemburg with the implemented urban plan of Léon

fig. 9b. an over view of Luxemburg with the implemented urban plan of Léon

Krier on the Kirchberg.

Krier on the Kirchberg. In red the Mundeanum.

fig. 10. the design of the Université Européenne by Léon Krier

fig. 11. the design of Krier for the Musée Sprengel in Hanovre, 1972

The ambiguity of the word Mundeanum becomes even

Therefore he states that it is up to sculptural or pictoral

more clear if we look carefully to the implementation of

iconography to help and sustain certain associations with

the ziggurat building in the work of Léon Krier. In ‘My

their function or representation. Maybe this is the reason

kind of town: Léon Krier on Luxembourg City’ (2011)

that he copies the statement of Le Corbusier, which is

he declares his displeasure about the planned European

based on the very old political archetype of the ziggurat.

Institutions as presented in 1976 and he “used the occasion

The following statement can confirm this:

to demonstrate how Luxembourg could be developed

“Classical and Vernacular cultures are based on the repetition

into a polycentric metropolis, (..) modelled on size,

of a few fundamental constructive and functional types which

scale and character of the historic centre.” This design

are the universal expression of human activities, of collective

also contained a Mundeanum, with the function of a

and individual work and pleasure - the Public, the Private and

university (fig. 9 and 10). In the publication of his master

the Sacred.”23

plan, this Université Européenne was briefly described

Remarkably, the ziggurat came back in the design

in terms of composition with in the Kirchberg plateau.

of Krier for the Musée Sprengel in Hanovre, 1972

The monumental promenade ends in the l’universitée

(fig.11), not as an European institute for knowledge or

Européenne, which was an exact copy of the design of

representing knowledge, but as a hotel.24 Here the design

Le Corbusier of 1928. Why Krier used this design, while

of the Mundeanum of Le Corbusier is only used as an

he spoke clearly against the tabula rasa approach and

economical gesture, because “it indicates the autonomy

the zoning-method of the modernist is not clear in his

of architecture that redistributes the Babel of today”25 and

published work about the master plan. However, Krier

thereby, lost all his thingness that once was designated by

has a clear vision about the way architecture represents

Otlet.

political ideologies and ideas:

“Architecture is not political; it can only be used politically (…)

Representation of the Capital of Europe

Architecture can express nothing else but its own constructive

It appeared that the fundamental idea of Otlet, creating

logic; that is, its origin in the laws of building.”

world piece by assembling knowledge on an efficient way,

Dogma fig. 12. A proposal for the Capital City of Europe: Brussels

was lost. However, in 2007, there was a renewed interest

Basically, they say that the architecture in the city

in Otlet’s legacy. In the ‘Manifesto towards the capital of

represents the political ideas of that city. In this way,

Europe’ (The Berlage Institute, 2007) the supervisor of the

the city of Brussels is the ‘ideal ground zero of Europe’,

research Pier Vittorio Aureli (partner of the architectural

because the city is ”the theatre of differences in cultures,

firm Dogma) proposes interventions in the city of Brussels

politics, communities, urban fabrics and urban structure,

in order to realise a city that represents the idea of Europe.

representing the history of Europe.” Brussels is a fragmented

With this proposal they implement their utopian aspiration

city. Instead of the naturally developed geopolitical

about the political use of the city itself. Like in the Greek city,

Europe, the construction of the Federal Union of Europe

with the public spaces of the Agora for social confrontation

is a political project. Therefore, the Manifesto proposes

and discussion, the interventions should implement a

architectural large scale interventions. The aim of these

new political regime, with the main aspect to create “a

interventions is to connect the divided city. “The project

responsibility towards the making of decisions concerning the

defines a part/counterpart composition in which each part

collective domain” . This ideology reflects the reaction of

recognizes and collaborates with the others,”27 in other

the Manifesto against the global capitalism. The city is the

words: the archipelago city (fig. 12). “’Archipelago’ is

playground for the political imagination. As Aureli states

defined as a series of islands that, by their proximity to each

in an interview by Jennifer Sigler and Roemer van Toorn

other, build an idea of the centre, while this centre is never

(Magazine of the Architecture Biennale Venice, 2006):

a total entity. (…)The approach of looking at a city via

“In this endeavour, architecture is crucial because even if it doesn’t

the archipelago is to acknowledge separation as an active

“build” the city, its language and formal appearance are a crucial

confrontation of parts and not as passive fragmentation.”28

contribution to what I call “city-consciousness.” (..) It’s about how we can use architecture itself in order to advance society.”

The Mundeanum of the Capital of Europe Within the proposal for the Capital City of Europe of the Manifesto (2007) one of the large scaled building is the Mundeanum. The site for the project is an old industrial area close to the West Station. This area is considered problematic, mainly because of the concentration of inhabitants of multi-ethnic origin with low incomes. The project tries to close the gap between “the culturally diverse population of the adjacent neighbourhoods with the cosmopolitan population of Europe’s capital”.29 So, the Mundeanum attempts to rescue this area by spatially represent he ideology of Paul Otlet’s pacifistic idea. It consists out of an ensemble with the European Central Library, the European Education Coordination Centre, the European Institute of Languages and the European School. These institutions together form one of the boundaries, one of the islands of the archipelago, which together construct the European Capital (fig. 13 and 14). The Central Library is one place, where 260.000.000 items would be saved and organized with the UDC-system that Paul Otlet developed. The building is conceived as a series of parallel linear buildings, perpendicular to the canal. Each of the above-mentioned institutions will accommodate a clearly defined part of the structure. The intermediate space will provide the entrances to the buildings. To connect the building to the other proposed interventions, the Mundeanum is connected with an underground metro station.30 Representation of boundaries The Manifesto presents for the first time a Mundeanum in an existing area and they proposed a whole different architectural language than the precedent designers of Otlet’s vision (Le Corbusier and Krier). The urban fabric seems to determine the form and therefore also the

fig. 13. the European Digital library, consisting out of unbroken lines.

constitution of the inside-outside condition. Thus the topicality

the Mundeanum of Krier and Le Corbusier is set on the

of form in the current regime of space production (…) lies in

end of monumental axes, ending the whole area of the

the possibility of provoking ‘margins’ of political difference.”31

‘World City’; the Mundeanum of the Berlage Institute

Aureli and Martino Tattara are looking for architectural

is the beginning of the development of an existing area,

forms that provoke these margins, but not in a

while it defines at the same time the European Capital

democratically way: they want to provoke discussion.

City. The formal language of Dogma is reflected by Pier

However, they choose to visualize their Mundeanum as

Vittorio Aureli:

another archetype: the public library. Their design shows

“A form always implies a boundary and that boundary is the

Dogma

representational function of the Mundeanum. Where

an immense resemblance with the Bibliothèque Royale by Étienne-Louis Boullée (1728-1799) (fig. 15). Boullée also talks about the boundaries, “creating an immense effect, beyond imagination.”32 He tried to find the fictive infinity by symmetry in order to express the underlying meaning of the building. With this in mind, the resemblance between the designs of Dogma and Boullée is hardly a coincidence. So, it could be said that the design of Dogma increasingly seeks to be a formal historical archetype as well, like the ziggurat has become, for the European Capital City. Conclusion The Mundeanum or Cité Mondial can embody many

fig. 14. a view into the gallery of the library

thoughts and ideas (fig. 16). Started as the representation of a centralized institution for world peace, invented by Paul Otlet, the representational function developed towards an “intellectual vocabulary of modernistic urbanists”,33 where the Mundeanum became a tool for making a critical statement about urbanism. The form and the idea became two loose things: the object in the form of the Mundeanum; and the idea of the Mundeanum. The first was used by Krier as a monument, a symbol. The second interpretation evolved in a whole different architectural language for the Mundeanum of the Capital of Europe Brussels, proposed by Dogma and his students.

fig. 15. the Bibliotheque royale by Boullée

However, both objects (of both designs) represents the history of the Mundeanum. In the design of Krier the

object originates from the thing: the Mundeanum, and

This is in correspondence with the publication of the

thereby loose the thingness a bit. In the design of Dogma

European Commission and Belgian Presidency (2001)

the thing originates from the object, such as the statement

where they set out the result of brainstorm sessions

of Michel Serres: “Le sujet naît de l’objet”34. The Berlage

with intellectuals to discuss the expectations, needs and

Institute goes back to the fundamental ideas of Otlet, and

functions of Brussels as capital of Europe.37 Basically

therefore goes back to the origin of the thing.

this document states that they want to articulate the existing diversities within the city as a representation of

However, the ambiguous meaning of the Mundeanum

Europe. Brussels should be a balanced mixture between

is moulded into vast castings: boundaries. Without

the ‘soft capital’ as proposed by Umberto Eco, and the

the boundaries, the idea of Otlet becomes insane and

‘hard capital’ as proposed by Rem Koolhaas. So, the

ridiculous: he wanted to create manageable knowledge

Capital city (Brussels) needs to be a centre in a network

and therefore a manageable place and building. Therefore

“where diversities are not diversities are not eliminated, but

the expandability of the Mudeanum was also an important

rather exalted and harmonised”38. However, these ‘soft’

thing in the representational function. This worked out

capital: the cultural network, also needs to have some

in two contrasting ideas: that of the infinite spiral of Le

“physical substance, such as museums, universities, concert

Corbusier35 (fig. 17) is in contrast with the straight boxes

halls, cinemas usually host art exhibitions, intellectual

of Dogma and the apparent resemblance with the formal

debate, music and movies.”39 This conclusion implies an

‘fictive infinity’ of Boullée.

architecture of knowledge for the Capital City of Europe: the Mundeanum.

The Mundeanum as a thing seems to be an essential element of the European Capital City. It represent brotherhood, international collaboration and knowledge: aspects which are essential for creating Europe, and therefore essential for creating the Capital City of Europe. However, the original idea of the Mundeanum (collecting all the knowledge of the world in one building), became less relevant with the modern technologies of the World Wide Web. The physical boundaries of knowledge distribution are vanished. As Le

fig. 16. The Mundeanum merchandise, made by architect Maurice Heymans: the Mundeanum in every form.

Corbusier predicted: “The idea [of Otlet, red] is general: once given out, there are no more obstacles, nor mountains, nor seas, neither iron nor glass cages, nor Institutes, nor Academies. It touches wherever there is an antenna.”36 However, in order to represent the European Capital City there is a need for fixed boundaries within this unlimited freedom of knowledge, and these boundaries need to be formed.

fig. 17. The ideal museum of Le Corbusier should incorporate the idea of expandability.

Dogma

Notes 1. (Pearce, 2007) pp. 7. 2. (Pearce, 2007) pp. 9. 3. (1991, Le Corbusier) pp. 218 4. (Aureli, P. V. et al., 2007) pp. 152. 5. Le Corbusier: ‘If we are inspired today by the desire for organization, it is because in the past a notion of disorder, or disorganization, of a state of trouble, of perturbation was implied. The universal search for an efficient organization is a positive act, an optimistc gesture.” Le Corbusier. (1991).Precisions on the present state of architecture and city planning. (Edit Schreiber Aujame.). Londen: The MIT Press. (Original work published 1930). 6. Le Corbusier: ‘If we are inspired today by the desire for organization, it is because in the past a notion of disorder, or disorganization, of a state of trouble, of perturbation was implied. The universal search for an efficient organization is a positive act, an optimistc gesture.” Le Corbusier. (1991).Precisions on the present state of architecture and city planning. (Edit Schreiber Aujame.). Londen: The MIT Press. (Original work published 1930). 7. (Le Corbusier, 1991). pp. 219. 8. (Acker, 2013). 9. Heuvel, C. v.d. (unknown). Mundeanum: architectures of Global Knowledge: the Mundeanum and the World Wide Web. Retrieved on September, 24th from: http://www.virtualknowledgestudio. nl/staff/charles-van-den-heuvel/vdheuvel-mundaneum.pdf. 10. (Le Corbusier, 1991). pp. 219. 11. These formal thought of Otlet were published in Monde, 1916, before the design of Le Corubiser was made. (Pearce, 2007). pp. 32. 12. (Pearce, 2007). pp. 28. 13. Thomas Pearce describes in his paper for the KU Leuven the whole quest of Otlet between 1930 and 1940, for this essay only few designs are considered. (Pearce, 2007). 14. The competition was organised by the Intercommunale Maatschappij voor de Linker Schelde oever (IMALSO), October 1932 till May 1933. (Pearce, 2007) pp. 93. 15. (Pearce, 2007). pp. 94. 16. This is in contradiction with the design of Bourgeois’ Mundeanum in his design for the IMALSO competition, where the visitor could freely explore the knowledge of the word. (Pearce, 2007) pp. 101. 17. Collage city is translated for “een stedenbouw van ‘lapmiddelen’ die niet gekaderd was”(Pearce, 2007) pp. 112. 18. (Pearce, 2007). pp. 117. 19. Brown, B. (2001). Thing Theory. Critical Inquiry, 28(1), pp.1-22. 20. (Krier, 2011). 21. “Le parti principal du côté Europeen constiste dans une grande promenade ombragée d’abres et longée d’arcades élevées qui par une fouble pente relie les deux quartiers et traverse dans son centre la place couverte pour aboutir au point le plus élevé du plateau, à l’universié Européenne.” (Krier, 1978) pp. 62. 22. About zoning, Léon Krier says: “Functional Zoning is not an innocent or neutral planning instrument; it has been the most effective means in destroying the infinitely complex social and physical fabric of preindustrial urban communities, of urban democracy and culture.” (Krier, 1984). 23. (Krier, 1984). pp. 2. 24. (Grumbach, 1975). pp. 69-79.

25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39.

(Grumbach, 1975). pp. 69-79. (Aureli, P. V. et al., 2007). pp. 7. (Aureli, P. V. et al., 2007). pp. 81. (Sigler, J. and Toorn, R. v., 2006). pp. 44-45. (Aureli, P. V. et al., 2007). pp. 152. (Aureli, P. V. et al., 2007). pp. 152. (Metahaven, 2010). pp. 254-255. Brand, J. and Janselijn, H. (red). (1983). Het idee van de stad. Arnhem: Akademie Arnhem Pers, onderwijsuitgave nr. 11. (Pearce, 2007). pp. 15. (Brown, 2001). pp. 1. (Pearce, 2007) pp. 152. (Le Corbusier, 1991). pp. 218. (European Commission, 2001) (European Commission, 2001). pp. 11. (European Commission, 2001). pp. 21-22.

Images 1. Illustration by Léonie Bischof. Retrieved September, 2014, from: http://tigresvolants.tumblr. com/. 2. The UDC classification system. Retrieved October, 21, 2014 from: http://www.johanhoogewijs. com/sys/pub/img/37__paul_otlet_mlle_poels_fichiers_jpg.jpg. 3. (Pearce, 2007) pp. 22. 4. The Palace of Khorsabad. Retrieved October, 20, 2014, from: http://classconnection. s3.amazonaws.com/1579/flashcards/684436/jpg/18c_khorsabad_1c_palace_ext_recon_ aael04_03481.jpg. 5. (Le Corbusier, 1991). pp. 220. 6. (Pearce, 2007). pp. 33. 7. (Pearce, 2007). pp. 99. 8. (Pearce, 2007). pp. 102. 9. a. (Krier, 1978). pp. 58. b. De Boeck, A. (2014). Kirchberg a form of Europe. KU Leuven 10. (Krier, 1978). pp. 68. 11. (Grumbach, 1975). pp. 75. 12. (Aureli, P. V. et al., 2007). pp. 100-101. 13. (Aureli, P. V. et al., 2007). pp. 155. 14. (Aureli, P. V. et al., 2007). pp. 157. 15. Pérouse de Montclos, J. (1967). Étienne-Louis Boullée (1728-1799): de l’architecture classique a l’architecture révolutionnaire. Paris: Arts et métiers graphiques. Image 98. 16. (Pearce, 2007) pp. 154. 17. (Pearce, 2007) pp. 152.

Dogma

References Acker, W. v. (2013). Opening the Shrine of the Mundaneum: the Positivist Spirit in the Architecture of Le Corbusier and his Belgian “Idolators”. Griffith University. Retrieved September, 2014, from: http:// www.griffith.edu.au/conference/sahanz-2013/. Aureli, P. V. et al. (2007). Brussels, a manifesto towards the capital of Europe: a theory on the city. The Berlage Intsitute. Rotterdam: NAi Publishers. Brand, J. and Janselijn, H. (red). (1983). Het idee van de stad. Arnhem: Akademie Arnhem Pers, onderwijsuitgave nr. 11. Brown, B. (2001). Thing Theory. Critical Inquiry, (28), pp. 1-22. European Commission (2001). Brussels, Capital of Europe. Final report. Grumbach, A. (1975). Les frères Krier, le retour du refoulé. Architecture d’Aujourd’hui, (179), pp. 69-79. Heuvel, C. v. d. (unknown) Mundeanum: architectures of Global Knowledge: the Mundeanum and the World Wide Web. Retrieved on September, 24th from: http://www.virtualknowledgestudio.nl/staff/ charles-van-den-heuvel/vdheuvel-mundaneum.pdf. Krier, L. (1978) Projet pour la reconstruction de Luxembourg. Archives d’Architecture Moderne, (15). Krier, L. (1980). The Reconstruction of the European City. Published in: (1984). Léon Krier: drawings. Archives d’Architecture Moderne, 54 (6), pp. 16-22. Krier, L. (2011). My kind of town: Léon Krier on Luxebourg City. Retrieved October, 20, 2014, from: http://www.architecturetoday.co.uk/?p=20435.

Le Corbusier. (1991).Precisions on the present state of architecture and city planning. (Edit Schreiber Aujame.). Londen: The MIT Press. (Original work published 1930). Metahaven (2010). Uncoporate Identity. Baden: Lars Müller Publishers. Pearce, T. (2007). Mettre des pierres autour des idées’ Paul Otlet, de Cité Mondiale en de modernistische stedenbouw in de jaren 1930. Leuven: Katholieke Universiteit Leuven. Sigler, J. and Toorn, R. v. (2006). Representation: Capital Cities – Moskou, Brussels, Tirana. Projecting the city: hunch beyond mapping. Published in: Special Issue Architecture Biennale Venice 2006.