scan for video
ARCHETYPES spiral • babushka • cantilever
INDEX
ARCHETYPE
ITERATIONS
Plan Section Model
The Archetype
The Spiral
With a Character
On an Allotment
Plan Section Collage
The Babushka
As a Wall In West London
As a Parasite In Central London
As a Mass-Housing Complex
Placed in the Exodus Strip: The Square of the Baths
Plan Section Drawing Model
The Cantilever
As a Labyrinth In East London
In a Courtyard
I. Spiral
V. Babushka
IX. Cantilever
II. Core
III. Frame
IV. Screen
VI. U-House
VII. Courtyard
VIII. Rooms
X. Steps
XI. Columns
XII. Merge
Archetypes
Twelve Archetypes - non-referential and a-typological, described only spatially. They form a catalogue of generic forms, expressing fundamental qualities and set to go through a series of mutations. An exploration of the potential found in three of these archetypical forms will unfold through their adaptation to various conditions, scales and tectonics, while retaining their central idea. Through a series of iterations, the Spiral, Babushka and Cantilever will further investigate the connection (or often conflict) between body and building, individual and society, the public and private, the room and the city; set within the context of varying levels of intimacy emerging from particular spatial experiences. In more detail, they will evolve in the Exodus Strip, a story told by Rem Koolhaas and Elias Zenghelis: The desire for an ideal life will manifest itself in the Spiral, turning into a director’s pavilion as part of the allotments and in the Babushka as a dwelling for nomads in the three preserved areas of London. Meanwhile, the Cantilever, as a Mass-Housing Unit, will set the stage for the theatre of life in the square of the Baths. These scenarios will be explained in greater depth later on.
CORE The Voluntary Prisoners - Desire
I. The Spiral: Archetype
The Spiral archetype may be specifically described as a square in a bounding box of 10 by 10 metres divided into a 9-part grid (therefore 3 columns and 3 rows). The central box is the core and the point of entry. The core is formed by the intersection of four substantially thick walls (0.5m) and extends outwards to the very perimeter of the bounding box. These four walls are the determining elements of the archetype and bring into focus the dynamism of rotation. Any other walls positioned on the grid behave more like screens and dividers that do not extend all the way out to the bounding box but stop at 0.45m away from the outer perimeter. Where they end inner boxes are created within the grid that are essentially the rooms and service spaces. The two parts of the grid at the south-western corner are exterior spaces and the central southern part is divided form the one on its left by a glass pane and thus forms an open corridor leading to the entrance in the core. The parts of the grids which remain at the centre of both rows and columns (The ones west, north and east) are service spaces starting from the western one being a storage space for office work, the northern hosts the kitchen facilities and the eastern one is the space containing the staircase going up to the second level (up towards the top level of the core). Beneath the staircase a toilet for guests is included. The top floor only utilizes the room created in the two squares of the grid at the south western corner. The transition between each level (between the thick walls and wherever else the grid divides the rooms) is emphasized by steps hence the rotational circulation becomes an upward spiral as well.
Plan
Ground Floor
First Floor
Section
Model
II. Characters
As the archetype mutates, it must go through a process of character selection. In other words, it will be applied to two characters, obtained from previous studies, and the most promising adaptation will be the one to undergo further development until it becomes the ideal dwelling for its specified inhabitant. The characters involve a retired couple and the director of the Architectural Association, Brett Steele. In the case of the former, the archetype should be moulded in such a way so as to provide space for displaying a collection of family memorabilia and to adapt to two different routines, of the husband and the wife. When it comes to the latter situation, the institutional role of a director, as one who is utterly immersed in social interaction and yet seeks some moments of privacy, must be addressed. The director’s life, of varying levels of intimacy, already poses a far more interesting condition for the Spiral to adapt to. His profile will be more deeply examined when studying the possible adaptations of the archetype to both the characters in the following pages.
Retired Couple: A Museum of Memorabilia
In the case of the a retired couple, the archetype must respond to the idea of a newly constructed space able to accommodate and exhibit a life of experiences through collections of objects and different memorabilia. The doors between spaces will be placed central to the walls, flanked by the objects and furniture, which are always static. Despite an overall circulation that spirals up to their bedroom, the couple will have their own private entrance that takes them directly through the kitchen to the bedroom and bathroom so as to highlight their routine-defined life and their disassociation with their memories which may have become just depressing reminders of a once full house. The disuse of some parts of the house emphasizes the absence of their children, now grown up and moved out. The furniture in the living-area and kitchen will allow for a different relationship between them, one in which the husband can also retreat to his own space (TV and couch) and the wife to the kitchen and bedroom. The void in the middle could be either completely enclosed or a light well. Even though the archetype offers some possibilities of being developed with the couple, it is not as promising as its application to the director will be. Hence with Brett Steele being the most likely option, his character shall be more thoroughly investigated.
Plan
Ground Floor
First Floor
Stalking Brett
After observing the character during a typical working day one may identify three main aspects of intimacy in Brett’s situation: private, semi-private and public. In addition, an analysis of how he allocates his time proves that public life is substantially greater than both the other two aspects combined. Therefore, during a normal day, work accounts for the majority of his time with very few strictly private moments. The Architectural Association clearly operates around Brett; or Brett around it. This is in direct relation to his constant obligation to move. In other words, the Director of the school never sits in one place. Quite the contrary; he is caught in a continuous routine of utter public immersion and his only moment to himself are around 35 minutes, during which he has been observed to vanish from the school entirely. His spatial experience is therefore determined by intense moments of social interaction as opposed to his search for a comfortable, much more personal, space to retreat and rest, even for a little while. Such aspects of the character are depicted with great clarity in the interpretative diagram and sketch for a box constructed by his stalker, Alex Shatalova.
An interpretative box of Brett Steel’s spatial experiences by Alex Shastalova
Brett Steele: The Director’s Pavilion
The archetype, with its spiralling movement around a void core, when applied to a director of an institution, as in Brett’s case, aims at amplifying the idea of absolute exposure to his working environment and all the people associated with it, while maintaining a certain mystification concerning his actions during a comparatively limited time spent alone. Hence the program will be distributed in a sequence, moving from the most public up to the least accessible and more personal spaces, so that the director may retreat to a more confined and almost ‘concealed’ room, analogous to moving deeper and deeper into a cave. Four, half-a-metre-thick walls, of bare concrete, make up the ‘void’ core. Any sides exposed to the exterior will be glass. Brett’s house will welcome guests to a series of impersonal living and service spaces starting with the entrance. The living area follows in the form of a public meeting place, with a kitchen, bar and the toilet facilities. Beyond it lies a conference room and printing area, followed by the personal assistance’s office and then the office of the director. Finally the door to the director’s sanctuary is hidden behind his desk. The level of publicity is also defined by the gradual decrease in the size of each space. The central void acts as a light well. Meanwhile, as one goes deeper into the spiral, the windows become increasingly covered by shutters or bookshelves, hiding intimate moments. Meanwhile the openings from room to room will all be placed along the walls, close to the windows so that the inhabitant is constantly faced by exposure to the public while the division between rooms will be enhanced by two steps (between service spaces) and three (between living spaces) that will create a total of 17 steps, spiralling up to the bedroom on a second level. The level changes would be subtle and almost unidentifiable in plan, thus deceiving the observer and adding to the thresholds between levels of varying intimacies.
Plan
Ground Floor
First Floor
Section
Model
The Exodus Strip: The Allotments
Outside the boundary walls lies a cursed city. People living in the ruin of the old world; London: convulsing, chocking, breaking under its own weight. Anguished citizens bursting with fear flee to the wall, desperate to enter, to voluntarily turn themselves in; to become prisoners of the Exodus Strip. The wall itself becomes a sanctuary, a utopian island, an idealised micro-city constantly growing in both directions, divided into a series of squares. The archetype is pushed to its limits, its spatial qualities stretched to maximum deformation while retaining the core idea. The first challenge calls for adaptation to a specified lot. The Spiral is placed in the square of the Allotments, where the idealised dwellings of the voluntary prisoners lie, desired by everyone outside the strip. “The houses on these Allotments are built from the most lush and expensive materials (marble, chromium, steel); they are small palaces for the people. On a shamelessly subliminal level this simple architecture succeeds in its secret ambition to instil gratitude and contentment. The Allotments are well supervised so that both external and internal disturbances can be avoided, or at least quickly suppressed. Media intake in this area is nil. Papers are banned, radios mysteriously out-of-order, the whole concept of “news” ridiculed by the patient devotion with which the plots are ploughed; the surfaces are scrubbed, polished, and embellished. Time has been suppressed. Nothing ever happens here, yet the air is heavy with exhilaration.” The Spiral, laid on a plot designated to the director of the Architectural Association, ventures into deeper re-iterations internally as well as externally, moulding its surroundings accordingly. Its evolution to an idealised director’s pavilion will finally result to a complete inversion of its properties when constrained in a courtyard.
III. The Director’s Pavilion: The Allotment
A house divided between a public and private zone, in which the director works, is positioned on a rectangular site, 20x30m. The building becomes a monumental pavilion that stands out from the rest of the campus inviting everyone in. Located at the very far end of the rectangular plot it maximizes the space in front of it. Being a castle on a hill, the director’s pavilion shifts the morphology of the allotment. The building rises above a grass covered field with no obstructions in front of it. In the middle of the plot platforms lead to the main entrance in the form of steps. The entire garden gradually slopes, rising from the street to the entrance; from there on the earth shifts upwards more dramatically into levelled platforms following the increasing height of the rooms. The levelled gardens on the three sides of the building bare a series of tall trees (possible evergreen conifers or junipers referencing the greenery of where Brett Steele grew up; Eugene, Oregon, USA), which engulf the most private areas and act as screens to keep them out of the neighbours’ view. The trees’ density increases with the privacy of each level. Three of the thick walls defining the archetype stretch all the way to the border of the allotment and divide the private zones of the garden from the public slope. The fourth wall, the one from which one enters the pavilion, remains as it is in order for the slope that lies ahead to remain clear for public access. The walls have been altered in order to house the services and increase in thickness sequentially up until the final wall, behind the office, which is now thick enough to successfully accommodate a hidden sanctuary for the director. From the comfort of his private room he can glance through the light well over all rooms surrounding the central void. The light well becomes a viewing prism from which he can control the space and the wall conceals him from public view, thus solving the issue of his exposure in the previous iterations.
Plan
Section
Plan Detail
Section Detail
Model
IV. The Director’s Pavilion: The Courtyard
The archetype, in the way that it has been moulded according to the director, is made to fit a 20 by 10 meter courtyard. There are no windows looking out of the courtyard therefore the entire perimeter is composed of a thick high wall. Located slightly to the right of the centre of the rectangle is a square room which in the previous iterations of the archetype was an inaccessible void, the centre of the Spiral. Previously the movement had been extroverted, now it is the focal point from which one diffuses his moves in the Spiral’s directions once he enters the courtyard pavilion. This square is created by four main walls that come together to form a spiral as in the original archetype. Each wall becomes subsequently thicker starting from the thickest wall (Southern one) which is entered only via Brett’s office and conceals a tight space for the director to lay and rest. This is followed by the western wall containing a cloakroom, kitchen and toilet, open to the most public room. In the next room a bookshelf and printer are contained within the wall, part of the personal assistance’s office. Finally the thinnest wall bears a big bookshelf and is part of the director’s office. All the rooms follow the same lighting sequence: they have no other walls apart form the thick wall and a side of glass panels opening up to small courtyards. Hence each room has a courtyard of varied quality (bushes, grass, pots, flowerbeds etc.) which can be used in different ways. In its final iteration the Spiral has been stretched to its limits. The central idea of a spiralling movement or a spiralling distribution of program is retained along with the four main walls, while every other aspect of it implodes entirely, in a complete state of introversion.
Plan
Section
Model
The light well becomes a viewing prism through which the director can control the space, looking into it from the comfort of his private sanctuary. It also epitomizes the fact that the walls are fundamental dividers of space, yet with the creation of the Spiral, they meet to form this void through which everything is viewed simultaneously. Hence private and public space is divided as well as condensed within the Spiral. A collage on the opposite page depicts this condition.
PLACEMENT The City Masque - Theatre
Part I. The Babushka: Archetype
The Babushka, is a type of a building that is constructed of a series of smaller ‘buildings’ in the interior, a Russian doll of sorts. With the same plan, all three rooms (the exterior and the two smaller rooms inside one another) allow a simple isolation of spaces while allowing an even flow between them. The rooms are all shaped as a square, while different services, such as a small kitchen and bathroom, are contained within the thick walls. The entrance into the building is located on the other side of the entrance into the next room, continuing the pattern that appears on the interior of the structure – giving the inhabitant different levels of isolation. Beforehand, the archetype was developed to accommodate a nomadic inhabitant. The nomad, being a person without a permanent home, can easily adapt to a constantly changing environment. He only requires a few items, which he moves from place to place. Each of the rooms inside the babushka is different, but contains the same items he needs in order to move around. Following from that, the nomad can still move from room to room while remaining in the same building. He has become the static nomad. The idea of the static nomad being hosted by other inhabitants of the archetype was also explored and may be further developed in some of the next iterations.
Plan
Section
1. Columns, 2. Courtyard, 3. Spiral, 4. Rooms, 5. Screen, 6. Frame, 7. Babushka, 8. U-House, 9. Merge, 10. Steps, 11. Core ,12. Cantilever.
The Exodus Strip West - Central - East
Amongst the squares in which the Exodus Strip is divided lie three preserved areas of the old city: The Western tip - “The front-line of Architectural warfare waged on the old city of London”- It is the point of heightened tension, where the inmates of old London face the Voluntary Prisoners, while the Architecture of the Exodus destroys existing structures as the strip expands. In this area, around Paddington, the twelve archetypes confront the condition by being placed along the southern wall of the strip facing the old city. They essentially replace existing façades and become part of the wall itself. The Central area - The famous structures of Regent Street and the area’s grid are preserved. - “The ancient buildings will provide the temporary accommodation for recent arrivals, during the period they are trained as voluntary prisoners” - This square presents an array of blocks determined by the grid, all of which possess courtyards and central enclosures, hidden from street view. Following this feature, the archetypes are set to become parasites, carefully evolving within these enclosures and adapting to their surroundings as much as possible. The Eastern area - Lying before the square of Aggression, the area around Old Street is a wasteland of decaying council estates, overshadowing the rest of the ruins. The estates, mammoth remnants of the collapsed welfare state, haunt the landscape. For this situation a confrontation of the derelict structures is what the archetypes aim to achieve. Each one of them is applied to a separate estate, in an attempt to challenge or re-use the architecture of the social housing system. It is within these areas that the Babushka will develop into:
. The Wall - where subtle tension lies along the divide . The Parasite - where a hidden community of changing social intimacies lives .
The Labyrinth - where exciting migration patterns turn into frustration and loss
Paddington: Situation Plan
0
12.5m
25m
I. West - Paddington The Wall
In one of the most radical iterations, the Babushka at Paddington is flipped from plan to section. In the other words, the fundamental principles of the ‘Russian doll’ configuration are applied in section rather than in plan. The structural members are what make the belts of the Babushka distinctive when viewed in section. In addition, the structure is subject to an interesting border condition i.e. it is set along the wall of the Exodus. Where the new ideal world meets the decaying old one there is bound to be tension and the architecture of the Babushka attempts to explore such a scenario. This is achieved by offering its inner room to the outside world, like a niche in the wall, where people can climb in and gather. Meanwhile the two outer belts are only accessible from the inside. The tension is heighten by the fact that the niche leads nowhere; blocked by remnants of the pre-existing structure. Visitors from the outside are evidently confronted by this gargantuan white gate with the promise of a better life lying beyond it and yet it leads nowhere. The nomads of the Exodus experience a unique level of intimacy with the outside populace, since an only-look-but-do-not-touch situation arises for either side. Two extremely contrasting scenarios meet within the niche of this archetype, which has evolved to address its inhabitants as much as it addresses the greater urban divide.
0
2.5m
5m
0
2.5m
5m
Regent Street: Situation Plan
0
12.5m
25m
II. Central - Regent Street The Parasite
The Babushka of Regent Street is faithful to its original principals in plan. Yet it is very carefully laid out following a subdivided grid based on the existing columns of the car park it is ‘infesting’. In this case the archetype is adapted, as much as possible, in a parasitical way. Its presence is far from its imposing iteration in Paddington since the only hints at its existence are its roofs forming a ziggurat-like structure. It is composed by a mixture of elements that reflect the materiality of the existing surroundings, such as brick, in a typical Flemish bond. The pre-existing materials and structural elements of the site are maintained as much as possible since the archetype is forced to go through a tighter process of adaptation rather than intervention. Its communal lifestyle instigates to varying social intimacies amongst its inhabitants. From the exterior belt to the very core, the relationships change, as it accommodates subsequently smaller groups of nomads. A system of social hierarchy may arise since the core is exclusive to one nomad alone. Migration occurs when new entries to the exodus pour into Regent Street, where they live temporarily until they are allocated elsewhere along the strip. The longer a nomad is in the building the more private his accommodation, up until he is ready to be allocated. Therefore, in this case, the nomads are not in a permanent static state. Overall, the concepts of public interaction and personal space merge into this iteration of the archetype.
0
2.5m
5m
0
2.5m
5m
Old Street: Situation Plan
0
12.5m
25m
III. East - Old Street The Labyrinth
The largest of the three iterations occurs in East London. Within the courtyard of a decaying council estate, the archetype is comfortably accommodated. Instead of directly challenging the building, reminiscent of the crumbling welfare state, the archetype manipulates the perimeter of its courtyard as a mould to cast the shape of its belts. The intervention is, therefore, not as aggressive but nevertheless noticeable. The re-enforced concrete structure retains certain principals of the archetype, namely the skylights, the materiality of the walls and the number of inhabitable belts however it is dispersed over a larger scale and between each interior now lies an additional exterior belt of greenery. It, thus, starts from an enclosed belt and alternates from inside to outside. The luscious gardens, partially viewed over the concrete walls, become a tantalising sight to onlookers since they come in sharp contrast to the grim surroundings. There are two main entrances to it, positioned to allow a certain flow through the spaces. The entry points to the different interiors and gardens are situated to either allow a circulation around a single belt or to become concealed from each other as in the initial case of the archetype. What this iteration attempts to amplify is the spatial experience of the archetype as a maze or labyrinth; the possibility of the nomad to migrate within a space which every time seems different and hence allowing for numerous exciting possibilities, enough for him to become static within the building. Long, narrow corridors lead to small inhabitable spaces complete with the necessary services. Nomads, alone or in groups, can migrate around the building almost without being seen. Along with a constant exhilaration there may very well be feelings of tension and frustration because of the unknown that lies beyond each corridor and around every corner. The intimacy of the communal life is mainly experienced within the gardens yet the complex network of paths makes the space a lot more intimidating.
0
5m
10m
0
5m
10m
Part II. The Cantilever: Archetype
The archetype of the Cantilivers is defined by the very strong directionality of its suspended top floor as well as its hidden underground foot. It can accommodate a condition of bi-polar lives: on its top level a lifestyle of maximum public exposure and intense social interaction, while beneath the ground a retreat for solitude and absolute privacy. The first and lower ground levels are accessed via separate entrances with stairs running through the Cantiliver’s spine. In the case of the former, the entrance is situated in a noticeable position so as to allow easy access to the guests, whereas the door to the later is on the side, hidden from direct view and slightly smaller as well. Hence their is a clear separation between the varying experiences of spatial intimacy. The aspects of intense public exposure versus seclusion are an intriguing subject when developing the archetype on an urban scale.
Plan
Lower Ground
Ground Floor
First Floor
Section
The Cantilever: Mass-housing Version I In the conclusive chapter on the exploration of archetypes, their development and their implications in the wider discussion of spatial intimacy, the subject will directly attempt to address the urban condition, seen once again, within the context of the Exodus Strip. The primary qualities of the Cantilever will be amplified to create a mass-housing complex on the scale of accommodating 1600 inhabitants. The design of the individual units and their collective product will undergo an experimental process in order to propose a possible structure, before reaching a finalised version placed in one of the squares of the Exodus Strip. In order to preserve certain aspects of the cantilever on the larger scale, such as the public moments experienced beneath the suspended floors, the complex develops as a screen-like tower. The units are arranged in 18 blocks of 48 each, adding up to a total of 864 apartments. These blocks are essentially massive steel beams spanning between 4 robust, reinforced concrete service towers. Hence a 3 by 6 grid of blocks is established. Since the blocks have the ability to suspend themselves as beams they do not require a continuous vertical system running through them to the ground, thus allowing for every other block to be offset in the opposite direction to its previous one. Meanwhile all the blocks are separated between each other, ‘floating’ independently, with a distance of 6.5m above and below them. The bi-product of such an action, best described in section, is the creation of a public roof garden on the top of each beam, while above it hovers an entire other block. This, therefore succeeds in re-creating the experience of the public space beneath the cantilevered floor of the archetype on an urban scale. The very top of the complex is a continuation of the service towers in the form of a beam to close the ‘frame’ which loops around the blocks. This area has interesting potentials of turning into a project in itself, an elongated public strip with a strong directionality in its views. A potent feature of the first version of the tower is the attempt to maintain a private terrace for each apartment, leading to a thorough study of the facade. A chequered pattern emerges as a result of the trials due to the units next to each other being shifted a floor up so that the terraces do not coincide. An additional result is that the corridors running through allow for some units to gain access from their bottom floor, others from their top, while surplus space accommodates a new type of single-floor apartments. Finally the overall configuration of the Cantilever tower becomes a square, urban screen of 250 by 250m. The decision for the shape in regards to the first version stems from calculation and proportioning whilst putting the units together and presents a generic solution to the screen since it has not yet been applied to a site. The reasoning behind the shape will gain more clarity with the second version.
Plan
0
25m
50m
Section and Elevation
0
25m
50m
Plan Detail
Level 2
Level 1
Level 0
0
12.5m
25m
Section Detail
0
12.5m
25m
Detailed Plans of Individual Units Type I: Unit with top entry Level -2
Type II: Unit with bottom entry Level 0
Type III: Single-floor Unit Level 0
Level -1
Level 1
Level 0
Level 2
Detailed Sections of Individual Units
The Exodus Strip Placing the Building: The Square of the Baths
The Twelve Archetypes, having been through a long process of evolution, are now ripe enough to pose an urban impact on the Exodus strip and on its scenario of extremities that “wages architectural war on London” and establishes “an Architectural Oasis in the behavioural sink of the city”. By being placed in specific squares of the strip, the archetypes either completely redefine the pre-existing conditions or adapt by taking into account certain attributes of the area. The Cantilever has now been assigned to the Square of the Baths. The Square of the Baths: An architecture of hedonistic proportions, an infinite sex machine of heightened luxury, physical and mental indulgence. “An area of public action and display, a continuous parade of personalities and bodies, a stage where a cyclical dialectic between exhibitionism and spectatorship takes place”. The buildings are “equipped to encourage indulgence and to facilitate the realization of fantasies, and social inventions; they invite all forms of human interaction and exchange.” Arenas, public plazas, water features; Architecture offers itself as a device for comfort and pleasure, in veneration of the spectacle.
The Exodus Strip redesigned - Each archetype takes the form of a mass-housing unit occupying a specified square. In each square from West to East: Courtyard and Paddington Iterations, Frames, Merge, Regent Street Iterations, Columns, Babushka, Cantilever & U-house, Core & Rooms, Steps and Old Street Iterations Screen & Spiral
The Cantilever: Mass-housing Version II The idealised state of maximum public exposure occurs in two screen-like towers which epitomize the Cantilever archetype. This version of the tower, with possibilities of even further development, sees it duplicated on the site so as to face its mirror image across a large square plaza of the exact same dimensions as the building’s facade. The plaza itself is a roof garden that tops a base, containing more inhabitable units, connecting the towers. To maximise the conditions of the square, any kind of privacy in the units has been eliminated. The Beams of apartments are offset to an even greater extent and have a 10m gap between them. There is only one type of unit throughout, with access to it from its middle floor entering the moment of direct exposure. Meanwhile, glass tiles along the roof garden of each of the blocks open up light-wells which penetrate right through the apartments below, framing the lives of those inside. The chequered facade is done away with and all units are set next to each other so that the horizontal qualities of the beams are highlighted, with all their terraces joining into one long balcony. Only separated by walls of glass, life on the terraces is almost entirely public. People view a mirrored lifestyle into the building across the square and are also spectators of the lives of those below, inhabiting the base. In addition, those exposed to the other side of both towers, experience a different level of intensity. They are stripped ‘naked’ before the eyes of the old city. As frustration mounts they are caught between the hollowness of their seemingly ideal utopia and the degradation of the city they left behind. Therefore life is set against a disturbing backdrop. The experiences of the paradisical utopia will soon enough crack open and reveal a rather dystopian reality set to swamp the ideal lifestyle; a reality of a totally voyeuristic society in which sex is so proliferated that it turns dull. Physical intimacy and human relations find themselves constantly scrutinized in the view of each other and the only action left is staring into the lives of the rest, trying to find something new in desperation. Society grows more and more erratic and turns, perhaps not physically, (but even worse), psychologically, violent. The architecture’s sole purpose is to be a window of maximum exposure, a display cabinet where lives are stripped down to their bear minimum for everyone to see. The situation reaches such an extreme that any sort of comfort and sensuality loses every level of intimacy. Such feelings are replaced by fear, shame, pain, paranoia and asphyxiation. An authoritarian society without a dictator (or perhaps Architecture in the place of the dictator). The freedom found in the transparency of architecture becomes the very threat that entraps its inhabitants. Architecture induces no feeling other than intimidation.
Plan
0
25m
50m
Section
0
25m
50m
Plan of the Square of the Baths
0
62.5m
125m
Section of the entire Complex
0
25m
50m
Plan Detail
Level 0
0
12.5m
25m
Section Detail
0
12.5m
25m
Detailed Plan of Individual Unit
Level -1
Level 0
Level 1
Detailed Section of Individual Unit
Model
Courtyard
Frames
Merge
Columns
Babushka
Cantilever & U-House
Core & Rooms
Steps
Screen & Spiral
The Exodus Strip Model In each square from West to East: Courtyard and Paddington Iterations, Frames, Merge, Regent Street Iterations, Columns, Babushka, Cantilever & U-house, Core & Rooms, Steps and Old Street Iterations Screen & Spiral
Bibliography and Credits: - Rem Koolhaas, Elia Zenghelis, “Exodus: The Voluntary Prisoners of Architecture�, in Martin van Schaik (editor), Exit Utopia. - Group work credits to: Ema Kacar, Shereen Doummar, Alexandra Shatalova, Hyerim Lee (Leanna), Jocelyn Arnold, Ybin-Rufus Shen, Alexandra Savtchenko Belskaia, Anna Martsenko, Patricia de Souza Leao Muller, Klaudia Kepinska and Guilherme Azevedo. - Additional images by Nicholas Zembashi