Architecture and New Hierarchy?

ARC3060 Dissertation in Architectural Studies Thesis title: Architecture and New Hierarchy?

Dissertation Tutor: Dr Katie Lloyd Thomas Student name: Shuo Yang Student number: 10384855

Architecture and New Hierarchy?

An analysis of architectural language, spatial relationships and the use of loosely-programmed spaces in SANAA’s Rolex Learning Centre

A dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the degree of BA in Architecture, 2013

Rolex Learning Centre, designed by Kazuyo Sejima + Ryue Nishizawa ( SANAA ) EPFL campus, Lausanne, Switzerland

CONTENTS 3 5

Illustrations Acknowledgements

7

Introduction The question of a new hierarchy in SANAA’s works Hierarchy in architecture Evaluating a new hierarchy in SANAA’s Rolex Learning Centre

11

A new architectural language?

The Rolex Learning Centre: a milestone in SANAA’s works A language of homogenous: An inheritance and development from modernism Distinct boundaries, a minimalised language for maximum linkages

21

A new spatial organisation?

Spatial syntax: measuring the social logic of space Spatial networking: permeable and interconnected structure

31

A new way of using space?

Everyday life, Permanent and temporary uses of space A self-conscious lifestyle: occupying space by creative use Loosely-programmed space: the smooth and the striated

41

Conclusion : A new architecture of spatial liberty

43

Bibliography CD

.1.

Architecture and New Hierarchy?

ILLUSTRATIONS Cover image Inside front cover Introduction cover

Architecture and New Hierarchy? Photograph, Author.

Rolex Learning Centre by SANAA. Photograph, Author.

Inner patio. Photograph, Author.

Chapter 1 A new architectural language?

Figure 1 Figure 1.1 Figure 1.2 Figure 1.3 Figure 1.4 Figure 1.5 Figure 1.6 Figure 1.7 Figure 1.8 Figure 1.9 Figure 1.10 Figure 1.11 Figure 1.12 Figure 1.13 Figure 1.14

A space as a boundary due to vertical difference. Photograph, Author.

Model of undulating floor. Photograph, Author.

Section of Rolex Learning Centre, SANAA, in EL Croquis 155, p. 46 Main entrance through weaving concrete shell. Photograph, Author.

Plan diagram of Kanazawa 21st Century Museum. Sketch, Author.

Plan diagram of Seijo town houses. Sketch, Author.

Plan diagram of Zollverein School of Management and Design. Sketch, Author.

Main floor plan of Rolex Learning Centre, SANAA, in EL Croquis 155, p. 46 Illustration of ‘typical plan’, Plan of 120 Wall St. 1930, in Koolhaas, R., Mau, B. & O.M.A., 1995.

S,M,L,XL. New York: The Monacelli Press, p. 336 Plan diagram of Rolex Learning Centre. Sketch, Author.

Endless house, Frederich Kiesler, in Coates, N., 2012, Narrative Architecture. Chichester: John Wile & Sons Ltd, p. 27 Floor plan of Villa VPRO, MVRDV. [online image] Available at: http://www.carusostjohn.com/ media/artscouncil/working_environments/villa_vpro/index_02.html [Accessed 26 November 2012] Weaving floor in Villa VPRO, MVRDV. [online image] Available at : http://www.flickriver.com/ photos/ettubrute/2358004198/ [Accessed 26 November 2012] Spatial boundaries with simplified language. Sketch, Author.

Patio area defined by lighting. Photograph, Author.

Chapter 2 A new spatial organisation?

Figure 2 Figure 2.1 Figure 2.2 Figure 2.3 Figure 2.4 Figure 2.5 Figure 2.6

Spatial network, a visualisation of the spatial structure of the Rolex Learning Centre. Mapping, Author.

Three types of basic syntaxes. Diagrams, Author.

Diagrams of spatial distribution. Diagrams, Author.

Gamma map of Rolex Learning Centre. Mapping, Author.

Joints of network, Sketch, Author.

SANAA, 21st Century Museum - Kanazawa – Japan [online image]. Available at:http://www. iwan.com/photo_SANAA_21st_Century_Museum_Kanazawa.php?plaat=Kanazawa-SANAA21C-7376.jpg. [Accessed 26 November 2012] Photograph, (2009) ,Baan Iwan.

Educatorium spatial analysis. Dovey, K. & Dickson, S., 2009. In: Architecture and Freedom?

Programmatic innovation in the work of Koolhaas/OMA. [Online] Available at: http://fbe-studiocollaboration.unsw.wikispaces.net/file/detail/Programmatic+In novation+of+Koolhaas-+Dovey+%2BScott.pdf [Accessed 6 November 2012]. .3.

Chapter 3 A new way of using space?

Figure 3 Figure 3.1 Figure 3.2 Figure 3.3 Figure 3.4 Figure 3.5 Figure 3.6

Figure 3.7

A creative user. Photograph, Author.

Noise through open linkage. Photograph, Author.

Lunch time. Photograph, Author.

Route of filming. Location diagram, Author.

Processing of creating own space, Photograph & Film, Author. Scenes from author’s film record of field trip. Available at CD, and also at [Online]: http://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=x7l8fE5FMm4 [Accessed 6 December 2012] Having nap. Photograph, Author.

Rolex Learning Centre Photographic Project, Johann Watzke, Anne-Fanny Cotting & AurĂŠlie Mindel of EPFL, 2010. [online image] Available at: http://www.archdaily. com/161853/rolex-learning-center-photographic-project-johann-watzke-anne-fanny-cotting-aurelie-mindel-of-epfl/ski-learning-2/ [Accessed 6 November 2012] Smooth speca .Photograph, Author.

Conclusion: A new architecture of spatial liberty Conclusion cover The Passage. Photograph, Author.

.4.

Architecture and New Hierarchy?

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The idea of this dissertation developed from my personal interest about the relationship between architecture and users in both writing and design aspects. Therefore, I particularly want to thank my dissertation tutor, Dr. Katie Lloyd Thomas who was my project leader before and also has read through my pervious essays, then encouraging me to finish this piece of work. I especially want to thank to her help about my English writing, and suggesting me to read about Deleuze and Guattari. In addition, I would like to thank Professor Mark Dorrian and Professor Adam Sharr for giving a critical view to a new hierarchy at the early stage of my writing. Thanks to my friend Chen Zheng and my course mate David Boyd who has done proof-reading for me.

Apart from this, I would like to thank the people involed in my photographs and all users in the Rolex Learning Centre; even we do not know each other.

But only due to their activities and the creatively using space, I would have enough evidence to prove my argument.

.5.

SANAA’s Inner patio, in Role Learning Centre

Architecture and New Hierarchy?

INTRODUCTION The question of a new hierarchy in SANAA’s works SANAA (Kazuyo Sejima + Ryue Nishizawa), the globally recognised Japanese architectural collaboration who won the Pritzker Prize at 2010, are renowned for their buildings due to their architectural qualities of simplicity, transparency, immateriality and lightness.1 Such architectural qualities could be identified within many others’ work, such as any Modernists, Miesians and Minimalists.

By looking more closely, however, there is one outstanding characteristic that emerges from their architecture: non-hierarchy. This term has been widely tagged to their projects and practices by various media and critics, and this principle is applied in their architectural programming, building forms, spatial logic and even to the working atmosphere in their office.2 As they say: ‘I do not think that we always try to erase hierarchy. We are not interested in creating a non-hierarchy but in making a new one, which is different from the existing hierarchy. We think that hierarchy is limited; a kind of ready-made product and that sort of ready-made response is neither creative nor useful. If you do something new, you can discover different things and new ways to approach them. …... We are not interested in nonhierarchy but in exploring other possibilities, other types of relations. In short, inventing new hierarchies.‘ 3

The notion of this term has been clarified by Nishizawa himself to answer a question about SANAA’s disappeared hierarchy. He claims that the creation of a new hierarchy is in order to replace existing ones. Certainly, there are some prevailing architectural hierarchies already in the world, although we might not notice them as we all have lived within them in our daily lives. But what is the expected hierarchy, what exactly is the new one, and what are the differences between them?

Hierarchy in architecture Hierarchy, standing as a part of our common sense, systemically constructs both the physical and social worlds due to distinct classes in nature. In Oxford Dictionaries, the definition of this noun is: a system in which members of an organisation or society are ranked according to relative status or authority.4 It is a systemic organisation within levels or classification that are well ordered by criteria of normative characters and entirely subordinated by relationships of authority, impact, or control. 5

1 Cortes, J. A., Architectural topology, El Croquis, 139, p. 35 2 Blau, E., Inventing New Hierarchies, http://www.pritzkerprize.com/sites/ default/files/file_fields/field_files_ inline/2010_essay.pdf [Accessed 23/05/2012] 3 Nishizawa, R., Liquid Playgrounds, interview with Sejima. K, and Nishizawa. R, Cristina Díaz Moreno and Efrén García Grinda, (ed.), El Croquis, 121/122, p. 25 4 Oxford Dictionaries. “hierarchy”.

Oxford University Press. [Online] Available at: http://oxforddictionaries. com/definition/english/hierarchy [Accessed 26 November 2012].

5 Pumain, D., Hierarchy in natural and social sciences. (Dordrecht: Springer, 2006) p. 1

.7.

‘HIERARCHY As he often pointed out to Anne, office blocks containing as many as thirty thousand workers functioned smoothly for decades thanks to a social hierarchy as rigid and as formalized as an anthill’s, with an incidence of crime, social unrest, and petty misdemeanors that was virtually nil.’ 6

From Koolhaas’ words, hierarchy, specifically the usage of the term in modern society, is associated with static orders such as a pyramid, which distributes diverse social members within different levels by authority of law. But in fact, there is not just one type of hierarchical structure in the world, and certainly social hierarchy is diverse depending upon different agendas of culture, politics, economics and ideology etc.7 Because of these various conditions, it is necessary to know what are the precise criteria to formulate a hierarchy. Generally speaking, hierarchy is still an issue about order and subordination arranging within different levels and varied relations by criteria. For instances, in the Christian Church administration, a hierarchical structure can be embodied into the obedient relationship between positions (known as “The Hierarchy” without any extra definition until 19th century)8. This is a typical social status of people in one organisation by religious authority.

Architectural hierarchy, or spatial hierarchy, demonstrates an image of relevant reflections which came from the social situation of contemporary or previous world. For instance, in the Forbidden City, which was the imperial palace in China for 500 years, its spatial order represented imperial authority which is the criteria for architectural hierarchy. To specify, a sequence of empty and huge squares with an axial configuration and gradually increasing areas, demonstrates a strict atmosphere in front of main buildings, and this spatial experience deliveries a great impact and control of Chinese imperial authority. Then we can find the approach to produce spatial hierarchy is to create differentiations which with the comparison between these spatial distinctions range between major-minor, openclosed, simple-complex, public-private etc.9 In a typical dwelling, according to our common sense, the top of the hierarchy is always the most private space, such as a master bedroom or toilet, and this hierarchical structure contains several journeys from public to semi-public to semi-private then to private. In another case, for public buildings, the order is instead concerned with approaching a destination, but the principles are still similar, that the transition and the heart of space represent the essence of hierarchical difference and relationships.10 These differentiations between the criteria of architectural hierarchy reflect on issues at to different scales, such as material types, spatial levels, human activities etc.

Evaluating a new hierarchy in SANAA’s Rolex Learning Centre It is hard to imagine removing every differentiation between hierarchical structures to create an equally built environment, or inventing an absolutely new language for hierarchy without any criteria. We might thus ask then, can SANAA’s buildings construct a new spatial hierarchy? Or a new social hierarchy? Or both? What is their approach?

Furthermore, is the new hierarchy just an illusion under SANAA’s self-delusion? Or a radical invention contributing to architectural theories? Or a kind of hybrid of different influences?

In this thesis, I aim to evaluate this new hierarchy. The study is structured by three different points of view to their new hierarchy, from architectural language, to spatial organisation, then to the ways of using space, with certainly progressive relations. To provide a detailed analyses and critical insight, this paper will focus on one main building as .8.

Introduction

Architecture and New Hierarchy?

case study, the Rolex Learning Centre (2005-2010). It performs as a multiprogrammatic campus hub demonstrating SANAA’s typological vocabularies, tracing out the archetype for their architectural hierarchy, and indentifying the main criteria and approaches behind their thoughts.

The first chapter ‘architectural languages’ looks at the physical structure of Rolex Learning Centre. Its language seems as a sort of hybrid of simplified components from modernity, typical column grids, haphazard courtyards and an undulating floor. Compared to Koolhaas’ ‘typical plan’, a language of column grid developed from modernity was found in the building. Meanwhile, from the Endless House and the Villa VRPO, the language of weaving form could be traced as a process of revolution of dynamic language rather an invention. Furthermore, the boundaries between spaces express various minimalist languages, through identifying these languages, some aspects of new language of spatial boundary could be illustrated on plan, but these fragmental languages still cannot be considered as enough to establish a new hierarchy.

So, it seems difficult to see an absolutely new hierarchy in this way. Paying attention to the circulation and spatial structure, I use spatial syntax as an alternative critique (gamma-analysis)11 to re-examine the building in the second chapter.

Generally, this method is used to validate more about social relationships with a wide range from single house to urban planning, which is considered as the notion of spatial structure rather the physical construction or architectural language. The spatial configuration of the Rolex Learning Centre is illustrated by my gamma map and detailed diagrams. Observing from an intuitional picture into an analytic insight, on the mapping, the spatial organisation of one building is similar to a scaled-down urban environment with several buildings interconnected together.

This interconnected network contains not just only one prevailing hierarchical structure but numerous. Obviously, by recomposing of existing syntaxes, a new spatial hierarchy occurs here to inform a permeable network of circulation.

In the third chapter, exploring the Rolex Learning Centre through spending time there and making a film, is aiming to record and understand the way of using space by different people in reality. A long time field study provides fist-hand information for observing diverse methods of creatively using loosely-programmed spaces.

The activities I observed seemed to suggest diversity designed by the users rather than disorganised chaos. Then by relating to Deleuze and Guattari, we could have a clear interpretation of these loosely-programmed spaces regarding to users’ wills. Thus, as a creative user, a new hierarchy is formulated in their social life.

6 Koolhaas, R., S, M, L, XL. (New York: The Monacelli Press, 1995) p. 746 7 Hiller, B. & Hanson, J., The social logic of space. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1984)p. 27 8 Pumain, D., op. cit., p. 3 9 Clark, R, H., & Pause, M., Precedents in architecture: Analytic Diagrams, Formative Ideas, and Partis. (New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, 2005) p. 7 10 Unwin, S., Analysing architecture.

(Abingdon: Rouledge, 2009) pp.209214 11 Hiller & Hanson, op. cit., p. 143.

.9.

Architecture and New Hierarchy?

A new architectural language?

Figure 1 Space as a boundary due to vertical difference .11.

Figure 1.1 Model of undulating floor, Red dots as mian entrance points

Figure 1.2 Section of Rolex Learning Centre

Figure 1.3 Main entrance through weaving concrete shell .12.

A new architectural language?

Architecture and New Hierarchy?

The Rolex Learning Centre: a milestone in SANAA’s works The Rolex Learning Centre is located in the campus of EPFL (École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne) in Switzerland. It contains numerous public elements including a multi-purpose hall, a library, several offices, restaurant and cafes. It is a one storey building (dimensions are 166.5m*121.5m in plan), and has various accesses into the building from different directions. Unlike a general urban block, however, these accesses do not only exist in the edges of rectangle, but mainly at the patios inside the building (Fig. 1.1) approached by wandering underneath the floating concrete floor (Fig. 1.2). In addition, this undulating box not only delivers several inner connections between external patios and interior (Fig. 1.3), but also creates an artificial topographical landscape inside the building. This invention produces the vertical communication for people in one space without changing floor.

Furthermore, the Rolex Learning Centre is relatively more representative of SANAA’s typology, and has the numerous same genotypes of their other buildings.

For instances, in Kanazawa 21st Century Museum (1999-2004), as same as in public life, they both have the multi-options accesses connecting to surroundings, but with inverting architectural forms between circle and rectangle. (Fig. 1.4) In Seijo town houses (2005-2007), to produce interaction between exterior and interior, patios are enclosed by buildings themselves and are shared both visually and functional. (Fig. 1.4) In Zollverein School of Management and Design (20032006), as same educational programme, rectangular plans contain with a nonaxial and loose configuration to help active campus life (Fig. 1.6). Compared with these buildings, the Rolex Learning Centre definitely is one of the most complex buildings in SANAA’s architectural programming, and able to interpret different types of agendas, and also as a campus hub, the public activities are dynamic and rich enough to produce a large amount of research.12

Figure 1.4 Kanazawa 21st Century Museum

Figure 1.5 Seijo town houses

Figure 1.6 Zollverein School of Management and Design

A language of homogenous: An inheritance and development from modernism By looking at main floor plan of the building (Fig. 1.7, next page), we see what appears to be a modern open plan and simplified physical structure. Then, we should probably begin by talking about modernist movement and the typical plan. Since the structure of ‘Dom-Ino’ unit expressed by Le Corbusier, the ‘fivepoints’ has been produced as new architectural syntax13, and we can observe quite clearly that the equalled concrete components neutralise the different levels of structure, subverting the pervious structural hierarchy of classic tradition, such as a plan of basilica. Furthermore, this idea has been developed as ‘typical plan’ existing until now. ‘Typical plan’ is the term created by Rem Koolhaas and ‘it is

12 EL Croquis 155, p.31 13 Frampton, K., Modern Architecture, A critical history. (London: Thames&Hudson,2007) p.157

.13.

Figure 1.7 Main Floor Plan of Rolex Learning Centre .14.

A new architectural language?

Architecture and New Hierarchy?

.15.

Figure 1.10 Frederich Kiesler, Endless House, large model, 1959

Figure 1.11 MVRDV, Villa VPRO, 1997 Floor plan, only top-right part is weaving.

Figure 1.12 MVRDV, Villa VPRO, 1997 Weaving Floor .16.

A new architectural language?

Architecture and New Hierarchy?

zero-degree architecture, architecture stripped of all traces of uniqueness and specificity’14. Koolhaas claims that the typical plan is an ideal model for commercial building and offices (Fig. 1.8). Due to it housing the most formless programme— business, the typical plan acts as a platform for every variant of activity that the occupant could need.15 It is efficient to offer various possibilities for different occupants in order to make them more financially beneficial. The usage of the typical plan is to minimise mass, in this case, the physical structural elements, to obtain maximum space severed as a commercial aim.

Figure 1.8 Koolhaas’ ‘Typical Plan’

Actually, in terms of physical components, hierarchical difference has been reduced. Mass production produces a homogenous structural language; that has been considered as a development of modernism (Fig. 1.9). There is nothing exceptional about the architectural language of SANAA’s buildings; we can say their ‘genotype’ is modernism, which makes it difficult to place them into the debates of contemporary style language.16 In the Rolex Learning Centre, there is only one type of steel column, two types of facade panel, one continuous concrete floor and timber roof, even the area of building’s outline is around 20,000 m2 big. There is no structural difference between parts of the building and it shares identified a similar structural language as a ‘typical plan’. So, at the perspective of physical structure, the centre does not display a brand-new language, and also there is rare to point out something innovative from their other works.

The potential structural highlight for the Rolex Learning Centre is the continuous weaving concrete, and this typological usage has been applied in their Teshima Art Museum as well (2004-2010). A weaving shell structure represents a natural landscape from surroundings context, and alternatively the idea behind this language is to combine the functions between both floor and wall, then mixing them into one piece, creating a spatial continuity. From an early work, the endless house (1947-1961) by Friedrich Kiesler (Fig. 1.10) which is an un-built project, existing in only drawings and models, a curving shell presents outstanding advantages for a continuous place with clear arrangement. The development of this architectural language stopped at a conceptual point rather than practices at that time, but still expresses a tectonic method aiming to generate elastic spatial relationships and frame movement of human activities.17 In 1997, in the Villa VPRO by MVRDV (Fig. 1.11), this language has been realised into the practical condition. In this case, the building presents a dynamic place for interaction, and the architects consider it as a series of place and surfaces, flexible enough to develop over time, while specific enough to give a direction to the future growth.18 Regarding to human movement and activities as well, a mixture is formulated by both typical plan and dynamic surface (Fig. 1.12) as the result of Villa VPRO, and the weaving surface just one small part of plan. Consequently, the undulating concrete floor in the Rolex Learning Centre should be distributed as same category

Figure 1.9 Plan Diagram

14 Koolhaas, R., S, M, L, XL. (New York: The Monacelli Press, 1995) p. 335 15 Ibid, p. 337 16 Allen, M., Control yourself! Lifestyle curation in the work of Sejima and Nishizawa. In: E. Choi& M.Trotter, eds.

Architecture at the edge of everything else. (Cambridge, Mass: The MIT Press, 2010) p. 24 17 Unwin, S., Twenty buildings every architect should understand, (Abingdon: Routledge, 2010) p. 59 18 Allen, S., Artificial Ecology, in Assemblage 34, (Cambridge, Mass: the MIT press, 1997) p. 109

.17.

Figure 1 (chapter cover image) Space as a boundary due to vertical difference

Figure 1.13 Spatial boundaries with simplified boundary.

Top: glazing facades,service desk and vertical difference Down: equalled boundaries

Figure 1.14 Patio area defined by lighting. .18.

A new architectural language?

Architecture and New Hierarchy?

of structural elements as the usage in Villa VPRO. According to those, it is difficult to say this language of weaving floor is the criteria for a new hierarchy.

Distinct boundaries, a minimalised language for maximum linkages However, one important distinguishable feature of the Rolex Learning Centre plan however, is the disassociation between the physical structure and programmatic configuration. In comparison to the VPRO, the programming of the learning centre is more organic to everywhere. But because some programmes should be permanent as campus hub, there has minimalised language to define a single space in different approaches (Fig. 1.13). As an example, the food court in the middle bottom of the building is framed by glazing facades and service desk, but also the slope connections both sides which change the angle of visual connection by vertical difference. (Fig. 1) These slope connections are identified as a type of conceptual division, and this division is independent of any physical boundaries.

Each single open space has been defined in not just Miesians’ partitions but also these district divisions. One more example for spatial definition is that patios are connected freely under the undulating concrete floor, but they still have been defined by lighting and reflection. Direct sunlight, their reflection from patios façade and some art installation create a sense of field for each patio to recognise as one individual place (Fig. 1.14). So far, the diversity of spatial patterns has been created, and this configuration is fairly uncertainty and in a state of flux, so that cannot identify their archetype intuitively.

Consequently, in terms of architectural language, we have seen an image traced out from existing modern forms. In the modernity, they already have this language about equalied and united the of phycial compoments making them identical.

SANAA adopt thess languages from there, so it can not be a criteria of a new hierarchy, even if it can be seen as a lesshierarcal language.

.19.

Architecture and New Hierarchy?

A new spatial organisation?

Figure 2 Spatial network, a visualisation of the spatial structur .21.

Linear plan

Fammed or Treeshape Plan

Ringy or Permeable Network Plan

Linear Syntax

Fammed or Treeshape Syntax

Ringy or Permeable Network Syntax

Figure 2.1 Three types of basic syntaxes

.22.

A new spatial organisation?

Architecture and New Hierarchy?

Spatial syntax: measuring the social logic of space We have seen the architectural language is still traditional from modernity. In this chapter, I suggest the real invention is spatial organisation which is a key to create a new hierarchy. To explore this idea, I am using spatial syntax as critique to analyse the Rolex Learning Centre. The spatial syntax is an analytic methodology developed by Hillier and Hanson which is regarded to assess a deep social structure of architecture.19 From this point of view, building activates to establish a social system as spatial practices; architecture mediates social reproduction through spatial genotype. These are merely cluster of spatial fragment, then which structured in certain designs with syntactic principle of sequence and adjacency.

In this thesis, the analytic critique is loosely adopted that translates the building plan into diagrams and map of spatial structure.

Figure2.1 illustrates the basic syntaxes in a similar plan. Due to different ways for opening positions and connections, we have three types of elemental syntaxes.

A linear syntax demonstrates spatial direction with only one choice, and treeshape syntax or called fanned syntax provides a space with several pathways to different places where no connections in between them. By connecting the spaces in second level, a fanned syntax is changed into to network syntax, and this permeable structure provides multi-pathways not just for space in first level, but also the same depth level. These three key syntaxes construct spatial structure into a ‘gamma map’20 to represent architecture, and the map traces out how human movement and circulation. A key point of spatial syntax is the difference of domination between a fanned syntax and network one. Social connection and circulation are dominated by key access points in the fanned syntax; however, in the network structure there are more possibilities through one space by different lateral pathways, with dispersed spatial control. Therefore, for example, one entrance hall in a building and some clusters connected with it represent a fanned shape with high control of spatial hierarchy in gamma map, and all circulations and daily life have been controlled by the main hall. In contrast, the network syntax as a permeable structure makes the pathways more flexible and diverse, and the circulation of daily using is much less controlled by architecture.

On the other hand, the gamma map also traces out the depth of overall spatial structure in to different levels, from exterior to the interior where to pass the most habitable places. It is a clearly organisational hierarchy about space, which displays the social relationship between occupant and visitors. This characteristic is easy to see from some disciplinary institutions, such as prison, hospital, whose structure is constantly under surveillance. According to Hillier’s distinction between deep and shallow,21 a deep structure presents typical hierarchy and social status, while a shallow one produces opportunities for new social relationships.

Figure 2.2 Diagrams of spatial distribution.

19 Hiller, B. & Hanson, J., op. cit , p. 27.

20 Ibid, p.147.

21 Hiller, B., Space is machine, a configurational theory of architecture. ( Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1996) p.7

.23.

FOLD OUT

Figure 2.2 Diagrams of spatial distribution.

1 - level 0 Exterior of building

4 - level 1 Entrance points

7 - level 3 Spaces are almost interconnected

2 - level 0.5 Space under shell

5 - level 1Excluded outdoor

8 - level 4

3 - level 0.5 Patios

6 - level 2 Spaces begin to interconnect

9 - level 5, the deepest space

.24.

A new spatial organisation?

Architecture and New Hierarchy?

It is worth noticing that this structuralist critique has been used to examine various starchitects, with the aim of understanding the spatial realm without the impact of their own statements. For instance, the examination of Peter Eisenman’s eight houses, removes his theoretical skins, puts the architecture back to a practical situation, and reveals their spatial organisation just as same genotypes as most common home.22 Kim Dovey has as well criticised the freedom in the works of Koolhaas by adapting this critique. Dovey argues that the freedom is just illusions by the architect’s cleverness to divert critical attention. Actually, in his building there is still clarity of dominance without threatening the regime.23 According to these critical revelations, we could ask does SANAA’s new hierarchy have the theoretical similarity to the ’freedoms’ by Koolhaas? What we will reveal from SANAA’s spatial structure under this critique?

Spatial networking: permeable and interconnected structure Regarding the elemental syntaxes and the spatial boundaries in last chapter, a series of diagrams is firstly to describe spatial relationality and processes of circulation in the major spaces (Fig. 2.2). In these diagrams, the analysis illustrates a spatial structure that is easily accessible, shallow and highly interweaving, spaces could be accessed within five depths in total. At beginning, a squared surrounding is annotated as Level 0 to represent an ideally entire exterior (Fig. 2.21). The building is accessible from four directions and five thresholds in total to the space underneath the weaving concrete (Fig. 2. 2-2). The spaces underneath is distributed by numerous patios to be identified as Level 0.5 (Fig. 2. 2-3). This level is a transition between perfect exterior and interior, because these courtyards are shared both visually and functionally with the interior, and surrounded by internal space without actually entering the sheltered space. In addition, these patios still could be approached individually from outside area without crossing through another patio.

In Level 1 (Fig. 2. 2-4), the first place to enter the building, there are 14 entrances for connecting from level 0 and 0.5 in total, six of them at the edges of building and eight at the patios; and they all work as fire exits at the same time. In this level, there are ten spaces and have the same ground height as the external area without a significant change of vertical difference (Fig. 2. 2-5). Remarkably, the space does not entirely work as a normal first level in a building which always typically would be a transitional space, like a foyer, an entrance hall, or simple sub-passage; in actuality only four spaces act as pure transitions among the ten places in the Centre. Other spaces have one major function with these accesses as a border of their own circulation, such as the lecture hall, food court, and office rooms. This tactic is more similar to a strategy of an individual function building with the key

22 Major, M, D.,& Sarris, N. Cloak and dagger theory, http://www.spacesyntax.net/symposia-archive/SSS2/ SpSx%202nd%20Symposium%20 99%20-2003%20pdf/2nd%20Symposium%20Vol%201%20pdf/20%20 Major%20%26%20Sarris%20300.pdf (accessed: 06/11/2012) 23 Dovey, K., &Dickson, S. Architecture and freedom? Programmatic innovation in the work of Koolhaas/OMA, http:// fbe-studiocollaboration.unsw.wikispaces.net/file/detail/Programmatic+Innovation+of+Koolhaas-+Dovey+%2BScott.pdf (accessed: 06/11/2012)

.25.

Level 5 the deepest space

Level 4

Level 3 Interconnections among main passage nodes by crossed network syntax

Level 2 A dramatic increase of room by fanned syntax.

Level 1 First room when entering building with only 2 connections among same level.

Level 0.5 Patios and space under floating floo with flux of movement. Between absolute exterior and interior.

Level 0

Passage node

Soundings, space out of building block.

Programmed node Open connections Doorways

Figure 2.3 Gamma map of Rolex Learning Centre.

Figure 2.2 .26.

A new spatial organisation?

Architecture and New Hierarchy?

space in the beginning. In addition, compared with other levels, the 1st level contains less network syntax in the same level due to a loose configuration, only few of them in the network syntax.

The second levels (Fig. 2. 2-6) are mainly connected by tree-shape syntax from the first level 1, but the differentiation to last level is, almost all passages spaces connecting with each other, changing to complex network syntax. The word ‘passage’ here is to represent the big and empty spaces in the building where working as programmatic transition but also some other uses which will discuss next chapter. This spatial structure makes the architecture more permeable from different entrances by sharing passages. It is also important in the second level that there is already a major fanned syntax appearing which is one of main enclosed office area. As well, the area of space at first and second level is almost 3/4 of the entire ground floor area which makes the building shallower. At the third level (Fig. 2. 2-7), spaces are still connected in a similar syntax to the second level, but with more linear syntax appearing as vertical connection to basements (the space underground is not included in this analysis). After this level, only extremely small area is still left for next two levels (Fig. 2. 2- 8&9), and it means the connections are still through open connections and doorways. Indeed, the spaces in the fifth level are connected by a fanned syntax and network syntax. They are all linked to open connections with almost absolute visual permeability by using the language of vertical difference. These spaces are a part of major learning space in library area but also the highest level in the spatial structure. It is logical for a library building to put the quietest space in the top level of the spatial hierarchy.

Transforming these diagrams into a complex gamma maps (Fig. 2. 3) clarifies the spatial structure behind the Rolex Learning Centre. It is clear enough to see at this time, this spatial structure is primarily composed by the network syntax and fanned syntax. It almost occurs in every spatial level excluded the linear syntax inbetween level 0.5 and 1. But if we only start looking at this map from the first level without level 0 and 0.5, then it could be explained as a set of buildings internally connected with individual access to the inter-relative patios. In the other word, the centre is like a merging of numerous of clusters of buildings from the same level by network syntax, and the inner connections amongst them exist in almost every level. This approach of interconnecting clusters seems like combining smaller fanned or network syntax together to greater network syntax. Furthermore, we found the fanned syntax almost connects to the place with relevant clear programmes, or we can say heavily-programmed space, such as study room or office spaces. In contrast, the mainly network structure are existing in-between the passage spaces we mentioned before, and these spaces are the key joints for connecting entire spatial structure as network, though spaces themselves are only loosely programmed. .27.

Figure 2.4 (above) Spatial joint of network, Rolex learning Centre Figure 2.5 (down) SANAA, 21st Century Museum Kanazawa – Japan

Figure 2.6 Educatorium spatial analysis Educatorium Utrecht by OMA

.28.

A new spatial organisation?

Architecture and New Hierarchy?

However, most importantly, we have seen the absence of linear syntax in spatial organisation, and this syntax is a traditional usage to create centres of power by controlled circulation.24 The absence causes less hierarchical syntax in the building, and the configuration in gamma map about the equal multi-entrance is neither centripetal nor centrifugal arrangement from modernity.25 This is indeed a conceptual schism to the modernity, and the only key centre of this map is the surroundings, which is no architecture itself at all. Even the spaces in the top of map can still keep visual connections with the surroundings. It is a new and heterogeneous spatial organisation with the basic syntaxes. That is why people feel it is non-hierarchy for they cannot find a mainline of spatial circulation they can predict. Accompanying with the gamma map, we can understand the detailed information of their equally permeable circulation by interconnecting clusters as new hierarchy, but it is not non-hierarchy.

Besides, this circulation happens in SANAA’s other buildings even with opposite architectural forms. In the 21st century museum of contemporary art in Kanazawa, Japan (Fig. 2.4&2.5) circulation does not exist as linear syntax as well. But like a street grid, equally around by various programmed volumes, just like water dissolving salt, the circulation acts as a chemical solution absorbing and connecting different functional boxes, which allows people wandering inside the breath within building at will. By own chosen paths and activities, the function of simple circulation has been changed to a social stage.

Definitely, for SANAA, a permeable network is their principal design tactic for spatial organisation, but it looks like a kind of similar strategy mentioned by Rem Koolhaas in his design statement at the Educatorium at Utrecht. However, as Dovey’s argument in his critique,26 the gamma map of Koolhaas’ building still illustrates out an unequal spatial structure (Fig. 2.6). The spatial structure has as well multi-entrance by linear syntax and shallow level, but, the main foyer is the only one centrifugal domination connecting with other programmes by fanned syntax, where other passages in the same level also connect to the main foyer.

The overall structure is like a traditional centrifugal hierarchy, attached with a few more linear transitions aside, which cannot completely reduce the sense of hierarchy. It is obvious here that SANAA’s passages are bigger and has multiple linkages and pathways as a part of compact network, which is totally different to Koolhaas’. Even their buildings have some similar architectural language, throughout the structure of spatial organisation, or called it ‘spatial genotype”, their spatial hierarchy could be identified. Hence, we can claim, this network structure is a new creation to achieve a new spatial hierarchy. But, there are still questions about what happens in these passages? Whether the passages only serve as a transitional space? What other uses could occur in their passages?

24 Dovey, K., &Dickson, S. , op. cit., p. 6 25 Frampton, K., op. cit., p. 236 26 Dovey, K., &Dickson, S. , op. cit.,p. 10

.29.

Architecture and New Hierarchy?

A new way of using space?

Figure 3 A creative user.

.31.

Figure 3.1 Open linkage from Library reception to cafe and main entrance

Figure 3.2 A A programmatic extension by temperary activities: eating. Lunch time, outside study tables change to dining tables .32.

A new way of using space?

Architecture and New Hierarchy?

Everyday life, Permanent and temporary uses of space Once spatial organisation changed, would people automatically use space in a different way? As what Hill claims, Architecture is made by design and by use.27 To discover what else happen in the passage spaces, in this chapter will look for a new hierarchy in terms of the way of using space in real life, rather just by programmatic proposals from design. Unlike architectural language and spatial organisation which could be read and represented easily on paper, the way of using space should be better observed and record in site, and any prediction from distances would be not evidential enough to demonstrate the truth of new hierarchy. So I have to change my position from an analytic observer to a user, then to discover how this architecture made by use and sharing my real experience.

Therefore, without only a rush visit for taking photos of the building, I have done a two days field trip visiting the Rolex Learning Centre, and the aim of this long visit was looking into how people use space not only as programmatic proposals but what else, something new and distinct. According to different types of users and time, spaces are defined and used by totally different approaches, and then I would demonstrate some quite distinct observations to have an insight about the new way of using space.

Firstly, a voice from a librarian, ‘it is quite noisy’, we were chatting at reception.

The noise comes from the café and main entrance, which sits directly facing the library reception, connected via an open passage. The reason for her complaint is that at whatever time of day, there are always quite a lot of people around. I heard people talking at a café table; asking at the information desk, gathering around the entrance and even more chatting from the passage (Fig. 3.1). It is a continuous noise but not so clear, actually just a sort of voice of chaos, or a vivid atmosphere.

On the contrary, the space behind the reception is one of main study area where there is not too much noise. The library reception is working as both gradual transition and resistance of sound at the same time. Therefore, people start feeling the impact of voice from the space next to it, rather just the place they stayed in. They notice how loud it could be, and rethink how strong the inter-relations between spaces.

The ‘chaos’ people felt is not only acoustic; it is also noticeable though smell.

During lunch time, due to the building’s open plan, the smell of various foods is strong in the air from both food court and café to all spaces around. It acts like an olfactory alarm, notify people deep in study that it is time for lunch (Fig. 3.2).

This temporary spatial quality is not a wonderful or dramatic experience, but an extremely common part in our daily life and even a bit chaotic. In contemporary architectural design, architects always try to make a clear proposal for programme and reduce inter-effect between different agendas if there is no necessary relation

27 Hill, J., Weather architecture, in Architecture, the subject is matter (London:Routledge,2001) p. 71

.33.

Figure 3.4 Processing of creating own space, 10 scenes above are from vedio record. Video is availble in CD and YouTube Link in the illustrations list. .34.

A new way of using space?

Architecture and New Hierarchy?

in between, and also produce impressive and unique spatial experience to make building outstanding. However in the Rolex Learning Centre, SANAA’s tactic is to create a built environment serving for various events in everyday life that mixes different programmes and experiences together by gradual passages in an expected chaotic condition. Indeed, this is not an absolute chaos, and definitely it is pre-considered by SANAA, to contain spatial relation as much as possible.

Another observation in the Rolex Learning Centre is about the passage. From paragraphs above, we see the real usages of these passages are such a wider container for various contents. So once a space is becoming more extensive and having more relative contents, such as any sensory influence, then what is the users’ reflection would be interesting to know. Here is a relevant example in my own video record, which documented different routes by wandering inside and around the building. I began this scene at the point beside the inner patio in western part of building (Fig. 3.3, point A), and in first few seconds I walked around the area in front of bookshop with some small study area around. After half a minute, we see two students picking up two bean bags on the top of the sloped passage. In the building bean bags are everywhere, mainly at the passages, but even between bookstacks, students could use them to create their own leisure space. In the video they carry these bags going through three passages from B to C (Fig. 3.3), and then arrive at their ideal position which has shading under sunlight and view of Lake Geneva (Fig. 3.4). Significantly, their activities are not just simple movement. This is a process of creating space or personalising space. Behind it, there is a series of actions, finding a site, looking for material, transporting them and constructing in site. This process is totally different to find out a seat in study area which is to fit into a ready-made space. Unlike that architects define and design every single programmes and furniture of a space, the Rolex Learning Centre is a field with opportunities for occupants to make their own definition of space. Within these series of activities, a simple passage is becoming a heterogeneous space, and no longer easy to identify by purposed programme, but a loosely-programmed space. Thus, we could see this directly that SANAA’s purpose is to encourage users participating into architecture with ownership, to apply their own knowledge to create space, just as they can chose different routes from the network circulation.

Figure 3.3 Route of video ( left page), south western part of building

Compared to the analysis of spatial syntax, we shift our attention from spatial relationality and circulation to detailed events and possible programmes by the advantage from field trip of the building. With this point of view from permanent to temporary, the truth of new hierarchy is becoming clear under vivid site within the richness of activities and events. All permanent architectural languages and spatial organisation construct the precondition for diversity of people life. So even in same location with similar activities, people will still performance due to their own preference, such as the direction they are facing to, the level of the enclosure .35.

Figure 3.6 (above) Johann Watzke, Anne-Fanny Cotting & AurĂŠlie Mindel, Rolex Learning Center Photographic Project, 2010.

Figure 3 (down) (chapter cover image) Another occupant with her way using the same space. There is no programmatic idea of accessible ramp in her mind. Photography, Shuo Yang

.36.

A new way of using space?

Architecture and New Hierarchy?

or openness of their pot, even different programmes (Fig. 3.5). These factors of public-private, axial are almost driven by prevailing architectural hierarchy before, but now there is a chance for people to create space by themselves. So actually, we see an image of human, with their various ways of occupying space.

A self-conscious lifestyle: occupying space by creative use Therefore, how we can interpret this new way of using by people’s own will?

According to Hill, ‘to use a building is to alter it, either by physical transformation, occupying it in unexpected ways or conceiving it new.’28 To daily occupants, university students and staff, the building would not be a maze, conversely, they do use the building as a part of everyday life, and then they know the shortcut to somewhere, or where is their own best inhabitable place by using beanbags. So, without architects’ guiding, they have already use and recreate space with their ownership. In the other side, to visitors, the building would be visited probably just as a trip with exploration and discovery by wandering. The Rolex Learning is the ‘carpet of snow’29 in Hill’s word, designed by use. From this point of view, people performance inside the building, and the building acts like a blank theatre stage.

Under an existing condition, people come to this stage, yet they recreate their own lives and reuse some ready-made material (Fig. 3.6 & Fig. 3). Actually, the ‘stage’ of Rolex Learning Centre is combined by their permeable architectural language and networked spatial organisation. Apparently, the building by SANAA cares for how persons live their lives.30 Relating to Sejima’s own statement for this building, ‘the space for a chance to start communicating’,31 people communicate with others but the space as well. They are no more controlled by a fixed programme inside the space.

If the user is a key to understand SANAA’s new hierarchy, then we can see from this strategy that, to highlighting users, it is the reason why they are using a minimalist architectural language in the first chapter. The architectural language is just means to achieve the new hierarchy but not the hierarchy itself. Networking the space works as an activator to accelerate the occurrence of activities. Finally just waiting for inhabitants, their participation consist an aesthetic performance about inhabitation then producing an unpredicted way for using space.32 Once a user dominates SANAA’s architecture, then a new hierarchy emerges by people’s own creation and understanding, ultimately new hierarchy is order by the criteria of individual activities, no more by a bigger framework to unite our life.

Figure 3.5 Taking nap in same spot, but still have their preference.

28 Ibid, p. 71 29 Ibid, A carpet of snow can be a bed or become a chair. p. 71 30 Allen, M., .op. cit., p. 24 31 Sejima, K., EPFL Rolex Learning Centre designed by SANAA. Her talks start at 1:10. Upload by Rolex Learning Centre on 17 Feb 2010. http://www. youtube.com/watch?v=4O0OqdIoOPQ [Accessed 04 10 2012] 32 Allen, M, op. cit., p. 29

.37.

Figure 3.7 The Smooth Space

.38.

A new way of using space?

Architecture and New Hierarchy?

Loosely-programmed space: the smooth and the striated We have seen the passage spaces are not just a single proposed programme but more like a loosely-programmed place for people’s autonomy activities. Thus, what can we learn from this heterogeneous space? Aiming to identify the space in terms of the new way of using, through a theoretical lens by Deleuze and Guattari, I would explain the loosely-programmed space by their The Maritime Model from The Smooth and the Striated. As they express: Smooth space is filled by events or haecceities, far more than by formed and perceived things. It is a space of affects, more than one of properties.

It is haptic rather than optical perception. Whereas in the striated forms organise a matter, in the smooth materials signal forces and serve as symptoms for them. 33

Architecturally, in terms of individual space, the indication of striated space is where the programme has been stabilised already, organised-well with only dealing with one or couple matters with clear proposals, such as narrow corridor, office cubes. A further interpretation from Dovey, ‘Striated space is structured like a tree, hierarchically organised and deeply rooted with a vertical stem’.34 In the other side, a smooth space is within field condition containing vectors of diversity and possibilities and these vectors should be ridden depending upon individual intention rather than one authority in the striated space.35 However, the smooth and the striated are a tools for thought under an ideal condition; in the real world, every space is always mixed by these two in a reciprocal relation,36 and there have different degree of preference to one of them.

In the Rolex Learning Centre, looking back to the gamma map in chapter 2, the space of office-cubes and individual study room is represented by fanned syntax.

It indicates they are more like striated space with hierarchical relations and simple programme, but they are only very small parts of whole building. In the other hand, the majority of space, which we called passages and some else open spaces, is located inside a complex and compact network with various directions of flows and loosely-programmed uses. It is almost an ideal model so close to a smooth space.(Fig. 3.7) Therefore, SANAA’s new hierarchy is clarified, the real invention of the hierarchy is to divert our attention from striated to smooth in the architecture, with several approaches such as applying new spatial organisation as complex network and creating loosely-programmed spaces. Under this ‘smooth’ condition, thus as users, we have got a chance to re-think about the surroundings we stayed and the way we lived, and then generate own lifestyle as a rise of self-consciousness. Users, or let just say person, as individual, have more selfconscious actions rather than follow any others’ order in public life. In the other word, a new social hierarchy is about self-consciousness.

33 Deleuze, G. & Guattari, F., A Thousand Plateaus(London: Continuum, 1988) ch.14 p. 528 34 Dovey, K.& Polakit, K. Urban Slippage, in Loose Space (Abingdon:Routledge,2007) p. 113 35 Ibid, p. 114 36 Deleuze & Guattari, op. cit., p. 524

.39.

Empty passage, waiting for be recreated next time

Architecture and New Hierarchy?

CONCLUSION : A new architecture of spatial liberty SANAA’s desire to invent a new architectural hierarchy, and the practice’s attempt to realise it in the Rolex Learning Centre has provided this important opportunity to explore hierarchy in architecture and to review their specific approach to the creation of spatial hierarchy. Our analysis of the Rolex Learning Centre found no explicit difference with other kinds of open plan modernist architecture in terms of structural and aesthetic language. The similarity to Koolhaas’ typical plan and to aspects of Kiesler’s Endless House might at first cause us to wonder if the new hierarchy they describe is just SANAA’s self-delusion. However, their distinct language of minimalised boundary is identical but not enough to form a new hierarchy.

What Hillier’s methodology of spatial syntax enables us to see is the potential of more connections between spaces. The gamma map accurately illustrates an entire image of a new spatial organisation as a complex network of interactive relationships. This overlapping and interconnecting spatial structure consists of several small but similar scale complex networked clusters and, as a result, increases permeability between spaces. This analysis shows that SANAA’s new hierarchy is a kind of new relationality in spatial organisation. A comparison with Koolhaas’ Educatorium which, in terms of its spatial structure, is still basically dominated by one main foyer if he describes it in the terms of ‘freedom’, suggests that the creation of SANAA’s spatial hierarchy should be considered as new because of its spatial networking. Without the application of spatial syntax analysis, these two buildings, and others like them, might appear to share a formal and material language. The spatial structure revealed through my analysis might be considered as a kind of genotype of a building which enable us to recognise its hierarchical organisation that otherwise remains obscure in plans, sections or photographs of the building.

But SANAA’s new hierarchy is more than spatial. The observations and filming carried out during my field trip to the building, revealed that as a result of its simplified architectural languages and new spatial networks the passages are realised as loosely-programmed spaces. I found that the ways of using these spaces are creative and self-conscious; occupants participate in a completed process from understanding to finding, from constructing to inhabiting. They find opportunities to set up their own activities and programmes in an appropriate free field of space and these spontaneous human activities deliver a new social hierarchy between humans and building, giving ownership in the formulation of space. In order to find

.41.

out any new actions and reactions, I developed an intuitive method that explored the user’ activities rather than studying the building itself. Through my own photographs and documentary recordings, we discover what spatial syntax analysis is unable to see. These recordings of lived space also demonstrate that this new hierarchy transforms the way people use the space rather how they see it.

To summarise, SANAA’s new hierarchy is interpreted in this investigation both in terms of a new spatial hierarchy and a new social hierarchy. This new hierarchy is more associated with personal own desires and activities at any particular moment rather than some on-going and ready-made authority. There have, of course, been several critical thought quite similar in this respect to SANAA’s intentions. For example, Jane Jacobs claimed in the 1960s in her influential book the death and life of great American cities,37 that mixed programmes and organised complexity are the conditions for diverse public life, and also relate to the permeability of a place’s spatial structure. Dwellers, she believed, should be informal experts in their own life. Stan Allen Has proposed that we ‘learn from the complex self-regulation order already present in the city’.38 He explains that intensive linkages should be carefully defined, but the programmatic framework should be defined loosely.

These two thoughts are more concerned with urban planning, but the similarity of these approaches to the intentions of the Rolex Learning Centre suggests that SANAA is inventing their new hierarchy under urban scale thoughts. Other important ideas about spatial liberty, such as Koolhaas’ ‘typical plan’ which he write ‘provides the multiple platforms of 20th-century democracy’39 have been related more to the commercial space of downtown Manhattan rather than to the semi-public spaces of the Rolex Learning Centre. But still, his concept about to ‘free up programmatic imperatives’ is hard to realise and test.40 It is clear there never be an absolute freedom in the world, just as there is no one pure ‘smooth space ‘in reality. Perhaps Jeremy Till provides a better word, ‘contingency’41, which he explains should be an essential feature at once providing for that freedom, but not filling that space. This is quite similar grade of freedom as SANAA’s looselyprogrammed space. SANAA’s new hierarchy is new, then, both as a spatial and as a social system, and it is the activities of the users, that are the key to ordering this hierarchy.

37 Jacobs, J., The death and life of great american cities.( London: Pimlico.2000) 38 Allen, S., From Object to Field.

Architectural Design 127, 1997. pp.

24-31.

39 Koolhaas, op.cit., pp. 337.

40 Dovey, K., &Dickson, S. , op. cit.,p. 13 41 Till, J., Architecture Depends.

(Cambridge: The MIT Press. 2009) p. 61

.42.

Architecture and New Hierarchy?

Bibliography Allen, M., 2010. Control Yourself! Lifestyle Curation in the Work of Sejima and Nishizawa. In: E. Choi & M. Trotter, eds.

Architecture at the edge of everything else. Cambridge: The MIT Press, pp. 22-33.

Allen, S., 1997. Artificaial Ecology. In: Assemblage 34. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press, pp. 107-109.

Allen, S., 1997. From Object to Field. In: Architectural Design 127, pp. 24-31.

Blau, E., 2010. Inventing New Hierarchies. [Online] Available at: http://www.pritzkerprize.com/sites/default/files/file_fields/ field_files_inline/2010_essay.pdf [Accessed 23 May 2012].

Clark, R. H. & Pause, M., 2005. Precedents in architecture: analytic diagrams, formative ideas, and partis. 3rd ed. New Jersey: Jonh Wiley & Sons, pp.7 Coates, N., 2012. Narrative Architecture. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Cortes, J. A., 2004. Architectural topology. In: El Croquis 139, pp. 35-57. de Certeau, M., 1984. The Practice of Everyday Life. California: University of California press.

Dovey, K. & Dickson, S., 2009. Architecture and Freedom? Programmatic innovation in the work of Koolhaas/OMA. [Online] Available at: http://fbe-studiocollaboration.unsw.wikispaces.net/file/detail/Programmatic+Innovation+of+Koolhaas+Dovey+%2BScott.pdf [Accessed 6 November 2012].

Dovey, K. & Polakit, K., 2007. Urban Slippage, Smooth and strated Streetscapes in Bangkok. In: K. A. Franck & Q. Stevens, eds.

Loose Space, Possibility and Diversity in Urban Life. New York: Rotledge, pp. 113-131.

EL Croquis 155, pp.31 Frampton, K., 2007. Modern Architecture, a Critical History. London: Thames & Hudson.

Guattari, F. & Deleuze, G., 1988. A Thousand Plateaus. London: Continuum.

Hensel, M., Hight, C. & Menges, A. eds., 2009. Space Reader, Heterogeneous Space in Architecture. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Hillier, B., 1996. Space is the Machine, a configurational theory of architecture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hillier, B. & Hanson, J., 1984. The Social Logic of Space. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hill, J., ed., 1998. Occupying Architecture. London: Routledge.

Hill, J., 2001. Weather architecture. In: J. Hill, ed. Architecture, the subject is matter. London: Routledge, pp. 57-71. .43.

Jacobs, J., 2000. The death and life of great american cities. London: Pimlico.

Jencks, C., ed., 2011. The post-modern reader. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Koolhaas, R., Mau, B. & O.M.A., 1995. S,M,L,XL. New York: The Monacelli Press.

Lynch, K., 1960. The image of the city. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The M.I.T. Press.

Major, M. D. & Sarris, N., 1999. Cloak and dagger theory. [Online] Available at: http://www.spacesyntax.net/symposia-archive/ SSS2/SpSx%202nd%20Symposium%2099%20-2003%20pdf/2nd%20Symposium%20Vol%201%20pdf/20%20Major%20 %26%20Sarris%20300.pdf [Accessed 06 November 2012].

Moreno, C. D. & Grinda, E. G., 2004. Liquid playgrounds. El Croquis 121/122, pp. 9-25.

Oxford Dictionaries. April 2010. “hierarchy�. Oxford University Press. [Online] Available at: http://oxforddictionaries.com/ definition/english/hierarchy [Accessed 26 November 2012].

Pearson, M. P. & Richards, C. eds., 1997. In: Architecture & Order. London: Routledge.

Pumain, D., 2006. Hierarchy in Natural and Social Science. Dordrecht: Springer.

Rivlin, L. G., 2007. Found Space, Freedom of Choice in Public Life. In: K. A. Franck & Q. Stevens, eds. Loose Space, possibility and Diversity in Urban Life. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 38-53.

Steadman, J. P., 1989. Architectural Morphology. London: Pion Limited.

Sejima, K., EPFL Rolex Learning Centre designed by SANAA. Uploaded by Rolex Learning Centre on 17 February 2010. [Online] Available at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4O0OqdIoOPQ [Accessed 04 November 2012] Till, J., 2009. Architecture Depends. Cambridge: The MIT Press.

Unwin, S., 2009. Analysing architecture. 3rd ed. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 209-214.

Unwin, S., 2010. Twenty buildings every architect should understand. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 53-60.

.44.

Architecture and New Hierarchy?

CD As an appendix, this CD not only contains a PDF copy of this dissertation, but also includes the documentaries I recorded during my field trip in the Rolex Learning Centre. These selected videos were purposed for recording the journey of spatial experience, but during the trip what I found is the self-conscious activities in public life, which would be better to identify the new hierarchy, even the part of video is not such long. This media of research has an advantage in terms of recording the occasional but significant activities and event from a totally objective view. Rather trying to imagine or analysis by a theory, a new impact of architecture might be better revealed under exploring and tested in a real condition. Again, to understand that architecture is made by use.

Videos are also avaliable at this playlist: http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLmCyYmUaUWcDru_GdCTupLQXMKJy91oTn