OBJECT URBANA pROJECT ON TOpOlOgy, idEAs ANd lANgUAgE. pART iii

éOlE hUpé m1 sTUdiO / OBJECT URBANpROfEssOR TORBEN BERNsmcgill sChOOl Of ARChiTECTURE

pART iii (10/29/09 TO 12/10/09)

CONTENT > 6 pRECEdENTs8 gROUp disCUssiON10 gROUp disCUssiON10 URBAN fARmiNg >10 EOlE’s RElATiONs V.110 RUlEs >12 gROUp disCUssiON21 spECifiC pROgRAm22 pOlliNATiON24 ExisTiNg CONdiTiON >24 BEEs iNhERENT pROgRAm>24 mUshROOms iNhERENT pROgRAm>24 lABs iNhERENT pROgRAm>24 pERfORmATiVE mOdEl>25 NETwORk iNhERENT pROgRAm>25 OThER CONsidERATiONs>26 NETwORk iNhERENT pROgRAm>26 NExT sTEp >30 REACTiON TO pROgRAm30 pROgRAms >32 fOld32 iNTERsUBJECTiVE32 fiEld32 lOCAlizATiON32 NEgENTROpy32 NEgENTROpiC32 ENTROpy32 iNTRA-32 ThE TOpOlOgiCAl CiTy By VilEm flUssER34 ThE COdifiEd wORld34 liNE ANd sURfACEs37 gROUp disCUssiON

40 gROUp disCUssiON42 RETROspECTiVE TExT45 hETEROTOpy46 ANAlOgUE46 ENTROpiE 46 NégUENTROpiE47 TimE As CyClE / hiddEN NETwORks

� > � >

11.02.2009

EXPo 67 moNTREal / 1967 HABITAT 67 / MOSHE SAFDIE MONTREAL / 1967 Silo No. 5 moNTREal moNTREal / 1906-58 SPATIAL CITY / YoNA FRIEDMAN PRojECT / 1958-60 SPATIAL CITY / YoNA FRIEDMAN PRojECT / 1958-60

SPATIAL CITY / YoNA FRIEDMAN PRojECT / 1958-60 Tokyo Bay / kENzo TaNgE PRojECT / 1960 Tokyo Bay / kENzo TaNgE PRojECT / 1960 FloaTiNg CiTy / kiSho kuRokawa PRoJECT / 1961 CluSTER iN ThE aiR / aRaTa iSozaki PRojECT / 1960-62

kEETwoNEN / TEmPohouSiNg gLoBaL amSTERDam / 2005 THE INTERLaCE / oma PRojECT / 2009 ECo-PoD / HowElER + YooN & SquaRED DESigN PRojECT / 2009 ECo-PoD / HowElER + YooN & SquaRED DESigN PRojECT / 2009 PHILADELPHIA / LoUIS I. KAHN PRojECT / 1956

CRATER CITY / CHANÉAC PRojECT / 1968 CENTRE PomPiDou / RogERS + PiaNo PaRiS / 1971 RaK jEBEL aL jaIS moUNTaIN RESoRT / oma PRojECT / 2006 RaK jEBEL aL jaIS moUNTaIN RESoRT / oma PRojECT / 2006 hyPERBuilDiNg / oma PRojECT / 2006

STaCk CiTy / BEhRaNg BEhiN PRojECT / 2008 STaCk CiTy / BEhRaNg BEhiN PRojECT / 2008 NEw BaByLoN / CoNSTaNT NiEuwENhuyS PRojECT / 1956-74 OiL DERRiCkS / STATOiL OFFSHORE OiL DERRiCkS / STATOiL OFFSHORE

OiL DERRiCkS / STATOiL OFFSHORE TRIPTIC PRojECT IN MADRID / CoLLECTIVE WoRK PRojECT / 2008-09 TRIPTIC PRojECT IN MADRID / CoLLECTIVE WoRK PRojECT / 2008-09 SYMBIoTIC INTERLoCk / DaEkwoN PaRk PRojECT / 2008 THE URBAN SKYSCRAPER/BLAKE KURASEK PROJECT/ 2009

pRECEdENTs

� > � >

11.02.2009gROUp disCUssiON

Matrix could be a network. Or if we use the “lofting option”, we are the network. The kind of organisation we choose will have its share of political problems, we have to take responsability (?) for it.

We have to shift to relation issues. Linking. Surfaces. Logic. Structure.

“Your model is you”

1�0m x 1�0m

Zoning? Any kind of program is blurred, it is like if we are forced to think of this otherwise. We cannot program specific areas for now. We have to make focus on logic.

disCUssiON wiTh simON

We may have to do a “manifest” to start. Elaborate some logical links before we know what goes where. By making a first structural draft we will see things that may affect our “manifest”. Putting the form aside & playing with logical links. IIiiiiIiIihHhhHhhAaaaA! Far west freedom meets architectural nerds!

==

===

10 > 11 >

11.04.2009gROUp disCUssiON

URBAN fARmiNg >Idea of a global system, more than just lettuce. It could make sense to try to use the garbage of one process to feed another. {living system machine] [other cultural / educational / housing programs]. The site now is a giant green house.

EOlE’s RElATiONs V.1

PrIMArY nOdES > PrIMArY PrOgrAM LInkS > IdEA OF MOvEMEnT

SEcOndArY nOdES > ExcHAngE

The planes could be different informations, relating to each other through links. There could be also different informations throught the whole worm.

RUlEs >What do I have to offer? What are my relations to water, farming, sun, energy, Where are my topological links?

imput > processing > output/imput > processing > output/imput....

- program as topology - programming as topological lining

sEpARATiON

shAREd

iNClUsiON

CENTRAliTy

TOUChiNg

11.06.2009fROm >> << TO

hUmidiTy

fREsh AiR

lighT

hEAT

ElECTRiCiTy

wATER

COld

shAdE

sTORAgE

TRANspORT

UsEd AiR

gAz

sOil

ORgANiC mATTER

hUmidiTy

fREsh AiR

lighT

hEAT

ElECTRiCiTy

wATER

COld

shAdE

sTORAgE

TRANspORT

UsEd AiR

gAz

sOil

ORgANiC mATTER

13 >

gROUp disCUssiON

11.00.2009TiTlE

...

wORd Of ThE dAy...

14 > 15 >

11.00.2009TiTlE

...

wORd Of ThE dAy...

1� > 1� >

11.00.2009TiTlE

...

wORd Of ThE dAy...

1� > 1� >

NOTEs / qUEsTiONs: 1. ThE TwO TypEs Of sysTEms COUld BE JOiNEd whEN NEEdEd (e.g. housing + transport / water + farming / energy + transformation) 2. i wish ThE “CORE sysTEm” wOUld BE mORE likE A NETwORk ANd lEss likE A plUg-iN sysTEm 3. mEETiNg pOiNTs wiTh OThER sysTEms > NOT NECEssEREly pUBliC spACEs

4. hOw dOEs ThE CORE ANd spECifiC pROgRAm iNTERACT? hOw ARE ThEy mOdElEd By siTE spECifiCiTy?

spECifiC pROgRAm

fARmiNg > mushrooms / bees / snails / veggiesTRANsfORmATiON > farm product transformation / water filtration / micro-transformationhOUsiNg > challenging usual ways of inhabiting the territory (inside house & outside location)

pROgRAm / sysTEm3 pROgRAms RElATEd TO “CORE sERViCEs” >wATER, ENERgy, TRANspORT

3 pROgRAms RElATEd TO “lOCAl sysTEms” > fARmiNg, TRANsfORmATiON, hABiTATiON

pOlliNATiON

25 >24 >

11.18.2009ExisTiNg CONdiTiON >HeatAir movementHumiditynatural light Solid shapesProgramsPath (or network) assigned as a starting point

BEEs iNhERENT pROgRAm>Work faster when hot conditionHave optimum flower but will try not optimum flowersLow wind condition work betterExploring, what kind of patterns?Hives should be moved when bees are inside (e.g. cold condition or defensive state)How far do they travel?

mUshROOms iNhERENT pROgRAm>needs humiditynot too much lightneeds heatneed air circulation

lABs iNhERENT pROgRAm>need something to studycould be prepared for different site conditiongreat for shared spaces

pERfORmATiVE mOdEl>The network should also have a program

NETwORk iNhERENT pROgRAm>At least a weaving of tree pathsWould expand when...Would contract when...Would grow more branches when....

OThER CONsidERATiONs>Other systems may or may not want bees proximity

2� >

11.18.2009

2� >

NETwORk iNhERENT pROgRAm>

1. given path (random)2. given path dimension increase with encountersviewing encouter as possible pollination3. network is elaborated following the possibilitiesOffred by the random path influenced by othersThe crossed pattern allow different possibilities for “pods” to move, like trains switch... which lead me by mistake to the definition of “train track” (In the mathematical area of topology, a train track is a family of curves embedded on a surface...). So maybe the network should evolve on a surface instead of going thought space like here.

NExT sTEp >4. reacting to program that interest the beesWhen an other program is good for bees, the network would grow aroud them, following their path5. Remodeling othersFind a way to remodel other program so I do not act alone in there without having everyone else entirely visible. could the network do both at the same time (remodeling other + creating the path)?

31 >

11.20.2009REACTiON TO pROgRAm

1. missing information about other programWhere are they? 2. shapethe shape might be more directive than circle, following other program

pROgRAms >Shanie : WineÉole : Mushrooms, bees, vegetablesMicheal: Biofuel, air, water treatmentgabrielle: Waste managementMatt: BeerSimon: cranberriesBori: Insect control (maybe)nicolas: vegetableskatie: Silk wormsksenia: infrastructuresdieter: vegetablesgeneviève: chickens, eggs

30 >

32 > 33 >

11.22.2009ThE TOpOlOgiCAl CiTy By VilEm flUssER

This essay is concerned with formulating rhis situation the other way around and with bringing an end to this ghostly talk. To demonstrate that culture and civilization are concrete, and that the individual is abstract. The concrete is to be seen as a network of relations, and the threads of this network become tangled without connecting anything concrete. The only concrete thing is the relations themselve, whereas everything related or in relation ( all objects and subjects of relations) are abstractions. The network of relationships is to be seen as an intersection of different relational fields, one of these being the field of intersubjective relationships. The field of dialogical intrahuman relationships is networked with other fields in a way that is almost too complex to understand. Nevertheless, it possesses its own unique structure: it functions negentropically. It is a relational field where information ins generated, stored, and distributed. When viewed from this perspective, the terms “culture” and “civilization” can be formulated: they are two forms of connecting to the intersubjective relational field, two strategies for the generation, storage, and distribution of information by means of the threads of intrahuman relations.

[...] It is barely possible to experience every day the products of culture and civilization (for example, Stone Age knives, airplanes, or ministries) as abstraction from a negentropic relational network or to recognize ourselves and our neighbors as products of such a network. This is what is meant here by a change into a

sincere life. If, however, one maintains this perspective (and even if it is only for brief moments of insight), then horizons will be opened for possible reconnection of intrahuman relation fields, for alternative civilizations. Then it is possible to design cities.

It needs to be asked: Why is it desirable to open up a theoretical space? [...] From the relational perspective, which has been proposed, another answer can be offered: because theory is the connecting force of intrahuman relationships, to which we owe the production of information. [...] the design of alternative cities must be concentrated on the designing of theorical spaces, which do not look into the heavens, but drag them down.

In order to conceive of this new city model, one must surrender the interlectural categories of geography in favor of topology. This task is not to be underestimated. One should not conceive of the city to be designed as a geographical place (such as a hillnear a river), but rather as a fold in the intersubjective relational field. This is what is meant by the assertion that the future civilization must become “immaterial”. This change is not to be underestimated, even if we are getting used to seeing folds in fields in synthgetic images of equations on the computer screen. One must only think how difficoult it was to see the geographic surface as a body surface rather than as a plance. Strangely, a rethinking in terms of topology rather than geography will not make the city be be designed “utopic”. It is “utopic” (placeless) as long as we contivue to think

fOld... idée de superposition ?

iNTERsUBJECTiVEExisting between conscious minds.

fiEldIII. Area of operation or observation.e. Logic. The class comprising the domain and the range or converse domain of a relation.

lOCAlizATiON1. The action of making local, fixing in a certain place, or attaching to a certain locality; the fact of being localized. Also, an instance of such action or condition.2. Assignment (in thought or statement) to a particular place or locality. Also, the ascertaining or determination of the locality of an object.

NEgENTROpyThe negative counterpart of entropy, as a measure of the order of a system or the amount of information contained within it.

NEgENTROpiCOf or relating to negentropy; causing or accompanied by

a decrease in entropy or an increase in order (sometimes with the implication that the second law of thermodynamics is being contravened).

ENTROpy1. The name given to one of the quantitative elements which determine the thermodynamic condition of a portion of matter. Also transf. and fig.2. a. Communication Theory. A measure of the average information rate of a message or language; esp. the quantity -{Sigma}pilogpi (where the pi are the probabilities of occurrence of the symbols of which the message is composed), which represents the average information rate per symbol.b. Math. In wider use: any quantity having properties analogous to those of the physical quantity; esp. the quantity -{Sigma}xilogxi of a distribution {x1, x2,...}.

iNTRA-1. In adjectives (properly, and most frequently, of Latin origin) in which it stands in prepositional relation to the n. implied in the second element.

geographically, because it cannot be localized within a geographical place. But, as soon as we are able to think topologically - that is, in terms of networked concrete relationships- the city to be designed allows not only for localization, but also localization everywhere in the network. It comes into being forever and everywhere, whre intersubjective relationships accumulate according to a connection plan to be designed. To state this “astronomically”: what a heavenly body is to the gravitational field, the city to be designed is to the intrahuman relational field, which is to say, a fold that “attracts” the relations.

[...] This sort of model for the city can be seen as a reversal of the Platonic utopia: certainly, as the Platonic utopia, the theorical space moves into the highest position, but it is no longer based on politics and economics, but rather, it designs and generates these two spaces. The big difference between this city to be designed and utopia consists in the fact that this city becomes a sort of unavoidable appendix of the theorical space, whereas the city’s task in the utopia is to open up a theorical space. The intention of this projected space is neither to create politics and business nor to lead them. Instead, it is to give meaning to the intersubjective network in the face of universal entropy - in the face of death and the fall into ever-increasing probability. In short, to understand theory no longer as the discovery of truth, but rather as the projection of meaning.

11.22.2009ThE COdifiEd wORld

Writing is a step away form images, because it allows images to dissolve into concepts. With this step, the “belief in images”, that is, magic, became lost, and a new level of consciousness was reached that led much later to science and technology. The techno-codes are a further step away from texts, because they allow us to make images out of concepts.

liNE ANd sURfACEs

This gives us the followin difference between reading written lines and pictures: we may get the message first, and then try to decompose it. And this points to the difference between the one-dimensional line and the two-dimensional surface: the one aims at getting somewhere; the other is there already, but may reveal how it got there. This difference is one of temporality, and involves the present, the past, and the future.

34 > 35 >

gROUp disCUssiON

gROUp disCUssiON

43 >

11.28.2009As401: BUffAlO ANAlOg

AnALOgIcAL cOLLABOrATIvE dESIgn STUdIO, State University of new York at Buffalo, January 14–April 30, 2004 [http://lebbeuswoods.wordpress.com/2009/05/15/as401-buffalo-analog/]

What we are going to do next is create a common territory for our individual ideas about spaces of conflict to engage (and conflict?) with each other. We are going to create an analog urban space, that is, one that—like actual urban space—contains complex interactions of people and their ideas. These interactions may involve the confrontation of differences in ideas, the contention of ideas for space that is limited by urban boundaries, and/or their simultaneity and overlap in the same spaces.

Our goal is to create an analog of urban processes and formations, a parallel with the actual city, the better to inform us about the city itself.

RETROspECTiVE TExT

The idea of an analog is to be like something else in some ways but not in others. If the something else is part of a city, therefore too complex for any definitive form of analysis, the analog can make manifest and analyzable some essential characteristics, while leaving others, less important, aside. The analog is not an abstraction, though it uses abstraction as a tool. It is not a reduction or a simplification, for it remains

42 >

complex in its own terms. Rather it is a shift in the angle of viewing and understanding a situation or complex set of conditions, one that gives the opportunity to see the familiar in new ways. This is extremely important when the familiar is, like a part of a city, overburdened with historical interpretations that inhibit the creation of new ones. By creating a parallel reality, the analog circumvents this historical over-determination and liberates the imagination in ways that can impact the primary reality under consideration. In today’s world of rapid changes, where history is less and less reliable as a guide to the future, intellectual freedom and inventiveness of the type enabled by the analog are increasingly important.

It is true that architecture, as a practice and a form of production, is bounded by precise practical considerations—technical, economic, legal, cultural—that restrict imagination and invention. But as culture, technology, law, and socio-economic factors themselves undergo change, the boundaries of architecture require adjustment or even redefinition that cannot be devised by the simple extrapolation of old ones. This is where analogical thinking and the analog-—as a model of constructed reality—-become useful. This is especially the case in schools of architecture, where the next generation of practitioners, theorists, and teachers is being educated. The aim of their education must be less in terms of understanding existing typologies and techniques and more in the forging of new ways of approaching old and new problems alike, that is, in ways of thinking about what architecture is, how it

works, and what it may yet become.

The Upper Level design Studio focused on spaces marked by conflict, beginning with particular sites in the city of Buffalo. Spatial manifestations of conflict were given the highest priority among the spectrum of urban conditions and became the subject of our analogical analysis and projects. The idea was that conflict signals some sort of change that is trying to occur in the spatial structure of a particular site. This change requires an alteration of the existing spatial order and how it is used, and therefore calls for new spatial designs and constructions. Architecture, according to this thesis, arises as a creative engagement with conflict. Without conflict, there is no need for change, no need for architecture. The exception to this is when architecture must be introduced to create conflict where none exists, fomenting change in a social or spatial situation.

After the initial phase of identifying and analyzing spaces of conflict in existing urban situations, the work of the studio took a decisive turn. rather than hypothesize about actual conditions in Buffalo, it was decided that we would treat the studio itself as a community, an analog of the wider community of Buffalo. Where it is the architect’s usual practice to grasp the needs and motivations of groups and individuals from fragmentary and indirect sources, we would be able to work directly with people for whom the designs were intended–ourselves. We were, after all, a community in every sense of the word, having common interests, values, goals, problems, and at the same time diverse,

even conflicting, ideas, perceptions, ways of working toward our common ends. cannot we say that in one sense this was an ideal community, in that we would be able to work directly and together, without the need for intermediaries like developers, clients, institutional representatives? Would not the ideal be that every community could design its own spaces, according to its uniqueness and demands? Politically, we might say this is the anarchist view, an extreme form of democracy, in which liberty and choice are ordered not by imposed laws and ideology-based rules but rather by dialogue and critique within a community of individuals who understand from the beginning that their fate as individuals is tied up with the fate of the community. Enlightened self-interest is thus the operating frame of political and social reference.

Once the analyses of different urban conflicts were complete and codified in visual terms (drawings and models), it was decided that we would build a construction, a spatial and conceptual analog of a community—ours—in continuous self-definition and formation. It was decided that this construction would be within an eight-foot cube. The apparent arbitrariness of this decision is important to consider. As an analog, the spatial frame of reference of our work could have been any number of other configurations: a pyramid, a sphere, an irregular volume. Or, it could have been in a volume more related to the origins of our work, the city of Buffalo. The latter option was rejected because it would be more representational than analogical, and it would be hard to escape from all

45 >44 >

the literal implications of that representation. Having to cope with the cube had implications that were more philosophical, typological, conventional. The cube is the building block of the spatial reference system that is dominant in our society and culture. It is also the visible evidence that the complexity of human experience can be made coherent and practicable. The cube gives us coordinates in space, but also in time. Any form, any eccentricity, any accident or unpredictable occurrence can be contained within its system of coordinates and made intelligible, logical. So, somewhat less than purely arbitrary, it was chosen as a boundary, a limit, a structural frame, but also as a convention and critique. Our ideal community, we determined, would not abandon the known and accepted, but embrace and expand it.

The dimensions of the cube were determined by the available space in the studio. As such, it had no inherent scale. By tilting the cube up on one corner, shifting it off the ordinary cartesian reference system of the room, the building, the campus, the city, its three-dimensionality was fully liberated. But this created a problem of how to support the cube, to transfer its weight back to the cartesian structure that would carry it to the ground. This required a compromise of the cube’s autonomy that was the subject of heated debate. In what was probably the only consensus-driven decision of the project, the cube, a welded steel frame, was supported on a steel bracket at the corner and a short wall, constructed of plywood, at two raised points. The project began it’s move toward a tectonic hybridity that continued through

its construction.

It was then decided that the space of the cube would be divided according to prevailing social practice as a series of volumetric properties. Each property, staked-out by a member of the studio, was to embody a spatial construction related to the conflict originally identified in the analyses of urban spaces in Buffalo. Because these properties–irregular volumes estimated to best serve individual purposes–interpenetrated each other in the animated three-dimensional space of the cube, a set of new conflicts arose, the actual conflicts of our community, which had to be resolved through a long and difficult process of negotiation and design. Tempers flared. Factions formed, and reformed. Mock-ups were tried, rejected, modified, retried. There were moments when it seemed that the project could not go forward. The studio itself became the space of conflict, with the spaces of the cube at its conceptual center.

The designs for each of the properties within the cube were entirely determined by the individual architect occupying the spatial volume of a property. Adjacencies with other volumes and designs were matters of negotiation where abrasions demanded some resolution. Intersections of the volumes required active collaboration, as differing, even opposing, tectonic systems met or collided. Each design had its unique narrative, each abrasion and confrontation its story. The final stage is only a moment in a living process incidentally truncated by schedule. It could have continued. It should continue, in some form or

other, until it reaches the horizon. What we see is not a utopia, but a heterotopia—the spatial form of a community of differences, of conflicts, of personally determined spaces that work together in a complexly cohesive and communal way. It could be an analog of the most desirable city of tomorrow, one whose form and purpose arise not from the imposition of pre-determined means and ends, but from a creative interplay of personal and communal means and ends.

ThOUghTs ON ThE mEThOdOlOgy

As the teacher in this design studio, I adopted the role of the senior member of the community. Having asked the initial questions, I became the the arbiter, the counselor within an effort that I perceived to be the independent and collective work of the individuals in the studio. I preferred not to call them students, and myself teacher, because these terms put the wrong hierarchical emphasis on the generation of a project that could not be taught, in any traditional sense, but only created by the members of the class. This resulted in consternation and frustration among some members of the studio/community who wanted my direction as to what to do, and in their complaints and appeals to the hierarchy of the school, which I understood and had to seriously address.

certainly there are aspects of architecture that need to be ‘taught,’ particularly at the beginning levels of architectural education. At the upper levels, when students have acquired skills of architectural drawing,

model-making, design, and face the prospect of leaving school and working in the architectural profession, it is time to ‘teach’ individual initiative, thinking, and action. Authority figures, such as teachers, must at this stage become mentors. Students not prepared for the degree of independence required by this work will not be prepared to practice architecture with independent conscience and sense of responsibility.

It is hoped that the design studio also imparts the idea that architecture is, and can be more, a collaborative art. Buildings often are but should not be conceived in a social and political vacuum. At the same time, the best architecture cannot be designed by committee or consensus. New ways of approaching individuality and collectivity need to be developed in design, if complex human living environments are not to be reduced to standards, or to accumulations of randomly eccentric architectural gestures. The Buffalo Analog was and remains an exploration of the aesthetical and ethical possibilities of a methodology of collaboration that synthesizes community from conflict, and an analogical urban architecture from strongly articulated, highly individual differences.

LW

hETEROTOpyPhys. Displacement in position, misplacement: a. Path. The occurrence of a tumour in a part where the elements of which it is composed do not normally exist. b. Biol. (See quot. 1879.)

4� >

ANAlOgUE1. An analogous word or thing; a representative in different circumstances or situation; something performing a corresponding part..

ENTROpiE Phys. En thermodynamique, Fonction définissant l’état de désordre d’un système, croissante lorsque celui-ci évolue vers un autre état de désordre accru. L’entropie augmente lors d’une transformation irréversible. Entropie négative. > néguentropie. Entropie constante (> isentropique).

NégUENTROpiEEntropie* négative; augmentation du potentiel énergétique.

4� >

pREsENTATiONTimE As CyClE / hiddEN NETwORks [ A flAsh mOdEl ONliNE ]http://www.arch.mcgill.ca/prof/berns/arch672/studentweb/hupe/TimeAsCycle_HiddenNetworks.swf