YE, Qing N5423252

ADN 014 Contextual Studies 4

Project 2: Essay

20/10/2009

Lecturer: BRISBIN, Chris

Tutor: SKEPPER, Nick
 P R E FA C E
The world and human civilization face a whole range of challenges in the 21st century, particularly in the urban
context. This essay will attempt to speculate on what architecture might become in the 21st century, in light of
all the issues outlined above and in particular in the urban context of the city. The scope of this essay will be
limited to primarily speculating on the future direction of architectural design discourse. For this paper, design
discourse will refer to the field of intellectual dialogue on the various ways of thinking about pressing design
problems and design strategies that seeks to offer new approaches towards solving particular challenges or
investigating new opportunities.

The paper will examine and critique certain key architectural design discourse from the 20th century and its
results on the quality of the public urban environment. The paper will then look at environments that stand
distinct to these outputs of 20th century architecture, the accompanying design discourse and also a number of
relevant recent projects. By doing so, the paper will attempt to speculate on how the context of the 21st century
will affect architectural design discourse. Although the paper is centered on the direction of architectural design
discourse, rather than landscape architecture design discourse or urban planning design discourse, the paper
will include discussion of content from these other disciplines that have informed or influenced discourse in the
discipline of architecture.
 “ARCHITECTURE AS INFRASTRUCTURE”
21st Century Challenges

The world and human civilization face unprecedented challenges in the 21st century. Challenges that
fundamentally underpin our survival on this planet. Issues such as population growth, resource consumption,
ecological protection, climate change, social and economic inequality are matters which have significant
bearings on a healthy planet and peaceful global society. Many individuals as well as international organisations
recognise the immediacy and significance of these issues and are urging all the citizens of the planet to action.
The lecture given by Dr. Albert Bartlett titled “Arithmetic, Population and Energy” examines the current trend of
population growth and resource consumption by the planet’s population and its serious consequences 1. By
examining a number of scenarios, he demonstrates how if the world continued with present rates of population
growth and resource consumption, the Earth will be unable to support the human civilisation in the not so
distant future. The Earth Charter set out by the Earth Charter Initiative calls on the global community to come
together and tackle these matters, and that, today, at the start of the 21st century, humanity stands at a “critical
moment” in history 2.

These challenges are pertinent to the discipline of Architecture. Not only does the practice of Architecture play a
fundamental role in the building and construction industry, which accounts for 30-40 % of global energy use3,
but Architectural discourse has always played a key part in imagining the future of the human habitat and
improving the condition. The United Nations Population Fund report “The State of World Population 2007” notes
that in 2008, half of the world’s population, 3.3 billion people, lived in urban areas 4. By 2030, it expects that this
number will rise to almost 5 billion5 . The report makes very clear what these figures means:

“...the future of cities in developing countries, the future of humanity itself, all depend very much on
decisions made now in preparation for this growth.” 6

Architecture has a responsibility to confront these issues, some even believe that addressing concerns such as
the condition of our cities is fundamental to the survival of the Architectural profession7.

So in light of all the issues outlined above and in particular in the urban context of the city, what might
Architecture become in the 21st century? The essay will attempt to address this question. The scope of this
essay will be limited to primarily speculating on the future direction of Architectural design discourse. For this
paper, design discourse will refer to the field of intellectual dialogue on the various ways of thinking about
pressing design problems and design strategies that seeks to offer new approaches towards solving particular
challenges or investigating new opportunities. Although the paper is centered on the direction of Architectural
design discourse, rather than Landscape Architecture design discourse or Urban Planning design discourse, the
paper will include discussion of content from these other disciplines that have informed or influenced discourse
in the discipline of Architecture.

The paper contends that there will be a shift in Architectural design discourse from considering architecture as
an enclosed object of aesthetics and formal expression, to considering architecture as more like infrastructure.
Here the term infrastructure does not necessarily refer to things such as busways or train lines as such, rather it

1 Post Carbon Institute, “Dr. Albert Bartlett: Arithmetic, Population and Energy (transcript),” Post Carbon Institute, http://www.globalpublicmedia.com/
transcripts/645.
2 TheEarth Charter Initiative, “The Earth Charter” The Earth Charter Initiative, http://www.earthcharterinaction.org/content/pages/The-Earth-
Charter.html.
3United Nations Environment Programme, “Buildings Can Play a Key Role in Combating Climate Change”, United Nations Environment Programme,
http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.Print.asp?DocumentID=502&ArticleID=5545&l=en.
4United Nations Population Fund, introduction to “State of World Population 2007: Unleashing the Potential of Urban Growth”, United Nations
Population Fund, http://www.unfpa.org/swp/2007/english/introduction.html.
5 United Nations Population Fund, introduction to “State of World Population 2007: Unleashing the Potential of Urban Growth”.
6 United Nations Population Fund, introduction to “State of World Population 2007: Unleashing the Potential of Urban Growth”.
7 ThomasFisher, “Three Models for the Future of Practice,” in Reflections on Architectural Practices in the Nineties, ed. William S. Saunders, Peter G.
Rowe, Mack Scogin, K. Michael Hays, Carol Burns, and Roger Ferris (New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 1996), 42-43.

1 of 6
refers to what Alex Wall terms as the “enabling” function of an environment8, the ability of an environment to
provide structure and support for activities.

The paper will firstly examine and critique certain key Architectural design discourse from the last century on that
of aesthetics and formal expression. It will attempt to reveal some links between such a discussion and
consideration of architectural design and the market economy, and also the resulting consequences for the
quality of public urban realms. The paper will then go on to examine certain subversive environments and
physical conditions that stand distinct to the outputs of Architecture from the 20th century and also alternate
Architectural design discourse that seeks to consider architecture differently than that of aesthetics and
formalism. The paper will examine some recent projects that position architecture as being about imagining and
designing environments that induces and supports activity and inhabitation. Finally the paper will attempt to
speculate about how such a discussion of architecture is of value to the discipline and also to the Brisbane
context.

Aesthetics and Formalism

During the 20th century, design discourse was dominated by the ideas of Modernism and its interest in
exploring the new formal potentials of architecture as permitted by the new materials that had become available
as a result of the industrial revolution and modern manufacturing technologies. Canonical figures of Modernism
such as Mies van der Rohe9 and Le Corbusier spoke and wrote of the new formal and aesthetic potential now
possible as result of advances in building materials such as concrete, steel and glass. Le Corbusier in his “Five
Points Towards a New Architecture”, written with Pierre Jeanneret, effectively set out a series of formal rules for
modern architecture10. However, there were also those whose work stood against the abstract nature of
Modernism and its reductive nature. In her paper “E. 1027: The Nonheroic Modernism of Eileen Gray” Caroline
Constant discusses the work of Eileen Gray and posits the design attitudes behind her work against that of
contemporary Modernism at the time and in particular, against certain Le Corbusier projects. Constant writes in
her introduction that “Gray sought to overcome the reductive dehumanizing qualities associated with abstraction
by prioritizing the subjective qualities of experience” 11. Constant notes that Gray was more concerned about the
room’s experiential characteristic rather than any abstract conceptual quality 12. Whilst these two attitudes
towards architectural design are very different, one requiring visual discrimination and intellectual reflection and
the other involving more physical and corporeal perception they are similar in that they both consider design
from a perspective that has sensory engagement as its starting point. In other words, they are both about
aesthetics and in the context of architectural design, this also means that they are primarily concerned about
physical formal structure.

The consideration of architecture as primarily being about aesthetics and form has a number of implications.
Michael Hays examines these issues in his seminal text “Critical Architecture: Between Culture and Form”. In his
paper Hays looks at the different ways that form can operate in architecture. Hays contends that form can be a
physical manifestation of a particular culture and glorify the culture that produced it, thereby creating a cultural
hegemony 13. Hays notes that form might also stand autonomous and in a way that it may be understood
without any external references such as culture, relying solely on the logic of its formal structure14 . Hays is critical
of both these ways of formal operation and calls for an architecture that sits “critically in the world”, one that
“cannot be reduced either to a conciliatory representation of external forces or to a dogmatic, reproducible
formal system”15. Alexander Tzonis in the introduction to the book “Critical Regionalism- Architecture and
Identity in a Globalised World” writes of similar concerns for the position of architecture in formalistic

8Alex Wall, “Programming the Urban Surface,” in Recovering Landscape: Essays in Contemporary Landscape Architecture, ed. James Corner, (New York:
Princeton Architectural Press, 1999), 233.
9 Kenneth Frampton, “Mies van der Rohe: Avant-Garde and Continuity,” in Studies in Tectonic Culture: the Poetics of Construction in Nineteenth and Twentieth
Century Architecture, ed. John Cava, (Cambridge: The MIT Press, 2001), 186.
10Le Corbusier and Pierre Jeanneret, “5 Points Towards a New Architecture”, in Almanach de l’Architecture Moderne, (Paris, 1926) http://caad.arch.ethz.ch/
teaching/nds/ws98/script/text/corbu.html
11 Caroline Constant, “E. 1027: The Nonheroic Modernism of Eileen Gray,” The Journal of Architectural Historians 53, no. 3 (1994): 265.
12 Constant, “E. 1027: The Nonheroic Modernism of Eileen Gray,” 267.
13 K. Michael Hays, “Critical Architecture: Between Culture and Form,” Perspecta 21 (1984):16, http://www.jstor.org/stable/1567078.
14 Hays, “Critical Architecture: Between Culture and Form,” 16.
15 Hays, “Critical Architecture: Between Culture and Form,” 17.

2 of 6
constructions of identity 16 and also raises the point that this discussion has become more urgent in light of the
ecological, political and intellectual challenges 17. Whilst Hays’ and Tzonis’ critique of form and culture is certainly
valuable, they both still essentially talk of architecture as a formal exercise and architecture as an object.

Kim Dovey for one is skeptical of any positive effects that have resulted as a result of Hays’ critiques. Dovey
notes that it seems the “trajectory of ‘criticality’ seems to have largely run its course, and many of the products
of deconstruction can now be seen as little more than stylistic effects that reframe and reproduce the very social
relations they were conceived to resist” 18. He uses Peter Eisenmann’s and Daniel Libeskind’s work as examples
to demonstrate how whilst individuals might produce good work in a formal sense, they are still operating in a
field that allows a “seemingly critical’ architectural practice to thrive, while at the same time reproducing the very
social structures, identities and practices that it purports to challenge”19. When a project proposal that does
genuinely challenge these identities and practices comes along, it is often rejected because of the very fact that
it contradicts the ideological agenda of those who commission the project. This is demonstrated by Isozaki’s
comments on the failure of Cedric Price’s proposals for an urban redevelopment project in Manhattan that did
not propose commercial development, rather open urban space20, and also Dovey’s comments on Michael
Sorkin’s failed proposal for New York’s World Trade Centre site project that also proposed the site into a
memorial and open space21. In these instances, we see an architecture that has effectively been turned into a
kind of symbolic, aesthetic commodity. Such a positioning of architecture has significant negative impacts on
the quality of our environments. Michael Sorkin writes that the architecture of the city has become almost purely
semiotic22, just like advertising, it has become purely about the constructed imagery. The social theorist David
Harvey believes that the need for cities to attract capital and people has increased the importance of the
appearance of places and the task of architecture has become in a broad sense, to sell the image of the city23.
One only needs to think of the rapid developments in Dubai to understand what Harvey is trying describe. But
perhaps one can still have a quality urban environment with such a way of thinking? Sorkin disagrees and says
that this treatment of architecture as marketable commodity destroys the idea of the city as site of community
and human connection24. The concentration of design discourse on formal invention in architecture and its
aesthetics has allowed architecture to be reduced by the operations of the market economy to mere symbolic
capital and no longer about providing frameworks for people’s lives. As a result many places in cities have
become stagnant and homogenous, with the environment only offering mere advertisement for institutions and
corporations.

Heterotopias

However, there are places that stand in defiance and contrast to such reductive architecture and there is much
that can be garnered from the nature of these places and how they might inform a different architectural
thinking. These places shall be categorised in this paper as “heterotopias’, a term borrowed from Michel
Foucault25. In the preface to their book Heterotopia and the City, Michiel Dehaene and Lieven De Cauter discuss
this term “heterotopia”:

16Alexander Tzonis, “Introducing an Architecture of the Present, Critical Regionalism and the Design of Identity,” in Critical Regionalism, Liane Lefaivre and
Alexander Tzonis (Munich: Prestel Publishing, 2003), 10.
17 Tzonis, “Introducing an Architecture of the Present, Critical Regionalism and the Design of Identity,” 11.
18Kim Dovey, “I Mean to be Critical, But...,” in Critical Architecture, ed. Jane Rendell, Jonathan Hill, Murray Fraser and Mark Dorrian (Oxon: Routledge,
2007), 253.
19 Dovey, “I Mean to be Critical, But...,” 257.
20 Arata Isozaki, “Erasing Architecture into the System,” in Re: Cp, ed. H. U. Obrist (Basel: Birkhauser, 2003), 35.
21Kim Dovey, “I Mean to be Critical, But...,” in Critical Architecture, ed. Jane Rendell, Jonathan Hill, Murray Fraser and Mark Dorrian (Oxon: Routledge,
2007), 257.
22 Michael Sorkin, introduction to Variations on a Theme Park, ed. Michael Sorkin (New York: Hill and Wang, 1992), xiv.
23David Harvey, “Poverty and Greed in American Cities,” in Reflections on Architectural Practices in the Nineties, ed. William S. Saunders, Peter G.
Rowe, Mack Scogin, K. Michael Hays, Carol Burns, and Roger Ferris (New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 1996), 109.
24 Sorkin, introduction to Variations on a Theme Park, xiii
25Michel Foucault, “Of Other Spaces,” in Architecture/Mouvement/Continuite October (1984), http://foucault.info/documents/heteroTopia/
foucault.heteroTopia.en.html.

3 of 6
 “Heterotopia, literally meaning ‘other places’, is a rich concept in urban design that describes a world off-
center with respect to normal or everyday spaces, one that possesses multiple, fragmented, or even
incompatible meanings.”26

Many instances of heterotopias may be found in cities. They are often to be found in sites that for one reason or
another, were of no commercial development value. it might be that the site was on an oddly shaped or difficult
to access plot of land, or perhaps the location of the site was not commercially viable etc. These sites include
public stairs and access ways, site boundaries, undersides of bridges, the areas besides roadways and
railways, empty lots, abandoned buildings, piers, waterfronts and tunnels etc. These places lack any defined
use and ownership is often not enforced, is unclear or under dispute, and as such invite appropriation27. Franck
and Stevens illustrate a number of examples of such places in their paper “Tying Down Loose Space”:
abandoned mines in Tyneside, England are being used for bird watching, parachuting and clay pigeon shooting;
former railway sheds in Helsinki being used by artists’ collectives, startup businesses and a flea market; the
undercroft of queen Elizabeth Hall, South Bank, London is being used by skateboarders; some steps at the
Noryangjin fish market, Seoul being used to display vegetables for sale28 . There are also many examples of such
heterotopias in urban settings in developing countries. Dovey and Polakit describe the dramatic daily
transformations of function with time of an inner city street in Bangkok, Thailand. from being a sidewalk to shops
to restaurants to parking. From these examples, it seems that these heterotopias are highly effective as well as
efficient spaces, they are able to successfully facilitate activities and also to successfully adapt themselves to
different uses.

Such spaces in cities are often occupied by people who either cannot afford to be in the centre of the
commercial district, or are not welcome there due to the activities that they engage in. But fundamentally it is
simply because the urban environment has been unable to provide the support for these activities. The actual
way these places are used is of interest here. Often the existing structures are rudimentary in these places and
requires imaginative appropriation by the users. Franck and Stevens describe how existing elements such as
walls, fences, stairs, overhangs, bridges, lampposts, free expansive surfaces like parking lots may be utilised for
various purposes such as seating, display surfaces, roofing, resting against, gathering space or even protest
space; temporary props are often also introduced to adapt multiple types of uses and new uses 29. These
heterotopias often give the appearance of being physically disorderly. This is likely a result of these places not
being under any regulatory authority. However, this is not necessarily a bad thing. Franck and Stevens considers
this physical disorder as not only encouraging the creative appropriation of the spaces for the needs of the
people but that it also expands the potential scope of actions 30.

In these heterotopias we begin to see an almost ad-hoc quality where there is minimal concern for the physical
form or aesthetics of a place and any resulting aesthetics is merely a consequence of a spatial framework that
could allow its occupants to meet their needs and adapt the environment as those needs changed. Here is an
architecture that considers not static form or space, rather it deals with flows of activity and events. Perhaps this
is what Stickells was thinking of in his paper “Flow Urbanism, the Heterotopia of Flows” when he notes of an
“ongoing dematerialisation of architecture31 . So it seems there is an abundance of places that can be observed
to have these qualities of unregulated, effective, adaptable environments.

An Architecture of Infrastructure

However, most of these places seem to occur by accident and chance rather than intention, in the sense that
these qualities were never the original intention behind the place; they all seem to come into existence by the
initiative and sometimes subversive action of people. So what is the relationship between the professional
discipline of Architecture and these types of physical conditions? Interestingly, during the 1955 Aspen Design

26 Michiel Dehaene and Lieven De Cauter, preface to Heterotopia and the City, ed. Michiel Dehaene and Lieven De Cauter(Oxon: Routledge, 2008), 3.
27 Karen A. Franck and Quentin Stevens, “Tying Down Loose Space,” in Loose Space, ed. Karen A. Franck and Quentin Stevens, (London: Routledge, 2007),
8.
28 Karen A. Franck and Quentin Stevens, “Tying Down Loose Space,” 8-9.
29 Karen A. Franck and Quentin Stevens, “Tying Down Loose Space,” 9.
30 Karen A. Franck and Quentin Stevens, “Tying Down Loose Space,” 9
31Lee Stickells, “Flow Urbanism, the Heterotopia of Flows,” in Heterotopia and the City, ed. Michiel Dehaene and Lieven De Cauter(Oxon: Routledge,
2008), 253.

4 of 6
Conference Victor Gruen seemed to have started to think about this question and how Architecture’s
perspective might shift beyond the limitations of the individual building towards an interest in the greater physical
environment. He proclaimed that

“Architecture today cannot concern itself only with that one set of structures that happen to stand upright
and be hollow ‘buildings’ in the conventional sense. It must concern itself with all man-made elements
that form our environments: with roads and highways, with signs and posters, with outdoor spaces as
created by structures, and with cityscape and landscape.” 32

During the 1960’s Archigram also started to investigate physical environments that were highly adaptive and
constantly changing with the needs of its occupants: what Alex Wall describes as “event-structures” 33. Whilst
Archigram’s projects were highly experimental and speculative and none were built, throughout the 1980’s and
1990’s a number of physical projects were realised that explored environments which provided these kinds of
amenable “event-structures”. Parc de la Villette in 1982 by Rem Koolhaas and the Office for Metropolitan
Architecture (OMA) was one such project. Regarded by some as seminal, the site was that of 121 acres of land
left over from an old nineteenth century slaughterhouse complex. The challenge of the project was that not only
did the client have a very large list of programmatic demands that had to be satisfied, there was also uncertainty
over exactly how these different parts of this program would need to be developed, and as such the project had
to be able to both anticipate and accommodate any number of changing demands and programs 34. Koolhaas
and OMA described their project as a “landscape of social instruments”, where the overall physical quality of the
project would be a result of the uses and locations of different functional programmes over time35. Another
interesting project is that of Vall d’Hebron Park in Barcelona by Eduard Bru, completed in 1992. This is a 26-
hectare site formerly occupied by postwar social housing in the inner suburbs. Alex Wall describes the park as a
“collage of sports surfaces, routes and park elements” that promotes a diversity of functions, and one where the
demands of changing programs change the interpretations of the site36. The work by Adriaan Geuze and his
practice West 8 is also of interest here. Geuze’s design for Schouwburgplein Square in Rotterdam introduces a
series of utilities, services and post holes below a light weight surface. The public may erect temporary
structures, access the utilities and equipment beneath the surface, as well as control lighting in the square
according to their needs. Usually public squares in traditional European cities are places where civic and
religious power was represented, yet in this instance, the public appropriates and modifies the space according
to their requirements 37. All the projects so far described have been parks or squares, one could not call them
“buildings” as such. The Yokohama Port Terminal by Foreign Office Architects (FOA), complete in 2002, perhaps
comes close, although the nature of its function as essentially a transition space for the sea transport makes it
very different to buildings usually found in the inner city. The design attempts to integrate and mediate between
the various programmatic requirements of passenger transition and processing, a public park and other civic
functions by means of creating a folded surface that is continuous but also differentiated spatially 38.

The projects described above all share the same concerns for the provision of a physical spatial structure that
may be able to accommodate a wide range and large number of constantly changing programmatic
requirements. The formal and aesthetic qualities of the projects were determined by the way the occupants of
the place chose to use the space rather than a result of any intention on the part of the designers, or at least
they were a result of the physical structural requirements of actually accommodating all the programs. As Alex
Wall puts it,

32 Victor Gruen, “Cityscape-Landscape”, in Arts and Architecture (September 1955): 18-37.

33Alex Wall, “Programming the Urban Surface,” in Recovering Landscape: Essays in Contemporary Landscape Architecture, ed. James Corner, (New York:
Princeton Architectural Press, 1999), 235.
34 Alex Wall, “Programming the Urban Surface,” 238.
35 Rem Koolhaas, S, M, L, XL (New York: Monacelli Press, 1995), 894-939.
36Alex Wall, “Programming the Urban Surface,” in Recovering Landscape: Essays in Contemporary Landscape Architecture, ed. James Corner, (New York:
Princeton Architectural Press, 1999), 241.
37Alex Wall, “Programming the Urban Surface,” in Recovering Landscape: Essays in Contemporary Landscape Architecture, ed. James Corner, (New York:
Princeton Architectural Press, 1999), 243.
38Lee Stickells, “Flow Urbanism, the Heterotopia of Flows,” in Heterotopia and the City, ed. Michiel Dehaene and Lieven De Cauter(Oxon: Routledge,
2008), 248.

5 of 6
 “this is less design as passive ameliorant and more as active accelerant, staging and setting up new
conditions for uncertain futures” 39

Conclusions

The above discussions have primarily been located in the international context, in particular the European
context, and little if any has been in the Brisbane, or even Australian context. It is likely that the reason for this is
not only because Europe has had a much longer history and tradition in shaping urban environments than
Australia, but also some of the issues and challenges that face the planet, particularly population density, are
more pressing in Europe. As a result, a large number of the investigations and design discourse into addressing
and developing solutions to these challenges comes from Europe. However, these issues such as population
growth are slowly coming to the fore in Australian cities such as Brisbane40 . The population of Brisbane has
been growing rapidly and the Brisbane City Council and Queensland government are investing great amounts of
effort and time in looking into how to accommodate this growth without negatively affecting the quality of life in
the city41. As such the discussions in this essay of a shift in Architecture design discourse focus from formal
aesthetics to an architecture of infrastructure is relevant and valuable to the future development of Brisbane.

20th century Architectural design discourse was primarily interested in formal innovation and what were
essentially discussions about different aesthetics. This has resulted in architecture becoming a marketable
commodity of image and identity creation for the institutions and corporations that commission architecture.
However, when architecture is interested only in the its semiotic potential, it neglects one of the fundamental
purposes of the discipline, and that is the design of physical environments for people to live their lives in. This
has resulted in a deterioration in the ability of our environments, particularly urban environments, to support the
lives and activities of people. The challenges that currently face the planet, such as resource consumption,
social inequality, economic inequality, climate change and population growth, means that there will less space,
less facilities and less resources per person in the future. If the quality of people’s lives are to be maintained
under such conditions, the physical environments they inhabit will have to improve their effectiveness and
efficiency at supporting the existing needs of the people. The physical environment will also need to be flexible,
anticipating and allowing for future activities and events. The state of our modern physical habitat and its
consequences for people’s ability to live their lives is a serious and urgent issue that Architecture needs to
confront. The focus of architecture must shift to investigating how environments may be designed so that
people are allowed freedom and liberty to engage in activities they desire and also for that liberty to be
preserved in the future.

39Alex Wall, “Programming the Urban Surface,” in Recovering Landscape: Essays in Contemporary Landscape Architecture, ed. James Corner, (New York:
Princeton Architectural Press, 1999), 233.
40Australian Bureau of Statistics, “3218.0 - Regional Population Growth, Australia, 2007-08”, Australian Bureau of Statistics, http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/
abs@.nsf/Latestproducts/3218.0Main%20Features62007-08?opendocument&tabname=Summary&prodno=3218.0&issue=2007-08&num=&view=
41Queensland Department of Infrastructure and Planning, South East Queensland Regional Plan 2009-2031, (East Brisbane: Department of Infrastructure
and Planning, 2009), 3.

6 of 6
 YE, Qing N5423252, ADN 014 Contextual Studies 4

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Australian Bureau of Statistics. “3218.0 - Regional Population Growth, Australia, 2007-08.” Australian Bureau of
Statistics. http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Latestproducts/3218.0Main%20Features62007-08?
opendocument&tabname=Summary&prodno=3218.0&issue=2007-08&num=&view= (accessed October 6,
2009).
Constant, Caroline. “E. 1027: The Nonheroic Modernism of Eileen Gray.” The Journal of Architectural Historians
53, no. 3 (1994) 265-279.
Dehaene, Michiel, and Lieven De Cauter. Preface to Heterotopia and the City, ed. Michiel Dehaene and Lieven
De Cauter, 3. Oxon: Routledge, 2008.
Dovey, Kim. “I Mean to be Critical, But...” In Critical Architecture, ed. Jane Rendell, Jonathan Hill, Murray Fraser
and Mark Dorrian, 252-260. Oxon: Routledge, 2007.
The Earth Charter Initiative. “The Earth Charter.” The Earth Charter Initiative. http://
www.earthcharterinaction.org/content/pages/The-Earth-Charter.html (accessed July 26, 2009).
Fisher, Thomas. “Three Models for the Future of Practice.” In Reflections on Architectural Practices in the
Nineties, ed. William S. Saunders, Peter G. Rowe, Mack Scogin, K. Michael Hays, Carol Burns, and Roger
Ferris, 36-43. New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 1996.
Foucault, Michel. “Of Other Spaces.” In Architecture/Mouvement/Continuite October (1984), http://foucault.info/
documents/heteroTopia/foucault.heteroTopia.en.html (accessed October 6, 2009).
Frampton, Kenneth. “Mies van der Rohe: Avant-Garde and Continuity.” In Studies in Tectonic Culture: the
Poetics of Construction in Nineteenth and Twentieth Century Architecture, ed. John Cava, 182-205. Cambridge:
The MIT Press, 2001.
Franck, Karen A., and Quentin Stevens. “Tying Down Loose Space.” In Loose Space, ed. Karen A. Franck and
Quentin Stevens, 1-33. London: Routledge, 2007.
Gruen, Victor. “Cityscape-Landscape.” Arts and Architecture (September 1955): 18-37.
Harvey, David. “Poverty and Greed in American Cities.” In Reflections on Architectural Practices in the Nineties,
ed. William S. Saunders, Peter G. Rowe, Mack Scogin, K. Michael Hays, Carol Burns, and Roger Ferris,
104-111. New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 1996.
Hays, K. Michael. “Critical Architecture: Between Culture and Form,” Perspecta 21 (1984),15-29. http://
www.jstor.org/stable/1567078 (accessed October 6, 2009).
Isozaki, Arata. “Erasing Architecture into the System.” In Re: Cp, ed. H. U. Obrist, 25-46. Basel: Birkhauser,
2003.
Koolhaas, Rem. S, M, L, XL, Rem Koolhaas, 894-939. New York: Monacelli Press, 1995.
Le Corbusier, and Pierre Jeanneret. “5 Points Towards a New Architecture.” in Almanach de l’Architecture
Moderne. Paris, 1926 http://caad.arch.ethz.ch/teaching/nds/ws98/script/text/corbu.html (accessed October 6,
2009).
Post Carbon Institute. “Dr. Albert Bartlett: Arithmetic, Population and Energy (transcript).” Post Carbon Institute,
http://www.globalpublicmedia.com/transcripts/645 (accessed July 26, 2009).
Queensland Department of Infrastructure and Planning. South East Queensland Regional Plan 2009-2031. East
Brisbane: Department of Infrastructure and Planning, 2009.
Sorkin, Michael. Introduction to Variations on a Theme Park, ed. Michael Sorkin, xi-xv. New York: Hill and Wang,
1992.
Stickells, Lee. “Flow Urbanism, the Heterotopia of Flows.” In Heterotopia and the City, ed. Michiel Dehaene and
Lieven De Cauter, 247-257. Oxon: Routledge, 2008.
Tzonis, Alexander. “Introducing an Architecture of the Present, Critical Regionalism and the Design of Identity.” In
Critical Regionalism, Liane Lefaivre and Alexander Tzonis. 10-20. Munich: Prestel Publishing, 2003.
United Nations Environment Programme. “Buildings Can Play a Key Role in Combating Climate Change.” United
Nations Environment Programme. http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.Print.asp?
DocumentID=502&ArticleID=5545&l=en (accessed October 6, 2009).
 YE, Qing N5423252, ADN 014 Contextual Studies 4

United Nations Population Fund. Introduction to “State of World Population 2007: Unleashing the Potential of
Urban Growth.” United Nations Population Fund. http://www.unfpa.org/swp/2007/english/introduction.html
(accessed October 6, 2009).
Wall, Alex. “Programming the Urban Surface.” In Recovering Landscape: Essays in Contemporary Landscape
Architecture, ed. James Corner, 233-247. New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 1999.