Literature Review by Xion Lin

Automotive Architecture: Past, Present, Future.

ARCH 7201 Research Studio Literature Review Tutor: Paola Favaro Zhixiong Lin 3092236 email address: designxion@gmail.com

Content

Automotive Architecture: Past, Present and Future

Introduction

Design Rationale

Programmatic Accomodation and Spatial Articulation

Structure, Material Use and Formal Expression

Endnotes and Image References

Introduction

In the past decades, there had been a marked increase in the development of automotive architecture. International car manufacturers are seemingly keen to employ established architects to design automotive showrooms and plants that would give the brand an architectural identity. One factor for this phenomenon is the increasing demand for automobiles. In addition, with a greater choice of brands available worldwide, manufacturers are eager to strengthen their brand awareness and image in order to position themselves in a good stead for the future. The imminence of global warming and the concerns on excessive carbon emissions often promulgated automobile as adversarial to the environment. Furthermore, modern cities are conceived with the dimensions of cars as underlying guides yet ironically it is the very conception of automobiles that is more than often considered as “destroyer of cities”1 and “an enemy to tradition architecture”2. Likewise, urban planners accustomedly consider automobiles to be problematic in the way it dehumanize the urban context, removing the people from their cities. Under these intensified opposing voices, automotive architecture gives the manufacturers a valuable opportunity to reverse these antagonistic views on their products and realign their brands with a healthier image for the public.

Introduction

Despite the recent pageantic development of the field, automotive architecture had derived from a humble origin. This article will discuss the history of automotive architecture and its associations, specifically in the context of industrialization. The discussion will also extend to contemporary developments in the field in order to establish dialectics between these differing periods. The article therefore aims to decipher the progressive shift in the differing thinking and realization of automotive architecture between past and present, endeavoring to propound possible future directions for architecture of the automobile. The different aspects detailed in the discussion will include the design rationale, functional accommodation, spatial articulation, structure, material use and formal expression.

Design Rationale

The first building constructed that was in any ways associated with automotive was an automotive factory. The construction of automotive factories development helped shape the developments in Industrialization as automobile manufacturing was one of the largest manufacturing sectors at the end of the 19th century. In fact, a cursory comparison between an early factory of mill construction of the late nineteenth century and a 1920s automotive factory would reveal a dramatic shift in thinking in that short time. One significant methodology that was introduced in the early 20th century was Fordism. Fordism was a methodology utilized predominantly in the automotive industry to improve productivity. It is “a model of economic expansion and technological progress based on the mass production: the manufacture of standardized products in huge volumes using special purpose machinery and unskilled labour”3. Henry Ford, the owner of Ford Motor Company, through the use of this method was able to rationalize production of automobile and made it cheaper and hence accessible to the general working class. Henry Ford employed Albert Kahn as the architect to design majority of their factories. This was a perfect marriage of client and architect as both Ford and Kahn shared the same vision. “Ford was not in search of an artist who builds him a celebrative image of economic potential… he

Figure 1. Packard Building no. 10.

Figure 2. Packard Building no. 10. interior.

Design Rationale

wanted only a designer capable of responding concretely to specific demands of mass production.”4 On the other hand, Kahn himself often consider architecture to be 90% business and 10% art.5 Kahn ostensibly perceives design works more in the practical sense of an industrialist than in the intellectual sense of an architect. The Packard Building No. 10 (completed in 1905) and Ford Motor Company Original Factory Building (completed in 1909) are a great early examples of factories designed by Kahn that abide to his design inclination. It was widely promoted by many architects during that rapidly changing period that factory should be designed like a machine that reflects the very process it houses. It is perhaps as Louis Sullivan famously formulated that “form ever follows function”6, the mechanization of production processes should also be resonated in architectonic terms. However this was not the only trajectory of thinking during that time. Some are convinced that industrialization, with its cheap mass production of functional items, is detrimental to the any creation of artistic nature. Industry is considered as the antithesis to art. “Art is freedom individuality – industry is compulsion and mass; art is the unique and eternal – industry the thousandfold and ephemeral.”7 This is where Peter Behrens depart from

Figure 3. Ford Motor Company Complex, 1909 - 1918.

Figure 4. Ford Motor Company Original Factory Elevations.

Design Rationale

the ideologies of Albert Kahn. Though Behrens admitted that the real interest of the industrial age nevertheless presided with technology, art should not be neglected. The design philosophy of Behrens is manifested in the Turbinen-fabrik (Turbine Factory) designed for the Allgemeine Elektricitäts Gesellschaft (AEG) between 1908 and 1909. Peter Behrens was not the only architect concerned with the corrosive effect of rapid industrialization on culture and arts. In fact, the Deutscher Werkbund (German Work Federation) was formed in 1907 to specifically deal with these concerns. The Werkbund was conceived as an organization that promotes the integration of traditional crafts and industrial mass-production techniques, in short between traditionalism and technology. The architects involved in the Werkbund not only include Behrens but also other notable architects such as Bruno Taut, Hans Poelzig, Henry van de Velde, Mies van der Rohe and Erich Mendelsohn. Modernity had long been associated with industrialization and mass production. However Terry Smith questioned that assumption when he proposed that “Is not mass consumption, rather than mass production, definitive drive of modernism?”8 If that is the case, then of all the notable architects, perhaps only Erich Mendelsohn and Bruno Taut are able to anticipate the forthcoming of

Figure 5. Henry Poelzig, Milch and Company superphosphate chemical factory.

Figure 6. Bruno Taut, Glashaus.

Design Rationale

the 20th century consumerism. Though the latter did not participate much in industrial or automotive architecture, he too demonstrated in his design for the Glashaus that it dealt with more than just a rational modernist approach. The Glashaus was an exhibition for the Deutsches Luxfer Prismen Syndikat and Taut utilizes the prismatic glass from the company to construct the building. Upon completion of the Glashaus, Taut manages to create a spectacle and instill visitors with an arresting and powerful image of the Deutsches Luxfer Prismen Syndikat. Although Taut’s theory was largely on the dream of the crystalline community centers, his works indirectly lay down the foundation for consumerism and iconography. In the same way, Mendelsohn celebrated rather than disguised mass consumption in modernism. He firmly believed that though the primary element in architecture is function, without sensual contributions, function remains as mere construction. Mendelsohn “equated industrial imagery with a utopianism just as passionate as that expressed in Taut’s dreams of crystalline community centers”9 His1914 drawing on the project for AEG factory evidently demonstrated this utopianism which sets him apart from his other more strict rational contemporaries. Mendelsohn was definitely ahead of his time. He was in a period when there was neither the

Figure 7. Glashaus interior.

Figure 8. Sketch for AEG factory project.

Design Rationale

technology nor the support to realize his visions. Despite often finding his contributions to modernism devalued at his time, his works and ideologies could now be appreciated for the dynamic idealism it bestowed upon modernism. Late 20th century had seen the wide propagation of consumerism. Automotive architecture no longer restricts itself to the domain of industrial factories. As a matter a fact, if we were to examine the development from the inception of automotive architecture in factory form, we will notice a dramatic shift of attention. The focus of automobile manufacturer had transfigured from mass production to mass consumption. The introduction of robotic mechanisms that replaced human labour in certain areas of assembly had rendered the necessity of large space obsolete. The advancing technologies had dismissed the commitments towards new solutions in factory design, however the industry was facing another problem; the intense competition between different brands had set the challenge for the manufacturers to rethink their commercial position and the way their brand was represented. This is in reality a new contemporary phenomenon that required architects to look at things very differently than they previously did. All the previous methodologies had proved to be

Figure 9. Sketch for optical instrument factory project.

Figure 10. Reintepretation of Ricola Logo.

Design Rationale

inadequate; no longer is the modernist conception of ‘form ever follows function’ enough to deal with the myriad layers of complications of the automotive industry. Architects who had reviewed the ideologies envisaged by Mendelsohn and Taut achieved varying degree of success. One such example is the design of the Ricola Europe Factory and Storage Building completed in 1993. It manifested symbolic yet speculative visual representational of branding. The ubiquitous use of printed plant motif on the polycarbonate panels, being the preoccupation of the design, undoubtedly has strong connection with Ricola’s logo. Though the use of iconography in this case might not have been aberrant, however it would have seemed more accustom to associate factory design with more rational agendas. It is as Robert Kudielka suggested that “the gap between the plan and execution of a building seems too great, the purpose too practical, and the appearance too physical to associate architecture with spontaneous satisfaction of perception”10. It is due to this very hypothetical irony that the Ricola Factory heralded possible subsequent developments in automotive architecture.

Figure 11. Ricola Europe Factory and Storage Building.

Programmatic Accommodation and Spatial Articulation

Programmatic Accomodation and Spatial Articulation

Automotive production factories preluded any other programmatic requirements in the development of automotive architecture. Industrialization was the one of the main factor that resulted in this occurrence. The demand for automotive factories comes naturally as a result of favourable political environments for industry and commerce, abundance of cheap materials, low-cost skilled labour and more efficient production processes. One factor that drove the later consumerism was absent at the beginning of industrialization; that is the availability of an extensive selection of brands and hence competition. This explains the stagnant advancements in other programmatic accommodation in the field at that time. Ford Motor Company was one of the leading automobile manufacturers in the early decades. Henry Ford was responsible for the construction of a series of factory complexes in Detroit in the early 1900s with the help of his architect Albert Kahn. Kahnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s design was informed by Fordâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s own ideology of Fordism discussed earlier. This technique requires the strategic placement of different processes in sequential order to decrease time taken for mechanical transportation and to ensure productivity.11 The spatial arrangement of the factories is thus determined by the positioning of the processes and is a by-product

Figure 12. 1918 extension to the Ford Motor Complex.

Figure 13. Interior of the1918 extension to the Ford Motor Complex.

Programmatic Accommodation and Spatial Articulation

of the function. However, that is not the only determinant of the spatiality of a factory. Architects also need to designate for the need of ample daylight for the workers to perform their tasks. Both these unique restraints resulted in the conventionality of the long undisrupted interior space. The Ford Motor Company Factory Complex built between 1909 and 1918 consisted of mostly elongated buildings with strong linear expression in the interior. The linear undisrupted spatiality is not limited to just the Ford examples. Other example of Kahn’s design includes the Plant for Lady Esther Ltd. (1936), the Chevrolet Half-Ton Truck Plant (1938) and Burroughs Adding Machine Company (1938) etc. Despite having different philosophies to that of Kahn’s, other European architects designed factories in a similar vein. One famous example is the Turbine Factory designed by Peter Behrens. It has a width of 25 metres but extended to almost 5 times its width to 123 metres. But by far the largest development that maintained this linearity was the River Rouge Plant. The entire plant consists of configuration of concrete structure of 12 metres high and three-quarters of a mile long (approximately 1.2km)12. The enormous complex “was born of a total programmatization that included the cycle of production from the extraction of raw material to the finished product”13.

Figure 14. Burrough Adding Machine Factory.

Figure 15. Chevrolet Half-ton Truck Plant.

Programmatic Accommodation and Spatial Articulation

The introduction of new programs into automotive architecture was a particular slow process especially when compared to the rapid rate of industrialization. The Fiat Lingotto Lingotto Plant, designed by Giacomo Mattè-Trucco and completed in 1923, was perhaps the first to introduce any additional function on top of that of the production. It included a track on the roof that allowed newly assembled vehicles to be tested. Being of an engineering background, Mattè-Trucco’s design in many sense draws parallel to Kahn’s factory design in the way the building strips to bare essentials bar the test track on the roof. Le Corbusier declared it to be “one of the most impressive spectacles of industry”14. It also resonated with the long linear spaces of contemporary industrial buildings; one suspects that this is due to the daylighting and not processes as the production sequence operates vertically rather than horizontally. The Lingotto is neither a search for a new architectural language nor does it concede to the styleless aesthetics, but an adaptation of mechanical process.15 The Lingotto Factory did not survive the harshness of post industrial society. It was deemed to be obsolete and was eventually closed in 1982 but was revitalized several years by an architecture competition won by Renzo Piano. The rebuilt was completed in 1989 and it transformed the factory into a

Figure 16. Fiat Lingotto Spatial Planning.

Programmatic Accommodation and Spatial Articulation

micro-city consisting of shopping arcades, concert halls, conventional centre, hotels, university and offices. Despite the dissolution of the original function, the transformation of the complex offers architects an opportunity to speculate on future automotive development. The late 20th century could be recognized as the manifestation of consumerism in the field of automotive in built form. Mass consumerism gained momentum as an industrial society draws to a close. The conception of large scale industrial factories was discarded for the more fanciful showrooms and to lesser extent museums. There was no longer any specific guiding principle for their spatial articulation. Nor are they restricted to any functional restrictions of processes. Their only real requirement is to facilitate the sales of products and brand awareness. In a sense, a showroom could be seen as a stage and the products the performers. A prime example of a showroom designed for this purpose is C42 Citröen Flagship Showroom designed by Manuelle Gautrand. It is located on the famous Champs Élysées in Paris. On street level it becomes the exhibitionist stimulating passer-by with its dynamic form and colours. In the interior, the showroom transforms into a stage celebrating the excellence of the product displayed. The design took literal cue to the expression ‘stage’

Figure 17. C42.

Figure 18. Audi Lighthouse Terminal.

Programmatic Accommodation and Spatial Articulation

through the placement of eight circular display platforms. The recently opened Audi Lighthouse Terminal expressed the â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;stage the automobilesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; in a different way. The building is conceived as spaces carved out from the subtraction of the rectangular box. These voids are orientated to the passing automobiles on the highway. Despite the superficial differences, both projects tried like what many contemporary automotive designs tried to achieve, the essence of consumerism architecture. Since 1923 example of the Lingotto Factory, architects and manufacturers alike had been keen to introduce new and different programs into the field of automotive architecture. The Cockpit in Acoustic Barrier designed by ONL in 2006, apart from being a showroom, is also as its name suggests an acoustic barrier for the noise created by cars on the highway. The BMW Central Building designed by Zaha Hadid is essentially a centralized building that connects three existing disconnected production buildings, the fabrication of the raw bodies, the paint shop and the final assembly hall. The building serves as a connection for both the stages of production and the employees. The most explicit example of the urban integration in the field of automotive has to the Beijing International Automotive Expo in China, designed by Henn Arkitekten. It is a mixed-use development that

Figure 19. The Cockpit and Acoustic Barrier.

Programmatic Accommodation and Spatial Articulation

centres on an automobile museum. It is currently still under construction although the completion date is anticipated to be in 2010. It is designed to be organized around an empty space in the middle comparable to the arrangement of the Forbidden City. It is not only a showcase for cars: it also contains shops, offices and apartments and is intended to become a lively quarter of the city. The automotive related functions include exhibition, sales, services, financing, repair, licensing. It is the realization of the combined vision of Bruno Taut and Erich Mendelsohn. The automotive museum (industrial imagery) becomes the focus (crystalline community centre) which allows the integration of the city to materialize.

Figure 20. The BMW Central Building.

Figure 21. The Beijing International Automotive Expo.

Structure, Material Use and Formal Expression

One of the most important innovations of the automobile industry was the invention of reinforced concrete. The system was championed by Albert Kahn’s brother Julius Kahn who took out a patent on his system of reinforced concrete. The use of reinforced concrete enabled architects to reestablish the fundamentals of façade treatment. The post and beam construction of reinforced concrete construction removes all structural loading from the façade, thus providing the means for architects to address the daylighting issues in industrial factories. The advancement in concrete also aided the development of glass in architecture. As Siegfried Giedion suggested, the elimination of structural walls “naturally leads to a progressively bolder (ie. wider) opening up of the wall surfaces which allow rooms to be much brighter.”16 Although the use of glass pervaded architecture of the early 20th century in the modernist movement, it was in industrial buildings where the modernist theories of light, air and space were fully manifested. The two buildings that evidently demonstrate this are the Packard Plant Building no. 10 and the Fagus Factory designed by Albert Kahn and Walter Gropius respectively. The 1905 design of the Building no. 10 was avant-garde in its use of concrete and glass. In fact, before the design of Building no. 10, the first nine buildings designed for

Figure 22. The Kahn’s system of reinforced concrete.

Figure 23. The Packard Building no. 10 elevation.

Structure, Material Use and Formal Expression

the Packard Plant was of traditional structural materials of iron, stone, and brick.17 The dimension of the building is 18.2 metres wide and 98.1 metres long. Kahn’s design managed to remove all but one internal column, hence achieving a span of 9 metres in each direction which was considered as an extraordinary achievement at that time. The Packard Building no. 10 was the first step to the revolution of architecture thinking. Architecture “was no longer merely the study of a shell to dress the underlying… but was the creation of a building which expressed the complete harmony of these two elements.”18 The Fagus Factory took the Kahn’s innovation one step further by introducing the curtain wall. The building demonstrated that the greater importance glass was assuming in the different areas of amenity in architecture such as light, ventilation and visual aesthetics. Repetition of structure was often the overused expression in industrial architecture. The repetition however reflected more than just a lack of design intent. It echoed the functional purpose of the construction and is a re-interpretation of the tendency of mass production. Mass production of industrial production in turn resulted in the standardization of construction. The use of repetition is apparent in the Turbine Factory, which was discussed earlier in the article. The modus operandi

Figure 24. The Fagus Factory.

Figure 25. The Turbine Factory.

Structure, Material Use and Formal Expression

of the factory was given a symbolic impression on the street front facing Berlichingenstrasse. This vigorous flow of identical form of modern material (in this case steel members) suggested to the eye an analogy to a sequence of mechanical movements.19 Unlike the Turbine Factory, which had an asserted expression of mass production, the manufacturing house of the Luckenwalde Hat Factory designed by Erich Mendelsohn on first impression rejected that notion. It is composed of angular concrete roof massing with trapezoidal shaped skylight. Yet the primary reason for the sporadic expression of the manufacturing house is to discern its differing function to the boiler houses. Likewise, on closer inspection of the manufacturing house, the interior gives evidence of the machine like repetition of the structural ribs. Similarly in the Fiat Lingotto Factory, the repeated structure was conspicuous along the 500 metre-long faĂ§ade. The radiating rib structure of the two spiral ramps that were added later in 1924 was a product of the engineerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s archetype thinking. The repeated radiating ribs of the ramp dealt with the loading of an automobile turning the corner. Despite the repeated motifs, it had transcended mere rationality and signified the prospective development in automotive architecture.

Figure 26. The Luckenwalde Hat Factory.

Figure 27. The Luckenwalde Hat Factory interior.

Structure, Material Use and Formal Expression

There is no doubt that under the circumstances, the reoccurring theme of repetition is eloquently articulated in early automotive architecture. However, the mobility and speed automobiles were never quite explored in these industrial buildings. The myriad examples of automotive factories represent only stagnant processes of production. Many tried to formulate theories to capture the movement in time and space but perhaps the most pertinent of these ideas came from expressionism and futurism, from Mendelsohn and Marinetti respectively. Mendelsohn suggested that “Modern man, amidst the excited flurry of his fast-moving life, can find equilibrium only in the tension-free horizontal.”20 Mendelsohn’s own sketching for the competition entry for the design of an office building is a manifestation of his theories. Later interpretations of this ideology could be seen in the BMW Central Building in Leipzig. The preliminary sketching of Zaha Hadid on the Central Building design drew uncanny resemblance to the one done by Mendelsohn. The final resolution is able to capture the multitude of contextual forces and movements. The various demarcations on the horizontal surfaces of the façade maps the diagrammatic flows of the project.21 Marinetti suggested that “objects in motion multiply and distort themselves, just as do vibrations, which indeed they are,

Figure 28. Mendelsohn’s sketch for competition entry for high-rise design in Berlin.

Figure 29. Zaha Hadid’s sketch for BMW Central Building.

Structure, Material Use and Formal Expression

in passing through space.”22 Despite the precarious relevance of Marinetti’s analysis to architecture, it serves as a vehicle with which architects could reexamine the meaning of the mobility in automotive architecture. Repetition and standardization might have been suitable for the industrial age but is no longer the adequate solution to the dynamism of modern mobility. The modern age of consumerism is not about mass production but the availability of greater choices of products. Correspondingly, architecture with commercial agendas such as an automotive showroom should be endowed with the appropriate expression of structure. Taking Marinetti’s interpretation as a point of departure, one would arrive at the notion that in order for architecture to represent motion, there shouldn’t be duplication. Duplication or repetition should be replaced multiplication. If one were to apply this to automotive architecture in the past century, one will come to the conclusion that instead of being repeated, structure could be ‘multiplied’ and ‘distorted’. The recently completed BMW Welt, an automotive showroom in Munich, exhibited this idea of multiplication and distortion. The double helix structure, which holds the exhibition and event space, is composed of hollow steel members of different lengths. It is an exemplar of the dynamism created by reinterpretation of the theory of

Figure 30. The BMW Central Building.

Figure 31. The BMW Welt double cone.

Structure, Material Use and Formal Expression

Marinetti. The BMW Welt therefore paves the way forward for conception of a structure for mobility. The history of automotive architecture consisted of a series of buildings of differing typologies. What had started out as strictly industrial architecture had evolved into the extremity of urban integration. Manufacturers, architects and urban planners alike should not underestimate the impact of automobile in modern life. At the same time, automotive architecture design should be geared towards how design rationale, functional accommodation, spatial articulation, structure, material use and formal expression could provide solution towards social, political and artistic issues, on top of fulfilling their commercial agendas. Recent designs such as the BMW Central Building, BMW Welt, Beijing International Automotive Expo and many others had aspired to represent the Zeitgeist of contemporary architecture and the future of automotive. If the recent developments are a judge of what is to come, we know that there will be immense activities within the field of automotive. Architects only have to reflect on the past theories of architects and philosophers for inspiration; at no time should they stop asking the question, what is automotive architecture?

Figure 32. The BMW Welt double cone interior.

Endnotes 1. Dirk Meyhöfer, Motortecture: Design for Mobility (Ludwigsburg: avedition, 2003): 8. 2. Ibid., 8. 3. Steven Tolliday and Jonathan Zeitlin, The Automobile Industry and its Workers: Between Fordism and Flexibility (New York: St.Martin’s Press, 1987): 1-2. 4. Federico Bucci, Albert Kahn: Architect of Ford (New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 1993): 39-40. 5. Ibid., 39. 6. Louis Sullivan, “Tall office building artistically considered” in Form and function. A source book for the history of architecture and design, 1890-1939 (London: Granada Publishing, 1975): 13. 7. Tilemann Buddensieg, Industriekultur: Peter Behrens and the AEG, 1907-1914 (Cambridge: The MIT Press, 1984): 242. 8. Terry Smith, Making the Modern: Industry, Art, and Design in America (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1993): 19. 9. Kathleen James, Enrich Mendelsohn and the Architecture of German Modernism (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1997): 4. 10. Robert Kudielka, “Speculative Architecture: On Aesthetics of Herzog and de Meuron.” in Herzog and de Meuron: Natural History (Montreal: Canadian Centre for Architecture): 279. 11. Lindy Biggs, The Rational Factory: Architecture, Technology, and Work in America’s Age of Mass Production (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1996): 77-78. 12. Federico Bucci, Albert Kahn: Architect of Ford (New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 1993): 54. 13. Ibid., 54. 14. Terry Kirk, The Architecture of Modern Italy, Volume II: Visions of Utopia, 1900 – Present (New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 2005): 61. 15. Ibid., 58. 16. Dennis Sharp, “The Fagus Factory and the Dessau Bauhaus” in Bauhaus and the Fagus Factory (Tokyo: A.D.A. Edita, 1994): 3. 17. Federico Bucci, Albert Kahn: Architect of Ford (New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 1993): 33. 18. Ibid., 58. 19. Tilemann Buddensieg, Industriekultur: Peter Behrens and the AEG, 1907-1914 (Cambridge: The MIT Press, 1984): 142. 20. Kathleen James, Enrich Mendelsohn and the Architecture of German Modernism (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1997): 93. 21. Zaha Hadid, Zaha Hadid: BMW Central Building, Leipzig, Germany (New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 2006): 129. 22. Siegfried Giedion, Space, Time and Architecture: The Growth of a New Tradition (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1982): 444.

Image References 1. Federico Bucci, Albert Kahn: Architect of Ford (New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 1993): 35. 2. Ibid., 35. 3. Ibid., 44. 4. Ibid., 40. 5. Kathleen James, Enrich Mendelsohn and the Architecture of German Modernism (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1997): 86. 6. Kai K Gutschow, “From objects to installation in Bruno Taut’s exhibition pavilions,” Journal of architectural education 59 (2006): 64. 7. Rosemarie Haag Bletter, “Paul Scheerbart’s Architectural Fantasies,” JSAH 34, n.2 (1975): 90. 8. Kathleen James, Enrich Mendelsohn and the Architecture of German Modernism (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1997): 3. 9. Ibid., 27. 10. “Herzog & de Meuron.” Architecture d’aujourd’hui 1995, no. 300 (1995): 47. 11. Ibid., 47. 12. Federico Bucci, Albert Kahn: Architect of Ford (New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 1993): 46. 13. Ibid., 47. 14. George Nelson, Industrial Architecture of Albert Kahn, Inc.(New York: Architectural Book Publishing Company, Inc., 1939): 47. 15. Ibid., 85. 16. “Renzo Piano Building Workshop: Lingotto Factory Rehabilitation,” A+U: architecture and urbanism 315 (1996): 62. 17. “Manuelle Gautrand: Citroen Communication Center,” A+U: architecture and urbanism 315 (2007): 81. 18. http://www.caradvice.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/audi-image40166_b.jpg (accessed: 22/04/10). 19. http://blog.lib.umn.edu/yuanx072/architecture/oosterhuis1.jpg (accessed: 22/04/10). 20. Zaha Hadid, Zaha Hadid: BMW Central Building, Leipzig, Germany (New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 2006): 96. 21. http://blog.hemmings.com/wp-content/uploads//2009/09/847_1_1000-Henn-Beijing-rendering-night.jpg (accessed: 22/04/10). 22. Federico Bucci, Albert Kahn: Architect of Ford (New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 1993): 35. 23. Ibid., 35. 24. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/19/Fagus-Werke-03.jpg (accessed: 22/04/10). 25. Tilemann Buddensieg, Industriekultur: Peter Behrens and the AEG, 1907-1914 (Cambridge: The MIT Press, 1984): 279. 26. Ruins of Modernity: Enrich Mendelsohn’s Hat Factory in Luckenwalde (London: Architectural Association, 1998): 8. 27. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/01/Luckenwalde_HatFactory_inner_view.jpg (accessed: 22/04/10). 28. Kathleen James, Enrich Mendelsohn and the Architecture of German Modernism (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1997): 91. 29. Zaha Hadid, Zaha Hadid: BMW Central Building, Leipzig, Germany (New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 2006): 25. 30. http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3116/2852239003_628e4b65e8_o.jpg (accessed: 22/04/10). 31. http://www.bmw.gotik-romanik.de/BMW%20Welt%20Thumbnails/BMW%20Welt%20von%20Thomas%20 Rieger,%204.jpg (accessed: 22/04/10). 32. http://www.aktuellekamera.de/images/20071021162138_bmw_welt_4.jpg (accessed: 22/04/10).