[Anti] building the erratic city

!! !! !! !! !! !! ! !

!! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !!

! ! !

[ANTI] BUILDING ! ! IC CITY  T H E E R R AT ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

H+U March Term 1 !

Critical Urbanism!

!

Submitted by Amanda Palasik!

12th January 2015

!

CONTENTS!

!! ! !

INTRODUCTION ..…………………………………………………………………………………… 1!

ARCHITECTURE’S DILEMMA IN CONTEMPORARY URBANISM ..…………….……………!2!

THE PIONEERING INFLUENCES OF CEDRIC PRICE ..……………………………………….!3!

[ANTI]BUILDING, A NEW TYPOLOGY ..…………………………………………………………..!5!

[ANTI]BUILDING, AN URBAN ACCELERATOR ..………………………………………………..!8!

INSPIRING A NEW URBANISM ..………………………………………………………………….! 9!

[ANTI]BUILDING THE ERRATIC CITY ..…………………………………………………………..!10!

BIBLIOGRAPHY ..……………………………………………………………………………………. 11!

FIGURE CREDITS ..…………………………………………………………………………………. 12

! ! !

[ANTI]BUILDING !

T H E E R R AT I C C I T Y

!! !

Throughout architecture’s evolution, its ability to physically construct and reflect the ethos of a city has undeniably held a critical role in urbanisation, with arguable successes and failures. However, the relevance of architecture and its ability to address the ever accelerated demands of the contemporary city has come into question with technology exponentially increasing, populations constantly shrinking and growing, the economic climate in constant flux, and “100 years of cultural change expected to occur over the next thirty years” (Gehl Architects, 2010). How can architecture sustain its position and respond to the present and anticipated variables of our modern cities? The conventional process of design, the cycle of development and redevelopment, to solve modern society’s issues has become inundated as urban conditions change faster than they are able to be physically addressed. Fundamentally, this crisis questions architecture’s role and relevance to contemporary and future urbanism as we seek innovative approaches to address the increasingly erratic conditions of our cities.

Figure 1. Poverty and overcrowding in the slums of Mumbai

Figure 2. Remnants of a neighbourhood in the shrinking city of Detroit, MI

Figure 3. Economic disparity leaves new construction to rot in Spain

! !1

ARCHITECTURE’S DILEMMA IN CONTEMPORARY URBANISM

!

Architect Aldo Rossi’s theory on permanence1 epitomises the catalytic nature of architecture to either “retard” or “accelerate” the process of urbanisation (Rossi, 1982, p.

6). The inhibiting state of architecture, noted as “pathological” permanence, occurs when a structure can no longer be physically adapted to respond to contemporary needs.

As a result, consequences such as functional irrelevance can lead to physical disconnectivity of the urban fabric (Rossi, 1982, p. 59). !

!

An example of Rossi’s classification can be seen in current phenomenas such as shrinking cities. Many post-industrial cities such as Detroit have succumbed, if not surrendered, to economic uncertainty, causing massive population loss. As a result, the urban fabric is plagued with decaying vacant architecture. A prolonging effect, these pathological artefacts only further burden the existing fragments and lingering integrity of the former city as the cost of demolition/ preservation bare heavy on the fragile tax base. !

Additionally, historic cities such as Bath, England2 are suffering from the consequences of invariable architecture and ageing infrastructure as demands to transform it into a contemporary city emerge (Salt and Cullis, 2011, 11-12). Thriving primarily as a tourist destination, the historically preserved Georgian architecture unique to Bath creates obstacles in its ability to function as something more. The impeding cost of continuous maintenance, limitations on physical adaptation, and lack of fire-resistant construction, have proven challenging for residential habitation and the transition to contemporary functions (Lynch, 1972, p. 11).

With an anticipated population growth of over 10% in the next ten years, the city is facing a major dilemma created by the physical confines of its architecture as it must provide adequate housing (particularly for an ageing population), improved infrastructure, as well as employment opportunities without jeopardising its unique historic identity (Poole, 2010, p. 1).!

!! !! !

!

Figure 4. The haunting past of a high school that has since become irrelevant to the contemporary conditions of Detroit,

1

Aldo Rossi refers to the architecture of “urban artefacts” in his chapter on Monuments and the Theory of Permanences. He argues the physical and symbolic persistence of urban artefacts throughout the evolution of the city establishes permanence and therefore should be retained as a vital component of the city, despite an artefact’s suppressing nature.

2

The city of Bath is listed as a World Heritage Site and is protected under several local and national ordinances.

!2

Figure 5. Diagram of Cedric Price’s Fun Palace featuring a matrix iconic imagery to relay a multitude of possibilities

THE PIONEERING INFLUENCES OF CEDRIC PRICE !

The work of late twentieth century Architect, Cedric Price, is arguably the most influential, yet controversial, in acknowledging the physical, functional, and social dilemmas of architecture still relevant today. Price’s claim, that “architecture is too slow in its realisation to be a problem solver”, criticises the role and practice of architecture in respect to contemporary urbanism (Price and Obrist, 2003, p.136). To combat architecture’s stagnation, Price offers the “anti-building” as a response, to counteract the critically over-designed city. His response suggested flexible, indeterminate, and ephemeral architecture in contrast to conventional aesthetics, form, and function.!

!

Perhaps Price’s most notable example of the anti-building is his proposal for the Fun Palace in London, an open laboratory for pleasure, exploration, and public appropriation. His design defies the conventional wall enclosed building and instead adopts the use of lightweight flexible architecture consisting of a modular conveyance system and a minimal column grid to support an operable louvered roof cover. Operating 24-hours as a ‘university of the streets,’ its lack of doors assumes an inviting open door policy

to the public (Hardingham, 2003). The strategic positioning of the project within a neglected industrial area of the Lea River3, aimed to reinvent an otherwise overlooked area as public realm by using the adjacent factory buildings as a backdrop to define the interstitial site of Fun Palace. Likewise, it exploited urban blight as an opportunity to create unconventional public space.

Choose what you want to do — or watch someone else doing it. Learn how to handle tools, paint, babies, machinery, or just listen to your favourite tune. Dance, talk or be lifted up to where you can see how other people make things work… We are building a short-term plaything in which all of us can realise the possibilities and delights that a 20th Century city environment owes us. It must last no longer than we need it. !

!

Cedric Price, Advertisement on Fun Palace drawing, 1960-61. !

Fun Palace was initially slated to be located in the Isle of Dogs to address the social distress of the region but was later proposed at the Lea River due to opposition from the Isle of Dogs.

3

!3

Additionally, Price was a firm believer that architecture should remain exclusively relative to current context. Therefore, Fun Palace with designed with an intentional lifespan of ten years to allow something ‘better’ to be its replacement (Price and Obrist, 2009, p.65). He refers to this concept as “calculated uncertainty, the creation of temporary, adaptable structures that can be altered, transformed or demolished, serving the need of the moment” (Wilken, 2007). ! !

What do we have architecture for? It’s a way of imposing order or establishing a belief, and thats the cause of religion to some extent. Architecture doesn’t need those rules anymore; it doesn't need mental imperialism; its too slow, its too heavy…!

Price’s main criticism of architecture was its inadequacy to “enrich or enliven people’s lives," scolding it as a “poor performer” to realise its abilities (Price and Obrist, 2009, p.71). Politically, Fun Palace was a rebellious response to the imposition of the welfare state on the public realm in London in the 1960s (Lobsinger 2000, p.129). Referring to the public as the “designers…generators and operators” Fun Palace was a symbol of democratic appropriation, a machine operated by the collective (Price and Obrist, 2009, p.68). Although unbuilt, the project’s exploratory and experimental aspirations strove to resuscitate London and the lives of those within, bringing excitement, fantasy, and delusion to the norm.

!

Cedric Price interview with Hans Obrist. London, 2000

Figure 6. Cedric Price’s montage rendering of Fun Palace, situated in the interstitial industrial setting of London’s Lea River

!4

The rebellious concept of Price’s anti-building presented in the late 20th Century inspired the revolutionary rethinking of architecture’s role and relevance to urbanism in the work of fellow Architects Rem Koolhaas, Bernard Tschumi, and Archigram, to name a few. In particular, Koolhaas’ Strategy of the Void, proclaims the value of the undesigned; the “absence of building” to “rid architecture of its responsibilities it can no longer sustain and to explore this new freedom aggressively” (Koolhaas, Mau,Sigler, & Werlemann, 1998, p.604, 626). !

Figure 8. Tschumi’s Architecture of fireworks, depict-

!

[ANTI]BUILDING A NEW TYPOLOGY

!

Figure 7. Strategy of the Void: OMA’ s conceptual sketch for Zentrum Fur Kunst Media Center in Germany

In Koolhaas’ proposal for Très Grande Bibliothèque, undesigned open space, in the form of voids, are extracted from the consolidation of digital information storage that forms the library’s mass. The composition of overlapping transparencies created by these components form a dynamic composition of “formless architecture” (Koolhaas, Mau,Sigler, & Werlemann, 1998, p.638).

Acknowledging the lost potential of conventional library typologies to exploit the technological advances of modern society, the project sought to reinvent the modern library through an architecture of technology. Likewise, Price’s influence can be traced to Tschumi’s emphasis on the ephemeral nature of architecture through explorations of movement and events. Additionally, Archigram’s programmable and moveable “PlugIn City”, created by the mechanics of infrastructure, continued the debate posed by Price in acknowledging a new paradigm to address the demands of the city.!

Today, the trajectory of the anti-building concept as pioneered by Price has proven extremely effective in responding to the variables of contemporary urbanism, refocusing the remedial role and catalytic nature of conventional architecture (inhibiting or accelerating urbanism) to a take on a more resilient role that does not struggle to achieve permanence but accepts the inevitability of change. Likewise, alluding to an anti-architecture of types, styles, and the traditional approach to design, the surge of anti-building typologies represents the decaying relevance of conventional architecture in respect to contemporary urbanism. !

!

Modern day context interprets the concept of anti-building as the emergence of a new typology of non-committed architecture. The antithesis of permanence, it does not propose a solution to a question in time but rather offers an evolving response. Its dynamism allows it to defy the singularity of form and function that was the downfall of conventional architecture. Likewise, it does not infer the literal absence of physical form, but acknowledges that the physical attributes of architecture are not critical to it’s underlying ambitions and ultimate purpose. In that sense, the anti-building is temporary, of light construction, ‘pop-up’4, even nomadic.

“Pop-up” was a term noted by Price in his 1965 project Pop-Up Parliament . Arguably, Price was the first to use the term in reference to an architectural typology.

4

!5

A successful example of non-committed architecture’s position in contemporary urbanism is illustrated in COBE’s renovation of Nørreport Station in Copenhagen. Defying the conventional transit station type, the new extroverted station design features an open plan with transparent “walls”. A floating roof hovers over the area, sheltering the existing paths. The station’s circulation is not proposed, rather derived from the existing patterns traversed by the public in their day to day interactions across the site (Boserup & Sjökvist, 2014).!

!

Similar to Koolhaas’ use of the void in Très Grande Bibliothèque, the functional necessities of the station, ventilation shafts and bike racks, are located in the pockets isolated by natural rhythms of the publics circulation across the site while the undesigned void space of the station allows opportunity for public engagement. The minimal architecture of Nørreport Station serves to enhance the existing urban conditions created by the pedestrian rhythm, rather than to impose a new order. Likewise, the use of light, almost nonexistent architecture, does not impose boundaries or suggest a temperament for the space. Rather, the design merges figure with ground, seamlessly connecting with the surrounding urban fabric to create an extensive public space.!

Figure 10. Mapping of existing pedestrian circulation patterns across the site for Nørreport Station, COBE Architects.

Figure 11. Voids in circulation patterns are allocated to the physical necessities of the station such as ventilation shafts and bike parking.

!!

Figure 9. Detroit’s, now abandoned, Michigan Central Station. An example of ‘pathological permanence’ , an artefact now isolated and irrelevant to the conditions of modern day Detroit that contributes to its urban decay.

Figure 12. COBE’s Nørreport Station. An example of light, open architecture with minimal intervention to enhance the existing rhythm of Copenhagen.

!6

Furthermore, the unbuilt ambitions of Price’s Fun Palace can be witnessed in Richard Roger’s and Renzo Piano’s Pompidou Centre in Paris. Exploiting the potential of light architecture, the expansive shed-like structure allows maximum flexibility of the interior function. The building’s necessary utilities, structure, and conveyance systems have been relocated to the exterior, freeing the interior floor space. The flexibility of the centre’s architecture reinforces the concept “buildings should be able to change to allow people the freedom to adjust their environment as they need” (Rogers Stirk Harbour & Partners).! !

The open plaza, Place Beaubourg, that surrounds the centre affords opportunity for informal public gathering, a public stage for impromptu events ranging anywhere from performances, daydreaming, people watching, to balloon launching. The thriving vibrancy of the Pompidou centre as an active cultural centre, to both tourist and Parisians, is much attributed to it's evolving array of ephemeral exhibits, which entices the return of patrons. Despite its controversial position within the heart of historic Parisian fabric, the Pompidou’s ability to respond to contemporary demands and to provide a unique environment for leisure and enlightenment has earned it an iconic position within Paris.

Figure 13. The Pompidou Centre in the historic fabric of Paris

Figure 14. Diagram of Cedric Price’s Fun Palace

Figure 15. Plaza at Pompidou Centre

!7

[ANTI]BUILDING AN URBAN ACCELERATOR In addition to a new architectural typology, the rise of anti-building architecture has steadily increased over the past few decades as a strategic planning tactic in response to the uncertainties of the economic climate. Contrary to the permanence and solidity of conventional architectural, anti-building has proven effective as a lowrisk planning tactic,and has become a successful catalyst for urban regeneration.

London in particular has relied on the use of non-committing architecture for much of its redevelopment. The historic Spitalfields Market halls are a prime example. Slated to become a major office complex in the early 1990s, economic and social uncertainties in the region paired with the collapsing real estate market prohibited the market’s immediate development. The Spitalfields Development group, in conjunction with the private firm Urban Space Management, decided to implement interim temporary use of the market in an effort to “prevent vandalism and squatting, reduce maintenance costs, and increase the acceptance of the planned office project” (Polinna, 2013, p.

264). !

!

The two entities merged to form Spitalfields Space Management, minimally investing in the temporary re-use of the halls as arts and crafts markets, covered sports fields, artist studios, restaurants, performance space, and even a swimming pool in the proposed development’s abandoned foundation. The temporary use of the market halls remained strong from 1992 until 1999, when activities were phased out or relocated to nearby areas in order to plan for the long anticipated office complex that was given new light with the construction boom at the end of the decade. Despite citizen protests to continue the temporary use of the thriving new cultural destination, their voices fell upon deaf ears. One of the market halls was retained in its original state and the other was commercialised by Foster & Partners as part of the office project, finally constructed in 2003. !

Similar to Archigram’s Plug-In City, noncommitting architecture allows programs to be phased in and out, creating an everchanging city of leisure and excitement that responds to the variable social and economic conditions of society. Today, the Spitalfields region has become a thriving haven for pop-up and temporary uses as it continues to undergo redevelopment.

“A city that doesn't change and replace itself is a dead city”.!

!

Cedric Price, Re:CP 54

Figure 16. BOXPARK, pop-up mall in Shoreditch

!

Figure 17. Adaptive interim use of empty space and appropriation of public space amongst the ruins of derelict infrastructure in Shoreditch

!8

INSPIRING A NEW URBANISM

!

The value of non-committed architecture in contemporary urbanism is not to be underestimated solely as a sustainable trial-anderror response to the uncertainties of modern society, nor undermined as a form of disposable architecture. As proposed in the work of Price, the social ambitions of antibuilding serves to inspire appropriation and enhance the quality of life with little to no architectural imposition. These characteristics can be seen in tactical urbanism, often referred to as “guerrilla" or “pop-up” urbanism, “a city and citizen-led approach to neighbourhood building using short-term, low-cost and scaleable interventions to catalyse long-term change” within a city (Lydon, 2011). Such tactics can be ephemeral in the form of events such as farmer’s markets, aesthetic such as street murals, or low risk initiatives such as turning vacant lots into community gardens. The ambitions of tactical urbanism serve to benefit the collective, improving the public realm through democratic collaboration.!

Post-Katrina shelters, or perhaps Archigram's’ futuristic Plug-In City?!

!

Furthermore, what would be the consequences of a non-committed erratic city?

Would cities such as Detroit be in a better predicament if the conventional architecture of the city was replaced with non-committed structures that could be disassembled, relocated, or adapted to accommodate the conditions of its current circumstances? Could Bath be transformed into a thriving city with anti-buildings allowing flexible modern amenities without compromising its historic integrity, a form of light, non-intrusive architecture that could layer or float over the city’s historic foundations?!

!

Similar to Fun Palace’s position in the former industrial Lea River Valley, tactical urbanism is often staged in under-utilised and interstitial space, such as vacant structures, as a means of encouraging regeneration.

Likewise, it inspires the experience of discovery, a contrast to the expectedness of the conventional. Perhaps for this reason, it can be argues that tactical urbanism is the most relevant example of anti-building in contemporary urbanism, relying solely on the collaborative will of the public, as the “designers, generators, and operators” to unveil the opportunities of their city, independent of any architectural influence (Price and Obrist, 2009,p. 68).!

!

Figure 18. Temporary Black Rock City of Burning Man Festival

Figure 19. Post-Katrina temporary neighbourhood in the Lower Ninth Ward

The increase of anti-building typologies in cities poses several open ended questions exploring the fate of our cities. Could this new architecture eventually phase out conventional architecture at a macro scale, become the universal typology of the city?

What would be the structure, if at all, of a non-committed city? Would it resemble the Black Rock City of Burning Man, the Lower Ninth Ward’s modular neighbourhood of

Figure 20. Archigram’s guide to the mobile and transient Plug-In City

!9

[ANTI]BUILDING THE ERRATIC CITY

!

Although it seems unlikely that conventional architecture will become completely obsolete (at least in the next century), its relevance to the demands of contemporary urbanism is arguably being phased out as anti-building typologies are plugged into the city as surrogates. As evident in the once seemingly anarchic work of Cedric Price and his influence over his successors, architecture has assumed a new role, void of its former deficiencies, to not only adapt to the flux of modern society but to preserve the potential of the city. The evolution of the anti-building as a new typology, temporal and flexible in nature, allows it to persevere and retain relevance in the modern city. Its liberation from conventional architecture’s aesthetic, form, and functional confines allow the city room to breath, to continuously rediscover itself.!

!

Likewise, as a selfless architecture, antibuilding’s ambitions serve to enhance the quality of life within the built environment, encouraging user appropriation and strengthening conditions with minimal intervention rather than imposing order and postulation through convention. Acknowledging the unpredictability associated with urbanism, the progressive nature of non-committed architecture embraces the desire for change, exploration, and uncertainty. Price’s avant- garde influences are especially relevant to current debate as we aspire to seek innovative approaches to address the increasingly erratic social, economic, political, cultural, and technological demands of contemporary urbanism.!

!! !! !! !

If there is to be a “new urbanism” it will not be based on the twin fantasies of order and omnipotence; it will be the staging of uncertainty; it will no longer be concerned with the arrangement of more or less permanent objects but with the irrigation of territories with potential; it will no longer aim for stable configurations but for the creation of enabling fields that accommodate processes that refuse to be crystallized into definitive form; it will no longer be about meticulous definition….!

!

Rem Koolhaas, What Ever Happened to Urbanism? from S,M,L,XL!

!10

BIBLIOGRAPHY!

! ! !

Bishops, P. and Williams, L. (2012). The Temporary City. London: Routledge.!

Boserup, R. and Sjökvist, S. (2014, Nov. 14). COBE Architects. [Presentation] Presented at the office of COBE Architects in Copenhagen, Denmark.!

Gehl Architects. Urban Prototyping - Exploring Temporary and Permanent. (2012). [Blog] Gehl Blog. Available at: http://gehlarchitects.com/blog/urban-prototyping-exploring-temporary-permanent/ [Accessed 17 Nov. 2014].!

! !

Hardingham, S. (2003). Cedric Price. Chichester, West Sussex, England: Wiley-Academy.!

Killing, A. (2011). Urban Tactics – temp use + long term planning. [online] Killing Architects.

Available at: http://www.killingarchitects.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/UrbanTactics_TempInterventions+LongTermPlanning.pdf [Accessed 23 Dec. 2014].!

! !

Koolhaas, R., Mau, B., Sigler, J. and Werlemann, H. (1998). S,M,L,XL. New York: Monacelli Press.!

Lobsinger, M. (2000). Cybernetic Theory and the Architecture of Performance. Cedric Price’s Fun Palace,. In: S. Williams Goldhagen and R. Legault, ed., book Anxious Modernism. Experimentation in Postwar Architectural Culture, 1st ed. Cambridge: MIT Press, p.119-137.!

! ! ! !

Lydon, M. (2011). Tactical Urbanism Volume 1. Tactical Urbanism. [online] Available at: http:// tacticalurbanismguide.com [Accessed 6 Dec. 2014].!

Lynch, K. (1972). What time is this place?. Cambridge: MIT Press.!

Polinna, C. (2013). Spitalfields Market, London. In: P. Oswalt, K. Overmeyer and P. Misselwitz, ed., Urban Catalyst, 1st ed. Berlin: Dom Pub, pp.264-271.!

Poole, J. (2010). The Population Of Bath and North East Somerset in 2009. [online] Bath and North East Somerset Council, p.1. Available at: http://www.bathnes.gov.uk/sites/default/files/ the_population_of_bath_and_north_east_somerset_final.doc [Accessed 21 Dec. 2014].!

! ! !

Price, C. and Obrist, H. (2003). Re CP. Basel: Birkhauser, p.54.!

Price, C. and Obrist, H. (2009). Cedric Price. Köln: W. König.!

Rogers Stirk Harbour + Partners LLP (2010). Design - Centre Pompidou. [online] Available at: http://www.richardrogers.co.uk/work/buildings/centre_pompidou/design [Accessed 23 Dec. 2014].!

! !

Rossi, A. and Eisenman, P. (1982). The architecture of the city. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.!

Salt, P. and Cullis, A. (2011). Bath and North East Somerset Cultural Strategy 2011-2026. [online] pp.11-12. Available at: http://www.bathnes.gov.uk/sites/default/files/sitedocuments/ Planning-and-Building-Control/Planning-Policy/Evidence-Base/Recreation-Cultural-and-Services/BathandNorthEastSomersetCulturalStrategy2011-2026.pdf [Accessed 2 Dec. 2014].!

!

Wilken, R. (2007). Calculated Uncertainty: Computers, Chance Encounters, and "Community" in the Work of Cedric Price. [online] Transformation. Available at: http://www.transformationsjournal.org/journal/issue_14/article_04.shtml [Accessed 22 Nov. 2014].!

!11

FIGURE CREDITS!

!!

Figure 1. !

[Dharavi Slum in Mumbai [digital photograph] Available at: http://8142.blogspot.co.uk/ 2013/01/the-labor-of-mumbai-slums.html [Accessed 23 Dec. 2014].!

!

Figure 2. !

Vacant lots in Detroit [digital photograph] Available at: http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/solving-cities/the-worlds-largest-urban-farm-or-not/ [Accessed 02 Jan. 2015].!

!

Figure 3. !

Newly constructed yet vacant Ciudad Real's Airport in Spain [digital photograph] Getty Images. Available at: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2170886/Spains-ghost-airport-The1BILLION-transport-hub-closed-just-years-thats-falling-rack-ruin.html [Accessed 04 Jan. 2015].!

!

Figure 4. !

Detroiturbex.com. The library, from a picture in an early 90's yearbook [digital composite photograph] Available at: http://detroiturbex.com/content/schools/cass/thenandnow/index.html [Accessed 04 Jan. 2015].!

!

Figure 5. !

Price, C. (1961) The Fun Palace , Diagram [reprographic digital copy] Available at: http:// www.interactivearchitecture.org/fun-palace-cedric-price.html [Accessed 23 Nov. 2014].!

!

Figure 6.!

Price, C. (1961) The Fun Palace at Lea River Site, Photomontage [reprographic digital copy] Available at: http://www.uncubemagazine.com/blog/13212377 [Accessed 23 Nov. 2014].!

!

Figure 7.!

Koolhaas, R. Sketch for ZKM [sketch] In: Koolhaas, R., Mau, B., Sigler, J. and Werlemann, H. (1998) S,M,L,XL. New York: Monacelli Press, p. 626.!

!

Figure 8.!

Tschumi, B. (1992) Fireworks at Parc de la Villette [photograph] In: (1994) Event Cities. Cambridge: MIT Press, p.18.!

!

Figure 9.!

Lindow, C. (2013) Michigan Central Station [digital photograph] Available at: http://fineartamerica.com/featured/michigan-central-station-cindy-lindow.html [Accessed 20 Dec. 2014].!

!

Figure 10.!

COBE Architects. Nørreport Station pedestrian circulation diagram [rendered diagram] Available at: http://www.cobe.dk/project/norreport-station#1821 [Accessed 05 Dec. 2014].!

!

Figure 11.!

COBE Architects. Nørreport Station circulation voids diagram [rendered diagram] Available at: http://www.cobe.dk/project/norreport-station#1822 [Accessed 05 Dec. 2014].!

!

Figure 12.!

COBE Architects. Model of Nørreport Station [photograph of physical model] Available at: http://www.cobe.dk/project/norreport-station#21217 [Accessed 05 Dec. 2014].!

!

!12

Figure 13.!

Arthus-Betrand, Y. (ca. 1997-1998) Aerial View of the Georges Pompidou Centre [digital photograph] Available at:Â http://www.corbisimages.com/stock-photo/rights-managed/YA020007/ aerial-view-of-the-georges-pompidou-centre [Accessed 05 Jan. 2015].!

!

Figure 14.!

Price, C. (1961) The Fun Palace, Section [reprographic digital copy] Available at: http:// www.audacity.org/SM-26-11-07-01.htm [Accessed 23 Nov. 2014].!

! !

Figure 15.!

Palasik, A. (2013) People watching at Place Beaubourg [digital photograph].!

Figure 16.!

Palasik, A. (2014) BoxPark pop-up mall captured on the H. Hinsley tour de Broadgate and Spitalfields [digital photograph].!

!

Figure 17.!

Palasik, A. (2014) Transformation at Wheler Street: adaptive interim use of empty space and appropriation of public space amongst the ruins of derelict infrastructure [digital photograph].!

!

Figure 18.!

Christopher, M. (2010) Black Rock City [digital photograph] Available at: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/09/Black_rock_city_(4962293296).jpg [Accessed 05 Dec. 2014].!

!

Figure 19.!

Stirton, B. (2007) Brad Pitt’s Make it Right Program [digital photograph] Getty Images. Available at: http://www.zimbio.com/pictures/QH2FzLMy2rA/Brad+Pitt+Unveils+Site+Make+Right +Program/5M-T-lFJJPq [Accessed 26 Dec. 2014].!

!

Figure 20.!

Cook, P. and Archigram. Plug-in City Simplified Guide, Section 1 [reprographic digital copy] Available at: http://www.archdaily.com/399329/ad-classics-the-plug-in-city-peter-cook-archigram/51d71ba2e8e44ebb5000002a_ad-classics-the-plug-in-city-peter-cook-archigram_269_medium-jpg/ [Accessed 28 Dec. 2014].!

!! !! !! !! !! ! !! !! !

!13