Page 1

Is Yes More? A Comparison of the Architectural Practices OMA, MVRDV, and BIG, and the Data-Driven Approach to Architecture

Paul Arthur Westwell


A dissertation submitted to the Manchester School of Architecture for the degree of Bachelor of Architecture

May 2011 Paul Arthur Westwell Achieved Mark_70%

Manchester School of Architecture University of Manchester Manchester Metropolitan University


Declaration This study was completed as part of the Bachelor of Architecture degree at the Manchester School of Architecture. This work is my own. Where the work of others is implemented or drawn upon, it is attributed to the relevant source. Signed................................................................. Paul Arthur Westwell


Copyright Statement Copyright in text of this thesis rests with the author. Copies (by any process) either in full, or of extracts, may be made only in accordance with instructions given by the Author and lodged in the John Rylands Library of Manchester. Details may be obtained from the Librarian. This page must form part of any such copies made. Further copies (by any process) of copies made in accordance with such instructions may not be made without the permission (in writing) of the Author. The ownership of any intellectual property rights which may be described in this thesis is vested in the Manchester School of Architecture, subject to any prior agreement to the contrary, and may not be made available for use by third parties without the written permission of the University, which will prescribe the terms and conditions of any such agreement. Further information on the conditions under which disclosures and exploitation may take place is available from the Head of Department of the School of Environment and Development.


Acknowledgements I extend my gratitude to my dissertation tutor Dr Nick Dunn for his help and support throughout the research process. I could never have imagined that the two phrases ‘data visualisation’ and ‘data-driven architecture’ could have taken me on such a journey, but they did. I would also like to thank my parents for keeping me sane and doing my share of the washing up. Dad, I cannot thank you enough for your meticulous proof reading and patience. Thank You.


Abstract Is Yes More? Following the publication of the archicomic Yes is More by BIG, this dissertation will identify a number of different themes that allow comparison to be drawn between the theoretical approach to architecture by the three architectural practices: OMA, MVRDV and BIG. These comparisons will allow for a subjective level of success to be drawn and to an answer to the research questions ‘Is yes more?’, and ‘Is BIG’s approach capable of comparative success to MVRDV and OMA?’


Contents

05_Abstract

07_Chapter_01: Introduction 09_Chapter_02: Literature Reivew 20_Chapter_03: Practice Recognition 24_Chapter_04: Theoretical Output 27_Chapter_05: Built Output: Data Synthesis 31_Chapter_06: Conclusion

33_Appendix 45_Biblography 48_List of Illustrations


Yes is More: An Archicomic on Architectural Evolution, published by the Danish architecture practice Bjarke Ingels Group (BIG) 5 in 2009, is the starting point for this dissertation.

In Yes is More, BIG proclaim that, “Historically the field of architecture has been dominated by two opposing extremes. On one side an avant-garde of wild ideas, often so detached from reality that they fail to become something First impressions of this ‘archicomic’ were very other than eccentric curiosities. On the other side positive. Well explained graphics, photos of amazing there are well organized corporate consultants that models, and innovative forms support a host of build predictable and boring boxes of high standard. impressive, realised, and design projects in a fresh Architecture seems entrenched between two equally and inspiring format. The title of the book, which unfertile fronts: either naively utopian or petrifyingly is explained in its preface, is a combination of the pragmatic. Rather than choosing one over the other, “yes we can” slogan, from the 2007 Barack Obama BIG operates in the fertile overlap between the US presidential campaign, insinuating unity and two opposites. A pragmatic utopian architecture optimism, and the mid-20th century quote “less is that takes on the creating of socially, economically more” from architect Ludwig Mies van der Rohe, and environmentally perfect places as a practical which implies that a minimalist approach of keeping objective.” 2 something simple is more effective. Following the reading of texts outlined by the Re_Map The adaptation of this historic phrase and the placing College of the Manchester School of Architecture, of himself in the context of revered architects, who similarities were drawn between BIG and the work have previous formed their own phrases, such as Mies of the architectural practices OMA 3 and MVRDV. 4 It van der Rohe (less is more), Robert Venturi (less is a was noticeable that all three had a similar theme in bore), and Rem Koolhaas, (more and more is more), their data-driven approach to architecture, 5 and to highlights that Bjarke Ingels is a confident architect the process through which they represent their ideas who is not concerned by provoking a reaction at in their publications. challenging this history.

(Fig_02)

(Fig_03)

Chapter_01: Introduction

Chapter_01: Introduction

7


By investigating in more detail the background of the visual styles that all three practices adopt, a set of themes will be identified that allow for comparisons of success to be drawn. This dissertation will make use of publications by the practices as well as external reviews and opinions express in articles and journals to ensure there is a high standard of critical analysis into the investigation of this work.

Chapter_01: Introduction

In comparing the published output of OMA and MVRDV, specifically the texts S,M,L,XL (OMA) and FARMAX (MVRDV), it was observed that each practice had a differing theoretical approach to the projects they produced. These texts were chosen as they have similar traits: they all give an account of the history of the practice to date, descriptions of projects, and theoretical investigations that have informed design. By comparing the format of these texts, specifically the theoretical aspect, the approach and ethos of BIG, and their claim that Yes is More, came into question.

This dissertation, following this introduction, is divided into five more chapters. Chapter 2 is a literature review, divided into three sections, that Bjarke Ingels, along with Winy Maas and Jacob van gives the reader an insight into how data-driven Rijs, worked under Rem Koolhaas at OMA for a architecture has developed over time. By outlining period of their careers. For this reason it is evident the work of Otto Neurath, Archigram, the book why ideas and styles have filtered through and how a Delirious New York and texts from all three practices, comparisons can be drawn. the themes of practice recognition, theoretical output, and built output are identified. Chapters 3 This dissertation will compare the three practices to 5 discuss the themes indentified by the literature OMA, MVRDV, and BIG to identify whether the most review and compare a series of topics against each recent practice, BIG, will be successful in their attempts of the practices to determine their levels of success. to follow in the footsteps of the other two practices. Chapter 6 summarises the outcomes of chapters Ultimately answering the research questions: ‘Is Yes 3 to 5, concludes the success of BIG, and makes More?’ and ‘Is BIG’s approach capable of comparative predictions about the future for the practice. success to MVRDV and OMA?’

1. BIG were established in 2006 by Bjarke Ingels who previous worked at PLOT (2001-2006), a practice set up by himself and friend Julian de Smedt. They are based in Copenhagen, Denmark. 2. BIG. (2009).Yes is More: An Archicomic, Koln: Evergreen. p.12 3. OMA (Office for Metropolitan Architecture) were founded by Rem Koolhaas, Elia Zenghelis, Zoe Zenghelis and Madelon Vriesendorp in 1975. They are based in Rotterdam, the Netherlands, and also have offices in New York, Beijing and Hong Kong. 4. MVRDV (Winy Maas, Jacob van Rijs and Nathalie de Vries) were established in 1991. The name relates to the founding members. They are based in Rotterdam, the Netherlands. 5. For the purposes of this dissertation, the comparative approach to architecture that OMA, MVRDV and BIG are attributed with, will be referred to as a ‘datadriven approach to architecture’. This implies that their architectural designs have been informed by the collection, analysis and translation of data relevant to social, political, sustainable or technological issues.

8


This Chapter is divided into three sections. The sections are ordered chronologically to assist the reader in understanding how data-driven architecture has developed over time. The themes identified in this chapter, along with relevant additional reading, will inform the argument of this dissertation. Some of the texts discussed in this chapter have been critiqued against reviews from the time they were published. These reviews were located using the Manchester Metropolitan University Library catalogue and electronic resource online, and the Sir Kenneth Green All Saints Library. The Expanded Academic – Academic OneFile and JSTOR databases were particularly useful. The first section introduces Otto Neurath. Detailing how his work, involving the development of data visualisation and the International System of Typographic Picture Education (ISOTYPE), helped the Austrian, German and Dutch public to comprehend and understand information on national population, welfare and politics.

Section three is a review of the three books: S,M,L,XL, by OMA, FARMAX by MVRDV, and Yes is More by BIG. Their relevance is that they are all practices that produce data-driven architecture and they all have a published output as well as a built output. These books are significant as they review the work of each practice throughout their existence and include their theoretical stance.

Chapter_02: Literature Review

Chapter_02: Literature Review

The texts were selected following various recommendations: a book review in the CityLife supplement of the Manchester Evening News newspaper in June 2010 (BIG’s Yes is More); additional exploration into the [Re_Map]1812 Reader provided to the Re_Map College of the Manchester School of Architecture in October 2010 (the work of MVRDV); and consultation with dissertation tutor Dr Nick Dunn (Neurath, Archigram, and OMA), who recommended the texts on their relevance to the dissertation area of interest: data-driven architecture and data visualisation.

Section two outlines the work of Archigram, and Rem Koolhaas’s ‘retroactive manifesto’ Delirious New York. It explores the emergence of architectural practices having more of a focus on their published, theoretical output then their physical built output. It also highlights the significance of Delirious New York in which Koolhaas takes a provocative stance in explaining his view of the history of Manhattan and relevance of the skyscraper.

9


Otto Neurath, born in 1882, was an Austrian philosopher of science, a sociologist, and a political economist. Reactionary political forces saw him flee his native country for the Netherlands in 1934, and the Nazi invasion of Europe led him to flee to England in 1940 where he eventually died in 1945. With roles as a Politian, university lecturer and museum founder he produced a number of exhibitions throughout his life that allowed large groups of people to gather, learn and ultimately organise goals and interests. The exhibitions took place in town halls and museums in Austria, Germany and the Netherlands, where they were accessible to the public.

Neurath designed the exhibitions to be interactive, aimed at engaging the spectator. They used a range of visual media such as lantern slides, charts, photographs and models, in order to make their ideas accessible. In the process of representing statistical data, Neurath sought new and innovative ways to keep the information interesting and understandable. He, and a group of his assistants ‘the transformers’ 2, developed a language of iconic sign symbols, which became known as the Vienna Method of Pictorial Statistic (renamed the ISOTYPE in 1935)’. The transformers had an important role of translating the collected data of the scholars to the graphic artists who made the marks on the paper. 3 These ISOTYPEs were inspired by military cartography and based on maps from the Renaissance and Enlightenment. 4

Chapter_02: Literature Review

Data Visualisation: Otto Neurath “[Neurath] believed that iconic sign systems could stimulate the intellect and imagination in a way that letters and words alone could not. They could be read by a variety of classes and nationalities, which made them ideally suited for a multiethnic urban citizenry.” 1

The work of Otto Neurath highlighted the importance of visual communication as a means to illustrate societal issues. It showed how new and innovative The exhibitions collected statistical data about ways to represent statistical data, the use of a variety various countries, and the world, and portrayed of media to translate ideas, and an ultimate goal of them in new and innovative ways that were visually wanting to make people aware of global and political understandable. Neurath’s work was aimed at the issues could give the public power to understand and working masses and sought to foster political change take control of their lives. through social and cultural education.

(Fig_04)

(Fig_05 )

10


to resort to direct social action or to indulge in the projection of architecture as a form of art” 6

Archigram was an avant-garde architectural group formed in 1961 and was based at the Architectural Association, London. The members were Peter Cook, Warren Chalk, Ron Herron, Dennis Crompton, Michael Webb and David Greene. Their attitude was closely tied to the technocratic ideology of the American designer Buckminster Fuller, as well as British critic Reyner Banham and artist John McHale.7 Other influences included Yona Friedman, Cedric Price, and Gordon Pask. Between the years of 1961 In the years that followed the Second World War, and 1974 they produced ten issues of an archicomic Europe began rebuilding itself. This was a time of free called Archigram, which gave way to the name of thinking and new ideas that challenged the traditional the group. Their style was futuristic, anti-heroic, prodoctrines of architectural history. Technological consumerist and provocative. It drew inspiration from advancements made during the war began to fuel technology to create a new reality that was solely theories and were implemented into fantasy projects. expressed through hypothetical projects that relied The emergence of pop art and science fiction in the on a future of interminable resources. The magazine 1960s also played a part in this fictional, futuristic contained “weird” 8 projects of the founders and from other students all over the world. vision. Kenneth Frampton (British architect and critic) describes this avant-garde movement as, “many of its [the profession of architecture] more intelligent members have abandoned traditional practice, either

(Fig_06)

Chapter_02: Literature Review

Built Output Vs Publication Output: Archigram and Delirious New York Archigram_ “Architecture, staid mother of the arts, is no longer courted by plush glossies and cool scientific journals alone but is having her skirts blown up and her bodice unzipped by irregular newcomers which aretypically-rhetorical, with-it, moralistic, mis-spelled, improvisatory, anti-smooth, funny format, cliquey, art-orientated but stoned out of their minds with science-fiction images of an alternative architecture that would be perfectly possible tomorrow if only the Universe (and especially the law of Gravity) were differently organised.” 5

The magazine made use of innovative printing developments in the form of off-set litho printing. The variety of different sized pages, types of paper and pop-up features in the magazine meant that most of it was assembled and crafted by hand.

11


The emergence of the Archigram publishing’s, along with many other archicomics, met some criticism in the architectural world. The Architectural Association’s Journal devoted two pages to an attempt to put Archigram in the doghouse. “There are real dangers in living and designing up to the minute”, 10 The response from the archicomics was “designing up to the minute is barely good enough.” 11

In contrast to this criticism, Michael Webb, speaking in one of the ‘small talks’ at the Clip/Stamp/ Fold Exhibition, New York in 2006, alludes to the widespread acceptance and anticipation of the British public. “I think people in England genuinely wanted to know what the future was going to look like, and they were very excited about it.” 12

Chapter_02: Literature Review

Projects represented in the magazine included ‘Plugin-city’ (1964) by Peter Cook, and ‘The Walking City’ (1964) (Fig_06) by Ron Herron. The work they produced was never expected to be built; “it was a game of liberating yourself to thinking in a different way about architecture.” 9

Archigram’s own office ran from 1970-74, and involved, to varying extents, the six founding members. Aside from their published success, and exploration into futuristic theories, they only ever built one project: an adventure playground in the presumptive ‘new town’ utopia of Milton Keynes in 1973. (Fig_08) The group was financially supported by mainstream architects such as David Rock of BDP, who later nominated Archigram for the RIBA Royal Gold Medal which they received in 2002. 13 The work of Archigram represents a period in architectural history when a lot of new ideas were being explored and a practice that had a limited, if not minimal, built output. Similarly to Neurath they produced exhibitions that displayed their ideas and became part of a publication. Archigram was above all an architectural “think-tank” and as such stimulated and influenced subsequent generations of architects. Their work went on to inspire lots of architects today, particularly Richard Rogers, Renzo Piano and Norman Foster.

(Fig_07)

(Fig_08)

12


The illustrations and pictures that appear in vast quantities throughout the text (Fig_09 & Fig_10) were considered innovative and a success, with Goldberger saying that there were more effective at portraying the theory rather than the text. “Superb photographs of early skyscrapers, and a truly remarkable array of documents of unbuilt projects...a fine set of illustrations...one cannot escape the feeling that the pictures make Koolhaas’s point far better than do his words”. 20

Chapter_02: Literature Review

Delirious New York: A Retroactive Manifesto for Manhattan_ Rem Koolhaas’s ‘Retroactive Manifesto for Manhattan’ posits New York as the arena for the terminal stage of Western civilisation. Through the simultaneous explosion of human density and invasion of new technologies, Manhattan became, from 1850, a mythical laboratory for the invention and testing of a revolutionary lifestyle: the Culture of Congestion. 14

Delirious New York is written by a ghostwriter, Koolhaas, and is a celebration and analysis of New York as a metaphor for the incredible variety of human behaviour. It contains intriguing and fun facts that With regard to the format of the book, Pommer are accompanied by witty watercolours and quirky comments that, “with its juxtaposing of old coloured picture-postcards and airy, slick pages of Helvetica archival drawings, postcards, and photographs. type, looks like a union of Le Corbusier’s City of Koolhaas talks about congestion in the city, how Tomorrow with the English magazine Archigram... people find it stimulating but also that they may be Koolhaas says his book is organised like Manhattan, too poor to move out so it is inevitable that they in contrasting blocks, and it’s certainly eclectic.” 21 will live in a congested environment. He celebrates the bigness and power of New York, all of which are crucial to the city’s identity. 15 He touches on how New York, in a quest to create history, has been built from European styles, “A Roman bath for a train station, a Gothic crown for an office building, a Georgian manor for an apartment house.” 16

At the time of the 1978 edition, the tense and humour that the book is written in was seen as a detriment in some ways by Goldberger, “there are a number of observations in this book that are intelligent, and not a few that are also fresh – though Koolhaas’s insistent hyperbole and exclusive use of the present tense often undermine them” 22 However, when the book When it was first published in 1978 it received mixed was reprinted in 1994, Paul Finch from the Architects reviews from New York critics Paul Goldberger of Journal highlighted that this presence of wit and The New York Book Review, and Richard Pommer humour contributed to the writing, describing it as, of Art in America. On one hand they accepted the “the smart phrases and one-liners come thick and book as a compliment to their city: “This is a book fast”. 23 This illustrates how perception of the book which takes its place in the long line of works by changed over time. Europeans...who, for all their sophistication, seem stunned by New York’s energy”, 17 and, “It is a tourist’s view, as most European visions of New York must be.” 18 one the other hand, Goldberger is critical of Koolhaas’s polemic and highlights inconsistencies, “congestion is a magical concept here, but is never fully explained”.19 13


He also holds similarities with Neurath in the way that he is giving an account of a city, after detailed analysis, so that people can understand why New York it is the way it is, highlighting the importance of the evolution of the skyscraper.

When he published Delirious New York, Koolhaas’s Through the sources and references that have been practice, the Office for Metropolitan Architecture explored in reviewing Delirious New York, it is clear (OMA), had been established for three years. This that when it was first published it was received with point is relevant to this dissertation as it highlights a mixed reviews, but over time it has attained a mythical significant point at which architects began producing status in the architectural world, and the publishing a published theoretical output as well as a built of a second edition is evidence of success. output. Rem koolhaas’s confident and provocative writing style, and ‘Fictional Conclusion’ projects, such as ‘The City of the Captive Globe’ (Fig_09), echo traits of Archigram, in that he presents futuristic ideas with confidence and creativity.

(Fig_09)

(Fig_10)

Chapter_02: Literature Review

Frank Gehry described Rem Koolhaas as “the most comprehensive thinker in the profession today”. 24 Finch has described Koolhaas Delirious New York as, “groundbreaking” and “still an extraordinary read after more than 30 years.” 25 This highlights the respect that both the writer and publication hold.

14


Publishers Weekly, a year after its publication, described its approach as intending to “shake modern architects out of conventional thinking and to dispel urban despair.” 29 They also highlighted that although some readers could be “mystified by a nonlinear hodgepodge”, a professional in the design industry would find this book a “provocative repository of ideas”, 30 identifying the book’s risqué and challenging the traditional approach. The Generic City eassy S,M,L,XL is a collection of OMA’s projects from is an example of this. It reflects on the inexorable 1975 to 1995 arranged in order of size. It is a survey convergence of global cities and what is left when of OMA’s work and draws connections between identity is stripped away. modern society and contemporary architecture. It is written in a way to facilitate the reader dipping in and Vast arrays of topics are discussed in the projects out of it. Its content includes essays, diary excerpts, including politics, economy, and urbanism, but the photographs, architectural plans, sketches, cartoons, relevance of scale, and the need to achieve ‘bigness’ surreal montages of images, and it also has a running is apparent and emphasised throughout.

Chapter_02: Literature Review

S,M,L,XL, FRMAX, and Yes is More OMA, S,M,L,XL _ “The ordering of the projects in the book by size ends up implying, somewhat over-simplistically, that “bigger” architecture is “better.” However, what is extremely refreshing is the degree to which this often obfuscated profession is shown to be a highly collaborative and contingent endeavour. In this regard, S, M, L, XL reads as a potent critique of contemporary architectural practice.” 26

glossary of humorous definitions. Described by Aldersey-Williams in the New Statesman, as being more influential than Delirious New York, 27 it marked a significant departure from the traditional monograph, conveying architectural ideas through an experimental montage of image and type.28 It also continues Koolhaas’s humour from Delirious New York, with the ‘Foreward’ section of the book renamed ‘Foreplay’.

(Fig_11)

15


Produced in 1998, seven years after they were formed, FARMAX contains over 40 projects and studies made by MVRDV and students from Delft University of Technology, the Berlage Institute and the Rotterdam Academy of Architecture and Urban Design. Before this, MVRDV had been in a special issue of El Croquis #86 in 1997. This book was one of a number of publications that they released that year. These included: METACITY DATATOWN and MVRDV VRPO. 32

beyond artistic intuition or known geometry and replace it with “research”.” 34 At the time of its publication, FARMAX was met with comment and criticism, a lot of which made direct comparison to the similarities of OMA’s work. In its approach, MVRDV’s view that “bigness and massiveness make citizens richer” is questioned by Scalbert, who asks “but why, then, do developers worldwide continue to favour suburbia?” 35

Chapter_02: Literature Review

MVRDV, FARMAX_ “This book sets out to discover the prospects and limitations, the world of the extreme Floor Area Ratio, or FARMAX.” 31

With regard to layout, Melvin, from Architects Journal, comments that, “At its worst it [FARMAX] is intensely frustrating: at its best it is a wonderful exploration of ingenious ideas. Fortunately there is more of the FARMAX challenges the assumption that pictures, latter than the former and the ratio increases towards artistically collaged snapshots, fragmentary and the end.” 36 allusive text, deep insights and scale dislocations can only be produced by OMA, making reference to Scalbert highlights an architectural aspect omitted S,M,L,XL.33 It contains vast expanses of data in tables, from S,M,L,XL, Yes is More as well as FARMAX, that graphs and sentences that inform bold, monolithic there is no inclusion of sketches “which might betray and sometimes humorous 3D montages. Their visuals signs of an artistic intuition.” 37 She also references can be seen as overpowering, provocative and scaled the disregard for reality that is present in Arhcigram’s out of proportion, but they are routed in research work. “The fantasy in the proposed ideas of some of the projects recall some of the more bucolic projects and present believable situations. of Archigram” 38 The book addresses the extremes of density and seeks to discover the possibilities of a world where density is maximised at every opportunity. The topics covered in the book include sustainable technologies, landscape, housing, and natural light, but the continued investigation into the maximisation of density is explored in every project. Scalbert, in the AA Files from the year the book was published, describes MVRDV’s work as progressive and challenging, and highlights Winy Maas’s rigorous approach to architecture, “under maximised circumstances, every demand, rule or logic is manifested in pure and unexpected forms that go (Fig_12)

16


environment which is shown in copious amounts. Edwards, from the Architectural Review, describes the rhetoric as “loud”, but highlights the serious messages such as “global warming, community life, post-petroleum-age architecture and the youth of the city” as a success. He also praises BIG’s attempt, using the comic book format, to reach a wide audience. “BIG has consciously crossed into pop culture, which seems to have worked.” 43

Yes is More is a play on words that represents the company’s ethos and sums up its irreverent attitude towards excessive formalism, and its determination to involve the population at large in its creations. By saying “yes to reality”, 40 BIG “has abandoned 20thcentury Danish modernism to explore the more fertile world of bigness and baroque eccentricity” 41 Stephens, from the Architectural Record, reference that come to life when attempting to provide all the to BIG’s concern for sustainability. “Like so many Danish firms, BIG incorporates green thinking into its clients requirements. work.” 44 This lively book catalogues almost 40 projects that Bjarke Ingels has been involved in, from his work at PLOT, 2001 to 2006, to his time at BIG so far, 2006 to 2009. It differs from the more traditional architectural monographs in that it utilises a comic book format to tell the story of its projects, expressing BIG’s “radical agenda for contemporary architecture..where method, process, instruments and concepts are constantly questioned and redefined.” 42 This format harks back to the original archicomics, particularly Archigram 4 (Fig_07) which depicts a comic strip style to showcase student’s architectural ideas and theories.

Chapter_02: Literature Review

BIG, Yes is More_ “Ingels embraces an architecture that allows you to say yes to all aspects of human life, no matter how contradicting!” 39

In the conclusion of his review, Edwards describes the book as attempting to say “too much” due to its interest in many different topics, but acknowledges BIG’s “refreshing” coherent and energetic approached to architecture and praises their ethos. “Good architecture springs from good ideas and now, more than ever, architects need to communicate this to a wider audience.” 45

Yes is More draws similar comparison with Otto Neurath’s work, in that it took its initial state as an exhibition. BIG’s exhibition differed in the fact that it was more self-focused, showing the public BIG’s Yes is More was met with some criticism, but most work rather than showing the public the generic reviews seem to be positive and impressed with the day to day situations of life in a city or country via practices enthusiasm, creativity and concern for the national statistics.

(Fig_11)

(Fig_12)

17


Although many of the referenced reviews draw comparisons between the practices, this dissertation identifies no comment that suggests one practice more successful than the other two.

Success can be measured by a variety of different means. Three criteria that this dissertation has identified in the review of these texts are: 1. 2. 3.

Practice Recognition Theoretical Output Built Output

Chapter_02: Literature Review

Summary Having reviewed the aforementioned texts, the Literature Review concludes that BIG are attempting to follow in the footsteps of OMA and MVRDV by creating a practice that is successful in both its built and published output. Their publication of a book with the name ‘yes is more’, as outlined in the introduction, implies direct comparison to the work of Rem Koolhaas (‘more is more’), and the description of BIG’s ‘archicomic’ as a “manifesto of popular culture”, 46 also links to Koolhaas via the title of Delirious New York: A Retroactive Manifesto for Manhattan.

The following chapter discusses these criteria, highlights their attributes, and aims to use them to evaluate the levels of success of the practices. This will ultimately lead to answering the research question ‘Is yes more?’ and identify if the work of BIG can be expected to be revered in the future as MVRDV and OMA are now, or not.

1. Vossoughhian, N. (2008). Otto Neurath: The Language of the Global Polis, Rotterdam: NAi Publishers. p.61 2. Neurath, M. & Kinross, R. (2009). The Transformer: Principles of Making Isotype Charts, London: Hyphen Press. p.77 3. Vossoughhian, N. (2008). Otto Neurath: The Language of the Global Polis, Rotterdam: NAi Publishers. p.59 4. Vossoughhian, N. (2008). Otto Neurath: The Language of the Global Polis, Rotterdam: NAi Publishers. p.61 5. Banham, R. (1966). Arts in Society: Zoom wave hits architecture, New Society, March. p.21 6. Frampton, K. (1980). Modern Architecture: A Critical History, London: Thames and Hudson. p.280 7. Frampton, K. (1980). Modern Architecture: A Critical History, London: Thames and Hudson. p.281 8. London: Robin Middleton, Peter Murray, Grahame Shane, and Michael Webb Discuss Action Communications Centre, Archigram, Architectural Design, ClipKit: Studies in Environmental Design, Megascope, and Symbols, (2006). New York, (2010). Clip Stamp Fold: The Radical Architecture of Little Magazines 196X to 197X, B.Colomina, ed. Barcelona: Actar. p.33 9. London: Robin Middleton, Peter Murray, Grahame Shane, and Michael Webb Discuss Action Communications Centre, Archigram, Architectural Design, ClipKit: Studies in Environmental Design, Megascope, and Symbols, (2006). New York, (2010). Clip Stamp Fold: The Radical Architecture of Little Magazines 196X to 197X, B.Colomina, ed. Barcelona: Actar. p.32

18


11. Banham, R. (1966). Arts in Society: Zoom wave hits architecture, New Society, March. p.21 12. London: Robin Middleton, Peter Murray, Grahame Shane, and Michael Webb Discuss Action Communications Centre, Archigram, Architectural Design, ClipKit: Studies in Environmental Design, Megascope, and Symbols, (2006). New York, (2010). Clip Stamp Fold: The Radical Architecture of Little Magazines 196X to 197X, B.Colomina, ed. Barcelona: Actar. p.27 13. Rock, D. (2002). The Archigram: The RIBA Gold Medal 2002, [Online] Available: http://www.bartlett.ucl.ac.uk/architecture/people/showcase/01-02/archigram. htm (10 May 2011). 14. OMA. (2010). Delirious New York [Online]. Available: http://www.oma.eu/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=26&Itemid=2 (Accessed 10 May 2011). 15. Goldberger, P. (1979). He’ll Take Manhattan. The New York Book Review, (14 June), p.15-17

Chapter_02: Literature Review

10. Banham, R. (1966). Arts in Society: Zoom wave hits architecture, New Society, March. p.21

16. Goldberger, P. (1979). He’ll Take Manhattan. The New York Book Review, (14 June), p.15-17 17. Goldberger, P. (1979). He’ll Take Manhattan. The New York Book Review, (14 June), p.15-17 18. Pommer, R. (1978). Delirious New York. Art in America, (May/June), p.19 19. Goldberger, P. (1979). He’ll Take Manhattan. The New York Book Review, (14 June), p.15-17 20. Goldberger, P. (1979). He’ll Take Manhattan. The New York Book Review, (14 June), p.15-17 21. Pommer, R. (1978). Delirious New York. Art in America, (May/June), p.19 22. Goldberger, P. (1979). He’ll Take Manhattan. The New York Book Review, (14 June), p.15-17 23. Finch, P. (1994). Delirious New York. Architects Journal, (09 Feb), p.58 24. Glancey, J. (2000). The Story of Architecture, London: Dorling Kindersley. p.224 25. Finch, P., 2010. Going Dutch with the irrepressible Rem Koolhaas in Venice. Architectural Review, 1364 (Oct), p.21-22 26. R. G.-M., 1995. S,M,L,XL (Book Review). Parachute: Contemporary Art Magazine, 85 (Jan-March), p.74 27. Aldersey-Williams, H. (1999). Utopian Visions. New Statesman, Vol 128 (4446), p.(back half) 28. R. G.-M., 1995. S,M,L,XL (Book Review). Parachute: Contemporary Art Magazine, 85 (Jan-March), p.74 29. Publishers Weekly, 1996. S,M,L,XL (Book Review). Publishers Weekly, 243(n4), p.54 30. Publishers Weekly, 1996. S,M,L,XL (Book Review). Publishers Weekly, 243(n4), p.54 31. MVRDV. (2011). Publications: FARMAX (Online). Available: http://www.mvrdv.nl/#/publications/farmax (Accessed: 10 May 2011) 32. MVRDV. (2011). Publications: FARMAX (Online). Available: http://www.mvrdv.nl/#/publications/farmax (Accessed: 10 May 2011) 33. Melvin, J. (1999). Ingenious Developments. Architects Journal, (25 Feb), p.78 34. Scalbert, I. (1998) MVRDV Town. AA Files, n35 (Spring), p.35 35. Scalbert, I. (1998) MVRDV Town. AA Files, n35 (Spring), p.35 36. Melvin, J. (1999). Ingenious Developments. Architects Journal, (25 Feb), p.78 37. Scalbert, I. (1998) MVRDV Town. AA Files, n35 (Spring), p.35 38. Scalbert, I. (1998) MVRDV Town. AA Files, n35 (Spring), p.35 39. Stephens, S., (2009) BIG Bjarke Ingels Group: A young Danish architectural firm is living up to its acronym with bold projects home and abroad. Architectural Record Vol 197 (12), p.35 40. BIG. (2009).Yes is More: An Archicomic, Koln: Evergreen. p.23 41. Edwards, B. (2009) Bigness and Baroque Eccentricity. The Architectural Review 225.1347, p.94 42. Taschen. (2010) Yes is More: An Archicomic on Architectural Evolution 43. Edwards, B. (2009) Bigness and Baroque Eccentricity. The Architectural Review 225.1347, p.94 44. Stephens, S., (2009) BIG Bjarke Ingels Group: A young Danish architectural firm is living up to its acronym with bold projects home and abroad. Architectural Record Vol 197 (12), p.35 45. Edwards, B. (2009) Bigness and Baroque Eccentricity. The Architectural Review 225.1347, p.94 46. BIG. (2009).Yes is More: An Archicomic, Koln: Evergreen. (back cover)

19


The Literature Review identified three criteria “It is a fact that people and places must differentiate that could be used to evaluate the success of the themselves in a global economy” 1 practices. A business cannot be sustained without productive 1. Practice Recognition and fee earning work. In the case of an architect’s 2. Theoretical Output practice, they must build up a book of clients that 3. Built Output they work with in order to cover the necessary overhead cost such as staff, premises and partners This part of the dissertation is divided into three and associates. As work in architectural industry, chapters, each one address one of the above along with other industries, is very competitive in criteria. today’s market, practice recognition is of paramount The following chapters aim to highlight themes within importance to gaining new clients and maintaining a the criteria that allow for a level of comparison to be presence in the market. drawn. The results will then be summarised and a verdict Practices approach recognition in different ways. detailed in the conclusion. Some, possibly smaller practices, may rely on word of mouth to build up a client book, whereas larger practices can afford advertising and have the resources to assign a section of their office to entering competitions.

Chapter_03: Practice Recognition

Chapter_03: Practice Recognition

OMA, MVRDV and BIG all actively seek recognition. The ways they achieve this include: • • • • • •

Publishing their work and ideas Branding Technology Clients Competitions Reputation

20


Technology_ In light of the huge advancements in the internet and computers, in comparison to the 1980s when OMA was established, BIG, who emerged most recently, have made use of this as a means through which to promote their practice. Although OMA, MVRDV, and BIG all have websites that are bold and busy, BIG’s is far more interactive and colourful. This could be This trait of publishing their ideas allows them to seen as a hindrance in that its accessibility could be influence students in their architectural education. rejected if the user’s computer hasn’t got a strong When S,M,L,XL was published in 1995 it cost just $75 enough connection, and the complexity means it is (£35). 2 This price made it accessible to students as unfathomable. for its sheer volume and content other texts failed into insignificance. Otto Neurath identified that “Modern man is very spoiled by cinema and illustrations. He receives Branding_ his education in the most comfortable of means, With regard to branding, MVRDV and BIG are part partly during his periods of rest, through optical of, what Klingmann refers to in Brandscapes as, a impressions” 4. He subsequently used exhibitions to “culture of the copy” 3 to a certain extent. This is showcase his information. All three practices make imitating one another in offerings and aesthetics. use of the internet to allow the world to see their The history of Winy Maas and Jacob van Rijs (Fig_18, exhibitions and projects. A simple search on YouTube middle and right) from MVRDV, and Bjarke Ingels indentifies 270 5 videos when ‘MVRDV’ is typed into (Fig_19) from BIG, all working on projects at OMA the search field, 197 6 when ‘Office for Metropolitan naturally suggests that there will be ideas transferred Architecture’, and 117 7 when ‘Bjarke Ingels Group’ into their current practices. This is certainly evident in is typed. These videos include interviews with the their similar fields of architecture: data-driven, their architects, walk-through imagery of buildings, and provocative approach, and most noticeably by their 3D visualisations of building designs showing the use of graphics and models. This has led to some development of the concept. All assist in promoting instances of highly comparable designs. the work of the practices.

(Fig_13)

(Fig_14)

(Fig_15)

Chapter_03: Practice Recognition

Publishing Ideas and Theory_ (This topic is discussed more in the next chapter) Publishing their ideas and theories allows architectural practices to have a presence in academia as well as the construction industry. OMA have produced 15 books and journals to date, MVRDV: 18, and BIG: 3 respectively.

21


Competitions_ As mentioned earlier, constant reviews of the practice’s designs and buildings in weekly or monthly magazines have allowed them to maintain a presence in the architectural world. One way of achieving this, and in an attempt to win work, is to enter competitions. Pie Charts_01-03: Project Status, in the APPENDIX (analysed in more detail in the Chapter_05: Built Output: Data Synthesis), illustrate that competition work accounts for the highest, if not second highest, area of project output for all threes practices. The assumption could therefore be made that this is the area that the practices acquire the most publicity and commission through, which is why it’s such an important allocation of resources.

OMA have built up a successful relationship with Prada. OMA’s studies on shopping via the Projects on the City I and II, gave them a detailed insight into the way shopping has dramatically refashioned the city at the turn of the century. Since the publication of their Harvard Guide to Shopping in 2001, OMA have completed 24 projects for Prada including catwalk designs for the Milan Fashion Week 2007 – 2010 and retail outlets in Los Angeles and New York.

Reputation_ With regard to representation of their company, the founding members of OMA, MVRDV, and BIG actively take part in presentations about the ideas behind their projects. This allows to them to network with other architects and subsequently to potential clients.

In a 2010 review about a project OMA were proposing for the Biennale in Venice, Paul Finch (Architects Review) describes the project as combining three of Rem’s interests: “preservation (the subject of an OMA installation at the Biennale), shopping, and immensely wealthy families (think Prada).” 9

(Fig_16)

Rem Koolhaas (Fig_17) has been described by Reid, in Publishers Weekly, as “something of a culture star” 10 , in making reference to his theoretical work. Frank Gehry described him as “the most comprehensive thinker in the profession today”. 11 This illustrates admiration from his peers. Bjarke Ingels can be seen to mimic Koolhaas’s culture status in his selfless promotion of his own practice. From May 2010 to May 2011 he performed 48 out of the 110 lectures that BIG gave, the rest were carried out by other partners. He is continually described as “energetic”, and Stephens, from the AR, humorously quips the question “What vitamins does he take?” 12 MVRDV, possibly due to the nature of their joint venture, perform more as a team than the other two practices, although Winy Maas is perceived to be the predominate speaker. He has been described as a “charismatic front man” 13 by The New York Times Magazine.

Chapter_03: Practice Recognition

Clients_ Many of the clients that BIG are associated with, outlined in Yes is More, include the Mayor of Shanghai, the Danish Oil Company (DOC), and Copenhagen City Council. These have proved invaluable links in securing future work and promoting a positive reputation. In the case of the DOC, luck played a role. Per Høpfner, in a joint venture with DOC, commissioned PLOT (Bjarke Ingels earlier company) to design VM Houses (2005), even though they hadn’t built anything on that scale before. After being impressed with the result, DOC commissioned The Mountain (2008) and 8 House (2010) in the same area of Copenhagen, Ørestad. 8

22


Chapter_03: Practice Recognition

Summary_ With regard to rating the practice’s levels of success against this above criteria, in the area of practice recognition, it is evident that the most successful practice is OMA. This is due to their continual work with Prada and other wealthy clients. This may be expected due to the fact that the company has been in existence for a longer time than MVRDV or BIG, but it cannot be ignored that BIG, especially Bjarke Ingels, have had an immediate impact on the architectural world. His enthusiasm and constant media coverage of current projects is impressively building and promoting BIG as a global identity.

1. Klingmann, A. (2007). Brandscapes: Architecture in the Experience Economy, Massachusetts: The Mit Press. p.3 2. Publishers Weekly, 1996. S,M,L,XL (Book Review). Publishers Weekly, 243(n4), p.54 3. Klingmann, A. (2007). Brandscapes: Architecture in the Experience Economy, Massachusetts: The Mit Press. p.3 4. Vossoughhian, N. (2008). Otto Neurath: The Language of the Global Polis, Rotterdam: NAi Publishers. p.49 5. YouTube. 2011. Search Results: MVRDV [online]. Available http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=MVRDV&aq=f (Accessed 7 May 2011) 6. YouTube. 2011. Search Results: Office for Metropolitan Architecture [online]. Available http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=office+for+metropolitan +architecture&aq=0&oq=Office+for+Met (Accessed 7 May 2011) 7. YouTube. 2011. Search Results: Bjarke Ingels Group [online]. Available http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=bjarke+ingels+Group&aq=0 (Accessed 7 May 2011) 8. Stephens, S., (2009) BIG Bjarke Ingels Group: A young Danish architectural firm is living up to its acronym with bold projects home and abroad. Architectural Record Vol 197 (12), p.35 9. Finch, P., 2010. Going Dutch with the irrepressible Rem Koolhaas in Venice. Architectural Review, 1364 (Oct), p.21-22 10. Reid, C., 1996. MR. BIG STUFF. Publishers Weekly, 243(n7), p.17 11. Glancey, J. (2000). The Story of Architecture, London: Dorling Kindersley. p.224 12. Stephens, S., (2009) BIG Bjarke Ingels Group: A young Danish architectural firm is living up to its acronym with bold projects home and abroad. Architectural Record Vol 197 (12), p.35 13. The New York Times Magazine. 2008. Crowded House [online]. Available http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/08/magazine/08mvrdv-t.html?pagewanted=1 (Accessed 8 May 2011)

23


Theory_ It could be construed that the greater the number of The content or S,M,L,XL, FARMAX, and Yes is More has publications a practice produces, the more successful already been mentioned. Their theoretical alignment, it is. This chapter recognises the theoretical output however, and the way the practices substantiate this as a whole contributes to the success of the practice. theory has not. The success of the three practices theoretical output can be measures in comparing the following: S,M,L,XL, presents its projects in order of size. Throughout these projects there are a series of • Consistency in Publication essays such as The Berlin Wall as Architecture, • Theory Bigness, and The Generic City. All these essays • Exhibitions and Workshops relate to a theoretical approach to architecture. They use a theme, for example ‘bigness’, to explore Consistency in Publications_ the possibilities and limits of immersing a design in As the Literature Review of this dissertation illustrates, one topic that ignores other factors such as context OMA, MVRDV and BIG all have a published, as well and social cohesion. This becomes the narrative and as a built, output. Please refer to Table_01: Practice argument of the building. From his work Delirious New Publications. This table shows that OMA have York, which was published the same year as OMA’s produced 15 books and journals to date, MVRDV: first project, Rem Koolhaas had established himself 18, and BIG: 3 respectively. It is evident from this the as a writer as well as an architect. He defined himself dispersion of books and journals in this table that as “an architect who writes, a writer who builds.” OMA and MRDV have a record of regular publications, 1 OMA have produced a considerable amount of all of which outline various theories and issues they theory at the same time as producing buildings. This have investigated. theory, which has involved the rigorous investigation of various themes, has then informed and backed up the design decisions of projects. This has cemented Koolhaas with a revered reputation in the architectural world. “The theoretical New York has always been kinder to Mr. Koolhaas than the practical one...and his experiences there have involved more frustration at cancelled contracts than fully realized works.” 2

Chapter_04: Theoretical Output

Chapter_04: Theoretical Output

24


Some of the books that the practices produce are normally coined under either the practice’s name: OMA, MVRDV, or BIG, but on closer inspection the books are produced by a collaborative effort.

Chapter_04: Theoretical Output

The theoretical work of MVRDV has evolved considerably around the fundamental status of regulatory codes in modern culture. Rather than seeing codes as a set of regulations to be checked after a design has been conceived, MVRDV begin with relevant regulations and then push against the boundaries they set as a potential territory for architectural innovation.3 However, Scalbet criticises MVRDV’s theoretical approach in FARMAX, by indicating that it isn’t deep enough. “On the rare occasions when an argument is attempted, it is predictable and conventional.” 4

Exhibitions and Workshops_ Having identified how often the practices publish their research, and the theoretical content contained within, this section analyses the methods the practices use to produce and present their research.

Although Rem Koolhaas is mentioned in most reviews of OMA’s S,M,L,XL, the book is designed by Bruce Mau, who is the creative director of Bruce The theoretical subject matter contained within Yes Mau Designs. OMA have also worked with Harvard is More could be argued to lack discussion. Themes Graduate Design School in producing Mutations such as context, social cohesion, sustainability (2001), Projects on the City I (2002) and Projects on and landscaping are continually presented but the City II (2001). not supported with the depth of investigation that In 1998 Koolhaas established AMO as an architectural is apparent in the essays of OMA and MVRDV’s think-tank within the Rotterdam practice to dedicate literature. efforts on competitions, exhibitions and advertising OMA. 5 The start of this department in OMA highlights the beginning of their constant stream of publications. AMO collaborated on: Projects for Prada (2001), Wired Journal (2003), Content (2004), Domus Journal (2006), The Gulf (2006), and Al Manakh (2007).

25


Chapter_04: Theoretical Output

Since their the publication of FARMAX, MVRDV have had an ongoing, collaborative research relationship with a number of organisations including Delft University of Technology, the Berlage Institute and the Rotterdam Academy of Architecture and Urban Design. MVRDV’s 2006 publication Five Minute City is the result of an international workshop involving students from Berlage, Paris and Barcelona in which Winy Maas provided a provocative and inspiring brief to redesign the cities of Rotterdam and New York in a way that everything is reachable within five minutes. This series of joint ventures, along with their own research, has allowed them to have the highest publication output of all three practices, along with

Summary_ Throughout the lifetimes of the practices, there has been a running theme in OMA’s work: scale, and MVRDV’s work: increasing density. BIG, however, seem to be attempting to delve into many different theoretical areas and address a multitude of issues. This can result in their work appearing to lack depth. In analysing the initial years of OMA and MVRDV, Koolhaas published Delirious New York three years into the practice, and MVRDV released FARMAX after seven years as a practice. If BIG are to be seen as following in the footsteps of the other two practices, they need to develop more of a deep theoretical basis.

challenging many theories and topics. This section identified that lots of these books are collaborative projects and that the reason the practices name is put on it is because they are the instigators of the ideas.

1. Lleó, B., 2010. Series of Documentary DVD Reviews. Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, Vol.70(1), p.132-138 2. Long, C., 2010. Rem Koolhaas: AKind of Architect (DVD Review) [online]. Available http://www.dvdtown.com/review/rem-koolhaas-a-kind-of-architect/ dvd/8212 (Accessed 7 May 2011) 3. Love, T., 2006. Perspectas 35-Building Codes: The Yale Architectural Journal. Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, Vol.65(1), p.144-146 4. Scalbert, I. (1998) MVRDV Town. AA Files, n35 (Spring), p.35 5. OMA. 2010. OMA/AMO [online]. Available http://www.oma.nl/ (Accessed 4 April 2011) 6. MVRDV. 2010. Publications [online]. Available http://www.mvrdv.nl/#/publications (Accessed 23 April 2011)

26


The following Data Synthesis highlights themes within the criteria that allow for a level of comparison to be drawn. The results will then be summarised and a verdict detailed in the conclusion. This chapter is divided into a series of Data Synthesis investigations that compare data of each of the three practices. They compare the practices output across a broad scale, indentifying the total project output, to the more detailed scale, analysing the status of the projects within each practice. The time at which the data used for these investigations was sampled, the year 2011 had not ended, therefore data is analysed up until 2010. Data referenced from the practices websites. • • •

www.big.dk www.mvrdv.nl www.oma.nl

Data Synthesis_01: Practice Overview (See Table_02: Practice Overview) Between the three practices OMA, MVRDV and BIG they have undertaken or completed 501 projects which are considered in this investigation. The three practices came into being at different times between 1975 and 2011. However in using the data from each of the organisations from their formation, to 2010, the investigation takes into consideration some 60 completed years of architectural practice experience. An average across the practices would equate to 8.4 projects per practice per year.

Chapter_05: Built Output: Data Synthesis

Chapter_05: Built Output: Data Synthesis

OMA have been in existence since 1975, 36 years, with a measured output, between 1978 and 2010 (no projects were completed between 1975 and 1978), of 270 projects. This equates to 8.4 projects per year. MVRDV, with 20 years experience, have delivered 112 projects which is an average of 5.6 per year. BIG have only been in existence for 10 years, however, their measured output to 2010 of 119 projects ensures them a significantly higher average output of 11.9 per year.

Although BIG was officially started in 2006, Bjarke Ingels was involved in all the BIG projects included in this dataset. Prior to BIG he completed projects at PLOT, a practice that he founded with Julian De Smedt in 2001. When PLOT ended, its project book was transferred directly to BIG, this is why these projects are included.

27


Data Synthesis_03: Yearly Project Output_02 (See Table_04: Yearly Project Output_02) During the 2001 – 2010 decade, the practices combined output was 374 projects. This averages out to 12.5 projects per year per practice. For the same period the average output for each practice was: OMA (15.7), MVRDV (9.8), and BIG (11.9). This demonstrates that whilst BIG may seem to have the highest average output over its life, it happens to coincide with the industry average for that period. In fact, OMA was more productive at 15.7 projects per year during 2001 – 2010.

Data Synthesis_04: Project Output (See Graphs_01: A – D) The graphs illustrate that the level of output for a practice can vary significantly over time. It has already been demonstrated that average output per practice has increased decade by decade. In comparison to an industry average, for the sampled practices, of 12.5 projects per year over the 10 years from 2001 to 2010 the following peaks and troughs are visible for each practice. OMA: high of 24 in 2008 and a low of 10 in 2007. MVRDV: high is 16 in 2009 and a low of 1 in 2002. BIG: the peak is 19 in 2008 and the low is 3 in 2001. All on an upward trend over the 10 year period. All experienced poor years and very good production. In comparison, OMA which is the most mature practice has maintained the highest average level of production rendering it the most successful in terms of project output.

Chapter_05: Built Output: Data Synthesis

Data Synthesis_02: Yearly Project Output_01 (See Table_03: Yearly Project Output_01) In order to compare all practices on a similar basis, this investigation reviews their output over the first 10 years, from the instigation of their first project. BIG have the highest output for their first 10 years experience, of 119. This compares very favourably to OMA at 27 and MVRDV at 14. However, it must be noted that there has been an increasing trend of the level of output from all three practices over time. Following this investigation it was decided not to continue any further as it is recognised that the same timescale is important given the advancements in technology and that a more accurate comparison could be drawn from looking at each practice output over the same 10 year period.

When observing the built output of the practices within the project total, it is evident they have mirrored the attributes of the overall project total, by fluctuating over time. During the sample period from 2001 to 2010, the practices produced a total of 60 built projects in a spread as such: OMA 21 projects, an average of 2.1 per year; MVRDV 31 projects, an average of 3.1 per year; and BIG 8 projects, and an average of 0.8 per year. They experience the following peaks and troughs: OMA: high of 5 in 2004 and a low of 0 in 2002 and 2007. MVRDV: high is 10 in 2009 and a low of 0 in 2008. BIG: the peak is 2 in 2010 and the low is 0 in 2001, 2002 and 2009. In comparison, MVRDV has maintained the highest average level of built buildings within the sampled timeframe.

28


Data Synthesis_06: Project Status (See Pie Charts_01 – 03: Project Status) For this investigation it should be noted that OMA provided a substantial amount of themes to categorise their project under. This illustrates a detailed catalogue of description and presents a more substantial archive system. The pie charts represent the status of the projects within each practice. The analysis here looks beyond the overall quantity of output during each practice’s career and drills down into the mix of the projects that constitute the output. It was expected that a different perspective would be seen for the practices, with some suggestion as to where their particular expertise or specialism may lie.

Chapter_05: Built Output: Data Synthesis

Data Synthesis_05: Continental Project Distribution (See Graphs_02: A – D) OMA have the largest distribution of built projects on different continents. This could be seen as obvious due to the amount of years they have been producing projects. BIG, however, have achieved an equal distribution to OMA of projects in all continents, although they their built output is solely in Europe. MVRDV have continually designed and built projects in Europe. Over the last decade they completed projects in North America and Asia, with a consistent output in the latter.

Six criteria have been selected for this analysis output, using common, and combining similar, categories in the definitions given on the practice’s individual websites. The breakdown of what each category entails using the original status titles on the websites are: Built: Built (A scheme has been constructed and is operational) Competition: Competition (Design), Competition, 1st Prize Completed Project: Exhibition, Installation, Website, Completed Design: Design, Research, Commission, Definitive Design, Concept Design, Design Development, Preliminary Design, Schematic Design On Going: On Going, Construction, On Site, In Progress Other: On Hold, Demolished, Discontinued, Cancelled For the purposes of this investigation, ‘Other’ will be ignored as not all the practices have a value for this. 29


This shows that the majority of each practice’s output, comparing two categories together, accounts for approximately 2/3 of their output. In each instance, Competition work is included by all three practices. The assumption could therefore be made that this is the area that the practices acquire the most publicity and commission through, which is why it’s such an important allocation of resources.

Chapter_05: Built Output: Data Synthesis

Summary_ Using these criteria it is evident that each practice As mentioned in the introduction to the Data has some output within each category. OMA has the Synthesis section of the comparison, the data used most even spread with their highest concentration of to inform these aforementioned comparisons was 30.4% (for both Competition and Design), compared referenced from the individual practice websites. to a low of 5.9% in On Going. MVRDV has an increased This method of referencing brings with it a certain gap between highest 32.1% (Built) and lowest 0.9% level of reduced quality due to the fact the website (Completed Project). BIG has a more significant gap is the means that the practices community, advertise between highest 44.5% (Competition) and lowest of and promote their business through, therefore it may 4.2% (Completed Project). be seen as biased. For example the practices may not wish to publicise how many projects have failed Combining the two highest concentrated activities, competition or been discontinued. However, the this highlights where most of each practice’s work extents of the research available to the production of lies. This process shows the following categories and this dissertation recognise that to source all this data percentages. individually would have been unrealistic and too time consuming, therefore it is important that the reader OMA: Competition (30.4%) and is aware of this whilst reviewing the data. Design (30.4%) = 60.8% Based on the topics discussed, MVRDV are shown MVRDV: Competition (28.6&) and to have built more projects in the last decade, but Built (32.1%) OMA have built more overall. This could be seen as = 60.7% surprising as OMA have been in existence longer it BIG: Competition (44.5%) and could be argued that in their third decade they would On Going (23.5%) be prominent in the built category due to experience. = 68.0% BIG’s rate of buildings has not breached more than 1 a year. Although this is minimal, they did build their first project within 2 years of starting, a feat that neither OMA nor MVRDV achieved. BIG have equalled OMA’s project distribution within their 10 year life, covering all continents, although they have only built in Europe. MVRDV appear to remain content with a consistent project, and built output in Europe and Asia.

30


At the start of my analysis, and consideration of Bjarke Ingels Group’s (BIG’s) publication Yes is More, I had an expectation that a simple measure of their success might emerge from my research. There was also an expectation that their innovative and ‘in your face’ approach to self promotion and their evocative and colourful projects appeared to be substantiated, in that it was backed by deep theory and research. The acid test measure might have been their ratio of built output to commissioned work. However, I also noted that part of the ethos of BIG was to be seen to be published and this is an area where they perceive a measure of success (by copying the OMA and MVRDV trend). BIG’s analytical and apparently comic approach to architecture, suggesting that the client can have ‘whatever they want’ shouts in the face of the radical, but conventional architectural approach of OMA and MVRDV, who have based their work in a specific area whether it be maximising density or emphasising scale. My research has therefore taken the form of comparing BIG with the other two practices that also have their own substantial published history. In addition my data synthesis methodology has led to there being some measures of both difference and similarity between the practices and with conventional architecture. It has also drawn on the more wide-reaching views and theories covering marketing, public relations, branding and self-promotion.

There are many measures of success that can be taken into consideration, these included output, profitability, reputation and longevity. It is beyond the remit of this dissertation to measure all of these for each of the three practices and still come up with what could be argued to be a subjective judgment of success. The critical measure for me, and this dissertation, is whether it can be predicted that BIG, and Bjarke Ingels, will be as productive and revered a practice when it has been in existence for 30 years, in the way that OMA and Rem Koolhaas.

Chapter_06: Conclusion

Chapter_06: Conclusion

This dissertation’s measure of success therefore draws on practice branding and promotion, research and theory, and data synthesis of project output to answer the question “Is Yes More? Is BIG’s approach capable of comparative success to MVRDV and OMA?” The data and research suggests that there are areas in which BIG a proving to be more successful. In their first decade, in comparison to OMA’s and MVRDV’s first decade, BIG have become a media force to be reckoned with and their distribution of projects throughout the globe is evidence of a wide potential market. However, it can be argued they are currently more promise than performance due to the lack of theoretical discussion in Yes is More, that sets it apart from S,M,L,XL and FARMAX. This is where the real architectural integrity earned that will ultimately lead them to success.

31


At the age of 35 Bjarke Ingels and BIG have produced a comic. A comic that appears to have been thrown together in 10 minutes, rather than a hand crafted piece of art work like the Archigram originals Yes is More implies it echoes.

Chapter_06: Conclusion

In the case of the success of MVRDV and OMA, they have focused their attention on a select number of theoretical topics and themes that they have pursued with rigorous investigation, resulting in ‘Depth is More’. BIG however, have attempted to cover a wide array of these topics and themes, but lack evidence of truly exploring the limits and potentials of these areas, resulting in a conclusion of ‘Breadth is Less’. The ‘Architectural Integrity’ diagram below illustrates BIG’s lack of theoretical understanding in comparison to MVRDV and OMA.

It seems that BIG, although enthusiastic and passionate in their work, will have to find their own new area for success because they are not yet at the same level as OMA’s and Koolhaas’s theoretical abilities and achievements.

Bjarke Ingels is young in his career and has achieved a vast amount already, but in light of identifying BIG’s work as lacking theory, and in ultimately concluding that whether BIG, and Bjarke Ingels, will be revered as much as OMA, and Koolhaas, in the future, it cannot be ignored that at the age of 34 Koolhaas produced Delirious New York which is still considered ground breaking today.

Architectural Integrity

Theory

Depth OMA (Fig_17 )

MVRDV

BIG 32


Appendix

Table_01 Practice Publications Practice

Publication

Type

Year

OMA OMA MVRDV

DeliriousNewYork SMLXL ElCroquis#86

Book Book Journal

1978 1995 1997

MVRDV OMA MVRDV MVRDV MVRDV OMA OMA OMA OMA MVRDV OMA MVRDV

FARMAX OMA30:30Colours METACITYDATATOWN MVRDVenVRPO CostaIberica Mutations ProjectsforPrada:Part1 ProjectontheCityII:TheHarvardGuidetoShopping ProjectontheCityI:GreatLeapForward APlusU Wired ReadingMVRDV

Book Book Book Book(OfBuilding) Book Book Book Book Book Journal Journal Book

1998 1999 1999 1999 2000 2001 2001 2001 2002 2002 2003 2003

MVRDV MVRDV OMA

TheRegionmaker/Rheinruhrcity ElCroquis#86+111 Content

Book(Exhibition) Journal Book

2003 2003 2004

MVRDV MVRDV OMA OMA OMA MVRDV MVRDV OMA MVRDV MVRDV MVRDV OMA MVRDV BIG BIG OMA MVRDV BIG

Climax KM3 Junksapce TheGulf DomusD’Autore:PostͲOccupancy MVRDVWorksandProjects FiveMinuteCity AlManakh Spacefighter SkyCarCity APlusU UnveilingThePradaFoundation NL28OlympicFire YesisMore THEBIGLABͲARKITEKTURDK’SISSUEONBIG AlManakh:GulfContinued A'A'378 BIGBjarkeIngelsGroup(BIGPINKBOOK)

Book(Exhibition) Book Book Book Journal Book Book(Workshop) Book Book(Studio) Book(Workshop) Journal Book Book(Collaboration) Book Journal Book Journal Book

2004 2005 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2007 2007 2007 2007 2008 2008 2009 2009 2010 2010 2010

OMA MVRDV BIG

Books:13Journals:2 Books:13Journals:5 Books:2Journals:1 33


Table_02 Practice Overview YearsofProjects Aver.ProjectsPerYr TotalProjects Practice 32 8.4 OMA MVRDV 20 5.6 BIG 10 11.9 Total Practice Projects TotalPracticeProjects Datacollectedupuntilandincluding2010

270 112 119 501

Table_03 Yearly Project Output_01 Practice

YearlyProjectOutput Year11Ͳ20 Year21to30

1st10years

OMA MVRDV BIG

27 14

64 98

124 n/a

119

n/a

n/a

Table_04 Yearly Project Output_02 Practice

YearlyProjectOutput 1991to2000 2001to2010

1981to1990

O OMA MVRDV BIG Av.PerYear

38(3.8) ( )

69(6.9) ( )

157(15.7) ( )

n/a n/a

14(1.4) n/a

98(9.8) 119(11.9)

3.8

4.2

12.5

Total Projects 264(8.8) 6 (8 8) 112(5.6) 119(11.9) 495(8.25)

Numbersinbracketsrepresentaverageprojectsperyear

Table_07 Project Status STATUS Built Competition CompletedProject Design OnGoing Other TotalProjects

Practice OMA

MVRDV

BIG

43

36

8

82

32

53

34 82 16 13

1 25 18 0

5 25 28 0

270

112

119

501

34


1

1

1

1979

1

1978

4

4

1

1

1980

1979

1978

Europe 1 Asia NorthAmerica Africa SouthAmerica Worldwide TotalProjects 1 E Europe Asia NorthAmerica Africa SouthAmerica Worldwide TotalProjects Europe Asia North America NorthAmerica Africa SouthAmerica Worldwide TotalProjects Numbersinbracketsarebuiltprojects

Continents

2

1 1

1984 2

1985

1

1(1)

1981

2

2(1)

1982

1

1

1983



2

2(1)

1984

5

5

1985

5

1

4

1

1

1983

1

2

1 1

1982

2

1

1

1981

1

2

1980

Table_06 Continental Project Distribution

Built Competition CompletedProject Design OnGoing Other TotalProjects Built Competition CompletedProject Design OnGoing Other TotalProjects Built Competition Completed Project CompletedProject Design OnGoing Other TotalProjects

Status

Table_05 Project Output

OMA

MVRDV

BIG

OMA

MVRDV

BIG

35

7

7(2)

1986

7

2

2

2 1

1986

3

3(1)

1987

3

1

1 1

1987

8

8(3)

1988

8

1

2

3 2

1988

7

7(1)

1989

7

1

1

1

1 3

1989

2

1

1

1990

2

1

1

1990

1

1

6

5(1) 1(1)

1991

0

5

4(1) 1

1992

0

1

1

1993

0

1

1(1) ( )

8

6(3) 1 1

1994

Year

1

0

8

1

1

3 3

1994

Year

1

1

1

1993

1

5

1 4

1992

1

6

1

1

2 2

1991

0

11

8(2) 2 1

1995

0

11

1

6

2 2

1995

2

2

10

5(1) 4 1

1996

2

3

3(3) ( )

6

4(2) 1 1

1997

3

3

1

6

1

1 1

2 2

1997

10

5

1 4

1996

1

1

8

1

6(1) 1

1998

1

1

8

4

1 3

1998

1

1(1) ( )

6

4

1

5

5(2) ( )

8

1

3(3)

2000

5

3

2

8

4 1

3

2000

5

1999

1

1

6

2

1

3

1999

3

4

5

1

1 3

1(1) ( )

13

1

6 5 1

2002

5

1

4(1) ( )

16

10(3)

6

2001

3

5

5

2 1

1

1

13

5 6

2

2002

5

2

1 2

16

1

5

1

3 6

2001

9

9(1)

6

6(4) ( )

12

7(2) 4 1(1)

2003

9

1 3

8

7(1) 1

11

7(2) ( ) 3(1) 1

19

8(2) 8(1) 3(2)

2004

8

1 3

11

14

1

12(1) 1

17

15(10) ( ) 2

11

1

4(1) 4(1) 2

2005

14

4 5

1 4

17

3

2

1 4 1 1 2

2

10 2

11

5

1

2 3

2005

4

3 2

19

1

3

3

5 7

2004

6

1

4 1

12

2

2

3 5

2003

13

1

1

18

12(1)

13

8 4(1) 1

10

1

6 3

2007

13

1 5 1 2 4

13

4

3

1 5

10

1

4

4

1

2007

17(1)

11

10(3) ( ) 1(1)

21

1

9(2) 8 3

2006

18

1 2 1 6 8

11

1

2

4 4

21

6 3 2

2

2 6

2006

19

1

13(1) 5

14

9 4 1

24

1(1)

17 5 1

2008

19

5 2

1 11

14

6

3

5

24

6 3 2

5

1 7

2008

18

10 6 1 1

16

12(3) ( ) 4

16

1

1

9 4 1(1)

2009

18

10 2 2 4

16

2

4

3 7

16

6 1

4

1 4

2009

12

7(1) 2 3

4

2(2) ( ) 2

15

1

1

8 4(1) 1

2010

12

3

2 7

4

2 2

15

5 1

6

1 2

2010

119 501

112

270

119 501

112

270


36

Projects

5

OMA

1980

Built Project

BIG

MVRDV

1975

10

15

20

25

1985

Graph_01_A OMA, MVRDV, and BIG_Project Output

1990 1995 2000

2005

2010


37

Projects

5

OMA

1980

Built Project

1975

10

15

20

25

Graph_01_B Only OMA_Project Output

1985 1990 1995 2000

2005

2010


38

Projects

5

1980

Built Project

MVRDV

1975

10

15

20

25

Graph_01_C Only MVRDV_Project Output

1985 1990 1995 2000

2005

2010


39

Projects

5

BIG

1980

Built Project

1975

10

15

20

25

Graph_01_D Only BIG_Project Output

1985 1990 1995 2000

2005

2010


40

Worldwide

South America

1975

Africa

North America

Asia

Europe

1980

Graph_02_A OMA, MVRDV, and BIG_ Continental Project Distribution

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

Built Project

BIG

MVRDV

OMA

2010

5

10

15

Projects

20


Worldwide

South America

1975

Africa

North America

Asia

Europe

1980

Graph_02_B Only OMA_ Continental Project Distribution

41

41

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

Built Project

OMA

2010

5

10

15

Projects

20


42

Worldwide

South America

1975

Africa

North America

Asia

Europe

1980

Graph_02_C Only MVRDV_ Continental Project Distribution

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

Built Project

MVRDV

2010

5

10

15

Projects

20


43

Worldwide

South America

1975

Africa

North America

Asia

Europe

1980

Graph_02_D Only BIG_Continental Project Distribution

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

Built Project

BIG

2010

5

10

15

Projects

20


Pie Chart_01 OMA_Project Status 32 Yr Period

On Going 6%

Other 5%

Built 16%

Competition 30%

Design 30%

Completed Project 13%

Pie Chart_02 MVRDV_Project Status 20 Yr Period

Built 32%

On Going 16%

Design 22%

Competition 29%

Completed Project 1%

Pie Chart_03 BIG_Project Status 10 Yr Period

On Going 24%

Built 7%

Competition 45%

Design 21% Completed Project 4%

44


Bibliography Books_ •

Amoroso, N. (2010). The Exposed City: Mapping the Urban Invisibles, London: Routledge.

BIG. (2009).Yes is More: An Archicomic, Koln: Evergreen.

Bourquin, N., Ehmann, S., van Heerden, S. F., Klanten, R., and Tissot, T. (2008). Data Flow: Visualising Information in Graphic Design, Berlin: Gestalten.

Bourquin, N., Ehmann, S., Klanten, R., and Tissot, T. (2010). Data Flow 2: Visualising Information in Graphic Design, Berlin: Gestalten.

Buckley, C. And Colomina, B. (2010). Clip Stamp Fold: The Radical Architecture of Little Magazines 196X to 197X, Barcelona: Actar.

Cook, P. (2008). Drawing: The Motive Force of Architecture, Chichester: Wiley.

Cook, P. and Webb, M. (1999). Archigram, Princeton: Architectural Press. p.44

Evans, R. (1997). Translations from Drawing to Building and Other Essays, London: AA Publishers.

Fawcett-Tang, R. (2008). Mapping Graphic Navigational Systems, Hove: RotoVision.

FOA. (2003). Phylogenesis: foa’s ark, Barcelona: Actar.

Forty, A. (2000). Words and Buildings: A Vocabulary of Modern Architecture, London: Thames and Hudson.

Frampton, K. (1980). Modern Architecture: A Critical History, London: Thames and Hudson.

Gilmore, J. H. & Pine, B. J. (1999). The Experience Economy, Boston: Harvard School Press.

Glancey, J. (2000). The Story of Architecture, London: Dorling Kindersley.

Jones, W., (2009). Unbuilt Masterworks of the 21st Century, London: Thames and Hudson.

Klingmann, A., (2007). Brandscapes: Architecture in the Experience Economy, Massachusetts: The Mit Press.

Koolhaas, R., (1978). Delirious New York: A Retroactive Manifesto for Manhattan, New York: Monacelli Press.

Koolhaas, R. (2000). Mutations, Barcelona: Actar.

Koolhaas, R. (2000). Project on the City: Great Leap Forward, Koln: Taschen.

Koolhaas, R. (2000). Project on the City: Harvard Design School Guide to Shopping, Koln: Taschen.

Koolhaas, R. (1995). S,M,L,XL, Rotterdam: 010 Publishers.

Matthews, S. (2007). From Agit-Prop to Free Space: The Architecture of Cedric Price, London: Black Dog Publishing.

Moussavi, F., (2002). The Yokohama Project, Barcelona: Actar.

MVRDV. (1998). FARMAX Excursions on Density, Rotterdam: 010 Publishers.

MVRDV. (2003). Five Minutes City: Architecture and (Im)mobility, Forum & Workshop Rotterdam, Rotterdam: Episode Publishers.

MVRDV. (2005). KM3 Excursions on Capacities, Rotterdam: Actar.

MVRDV. (1999). METACITY DATATOWN, Rotterdam: 010Publishers.

Neurath, M. & Kinross, R. (2009). The Transformer: Principles of Making Isotype Charts, London: Hyphen Press.

Neurath, O. (1939). Modern Man in the Making, New York: Knoft.

Patteeuw, V. [ed.] Lootsma, B. (2003). Reading MVRDV, Rotterdam: NAi Publishers.

Picon, A. (2010). Digital Culture in Architecture: An Introduction for the Design Professions, New York: Routledge.

Sadler, S. (2005). ARCHIGRAM: Architecture Without Architecture, London: The Mit Press.

Slavid, Ruth. (2009).Extreme Architecture: Building for a Challenging Environment, London: Laurence King

Vossoughhian, N. (2008). Otto Neurath: The Language of the Global Polis, Rotterdam: NAi Publishers.

45


Articles and Journals_ •

Aldersey-Williams, H. (1999). Utopian Visions. New Statesman, Vol 128 (4446), p.(back half)

Banham, R. (1966). Arts in Society: Zoom wave hits architecture, New Society, March. p.21

Brensing, C. (2004). Koolhaas Curated. Architecture Review, (Jan), p.8

Czarnecki, E. (2005) MVRDV wins first-ever Marcus Prize, Architectural Record, Vol 193 (6), p.33

Edwards, B. (2009) Bigness and Baroque Eccentricity, The Architectural Review 225.1347, p.94

Finch, P. (1994). Delirious New York. Architects Journal, (09 Feb), p.58

Finch, P. (2010). Going Dutch with the irrepressible Rem Koolhaas in Venice, Architectural Review, 1364 (Oct), p.21-22

Goldberger, P. (1979). He’ll Take Manhattan. The New York Book Review, (14 June), p.15-17

Lleó, B. (2010). Series of Documentary DVD Reviews, Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, Vol.70(1), p.132- Love, T. (2006). Perspectas 35-

Building Codes: The Yale Architectural Journal, Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, Vol.65(1), p.144-146

Melvin, J. (1999). Ingenious Developments. Architects Journal, (25 Feb), p.78

Pommer, R. (1978). Delirious New York. Art in America, (May/June), p.19

Publishers Weekly, (1996). S,M,L,XL (Book Review), Publishers Weekly, 243(n4), p.54

R. G.-M. (1995). S,M,L,XL (Book Review), Parachute: Contemporary Art Magazine, 85 (Jan-March), p.74

Reid, C. (1996). MR. BIG STUFF, Publishers Weekly, 243(n7), p.17

Scalbert, I. (1998) MVRDV Town. AA Files, n35 (Spring), p.35

Stephens, S. (2009) BIG Bjarke Ingels Group: A young Danish architectural firm is living up to its acronym with bold projects home and abroad,

Architectural Record Vol 197 (12), p.35

Wright, A. (2006). KM3: Excursions on Density. Architects Journal, (03 Aug), p.69

46


Lectures_ •

Derix, C. Synthetic Search: Mediating Analogue and Artificial Design Heuristics, Manchester Architectural Research Centre Lecture, 12 December 2010.

Picon, A. Digital Culture in Architecture, Manchester Architectural Research Centre Lecture, 2 November 2010.

Websites_ •

Archigram Began Life as a Magazine, http://archigram.westminster.ac.uk/magazine.php?id=97&src=mg (Accessed 09 Mat 2011)

Archigram: The RIBA Gold Medal 2002, http://www.bartlett.ucl.ac.uk/architecture/people/showcase/01-02/archigram.htm (Accessed 10 May 2011).

BBC Four: The Joy of Stats, http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00cgkfk (Accessed 09 January 2011).

BIG Architects, www.big.dk (Accessed 12 August 2010).

David Chipperfield Architects, http://www.davidchipperfield.co.uk/ (Accessed 01 February 2011).

FOA Architects, www.f-o-a.net (Accessed 24 November 2010).

Hawkins Brown Architects, http://www.hawkinsbrown.co.uk (Accessed 01 February 2011).

Long, C., Rem Koolhaas: AKind of Architect (DVD Review) http://www.dvdtown.com/review/rem-koolhaas-a-kind-of-architect/dvd/8212 (Accessed 07

May 2011)

MVRDV Architects, www.mvrdv.nl (Accessed 24 November 2010).

OMA Architects, www.oma.nl (Accessed 24 November 2010).

Sauerbruch Hutton Architects, http://www.sauerbruchhutton.de/ (Accessed 01 February 2011).

SENSEable City Laboratory MIT, http://senseable.mit.edu/ (Accessed 15 December 2010).

Sergison Bates Architects, http://www.sergisonbates.co.uk/ (Accessed 01 February 2011).

The Archigram Archival Project, http://archigram.westminster.ac.uk/ (Accessed 28 April 2011)

UN Studio Architects, www.unstudio.com (Accessed 24 November 2010).

West 8 Urban Design & Landscape Architecture, http://www.west8.nl/ (Accessed 08 March 2011).

Yes is More: BIG Exhibition in Copenhagen, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-NwS86_Lb8 (Accessed 12 March 2011).

47


List of Illustrations Fig_01

Architectural Integrity.

Westwell, P. A. (2011)

Fig_02

Front cover of Yes is More.

BIG. (2009).Yes is More: An Archicomic, Koln: Evergreen.

Fig_03

Preface of Yes is More.

BIG. (2009).Yes is More: An Archicomic, Koln: Evergreen. p.12

Fig_04

Eg of mortality and birth rates.

[originally shown in Die bunte Welt] Neurath, M. & Kinross, R. (2009). The Transformer: Principles of Making Isotype Charts, London: Hyphen Press. p.16

Fig_05

Neurath exhibition.

Vossoughhian, N. (2008). Otto Neurath: The Language of the Global Polis, Rotterdam: NAi Publishers. p.70-71

Fig_06

Archigrams Walking City.

http://archigram.westminster.ac.uk/project.php?id=60 [01 May 2011]

Fig_07

Archigram 4.

http://archigram.westminster.ac.uk/project.php?id=99 [10 May 2011]

Fig_08

Adventure Playground, Milton Keynes.

http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3233/2344513843_dd542fde5c.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.flickr.com/photos/iqbalaalam /2344513843/&usg=__2UNeDYJOnevfYGXH1Uiy65LQwhw=&h=312&w=500&sz=112&hl=en&start=0&zoom=1&tbnid=QQk7selar489bM:&tbnh=117&tbnw=188 &ei=qVLNTaO3OsOq8QOX9IDeDQ&prev=/search%3Fq%3DArchigram%2BAdventure%2BPlayground,%2BMilton%2BKeynes%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26biw%3 D1366%26bih%3D600%26tbm%3Disch&um=1&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=120&vpy=87&dur=402&hovh=177&hovw=284&tx=180&ty=55&page=1&ndsp=18&ved=1t: 429,r:0,s:0 [10 May 2011]

Fig_09

The city of the captive globe.

Koolhaas, R., (1978). Delirious New York: A Retroactive Manifesto for Manhattan, New York: Monacelli Press. p.295

Fig_10

Delirious New York.

Koolhaas, R., (1978). Delirious New York: A Retroactive Manifesto for Manhattan, New York: Monacelli Press. (Front Cover)

Fig_11

Front cover of S,M,L,XL.

Koolhaas, R. (1995). S,M,L,XL, Rotterdam: 010 Publishers.

Fig_12

Front cover of FARMAX.

MVRDV. (1998). FARMAX Excursions on Density, Rotterdam: 010 Publishers.

48


Fig_13

VM House, BIG, Copenhagen.

Westwell, P. A. (2010)

Fig_14

The Mountain, BIG, Copenhagen.

Westwell, P. A. (2010)

Fig_15

Rem Koolhaas.

http://top-people.starmedia.com/tmp/swotti/cacheCMVTIGTVB2XOYWFZUGVVCGXLLVBLB3BSZQ==/imgRem%20Koolhaas2.jpg [10 May 2011]

Fig_16

MVRDV.

http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://www.designbuild-network.com/features/feature_images/feature2166/1-mvrdv.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www. designbuild-network.com/features/feature2166/feature2166-1.html&usg=__OKezbgEklUNWVOkw-jJBS4pv60A=&h=415&w=500&sz=49&hl=en&start=0&zoom= 1&tbnid=4mWdN3s4Bc4ApM:&tbnh=144&tbnw=195&ei=ru_PTd-XJMiDhQfWyum_DQ&prev=/search%3Fq%3DWiny%2BMaas%2Band%2BNathalie%2Bde%2BVri es%2Band%2BJacob%2Bvan%2BRijs%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26sa%3DX%26biw%3D1366%26bih%3D600%26tbas%3D0%26tbs%3Disz:m%26tb m%3Disch&um=1&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=143&vpy=116&dur=1258&hovh=204&hovw=246&tx=151&ty=135&page=1&ndsp=21&ved=1t:429,r:0,s:0 [10 May 2011]

Fig_17

Bjarke Ingels.

http://english.dac.dk/db/filarkiv/11577/Bjarke%20Ingels.foto%20DAC_Jakob%20Galtt.jpg [10 May 2011]

Fig_18

Milan Fashion Week 2010.

http://www.oma.eu/index.php?option=com_projects&view=project&id=1226&Itemid=10 [10 May 2011]

Fig_19

Architectural Integrity.

Westwell, P. A. (2011)

All graphs and tables are created by Westwell, P. A. (2011)

49


Is Yes More?  

A Comparison of the Architectural Practi ces OMA, MVRDV, and BIG, and the Data-Driven Approach to Architecture

Advertisement
Read more
Read more
Similar to
Popular now
Just for you