Cedric Priceâ€™s pragmatic approach to Design, his Pedagogy and Influence in Architecture
VIGNESH SRINIVASAN C7175988 MA ARCHITECTURE History and Theory Context Studies Raymond Quek 05 10 2017
Cedric Priceâ€™s pragmatic approach to Design, his pedagogy and influence in Architecture
NEED FOR RESEARCH
Modern Architecture of the 20th century faced its opportunities in being innovative in the hands of several architects, when iconic designs had their own set of principles and reasoning, amongst them were radical minds who wanted to convey their vision of utopia. But why were such architectural ideas considered as something so imaginary or utopian? 1. Seemingly futuristic which would not have been making inadequate technological sense, 2. When the proposal is much a deviation from the traditional modern architecture by it unconventional appeal and prescriptions and 3. If it is meant to stir major social impact and cultural criticisms architecturally. Apart from the love for paradox and considering architecture as part of social experiment, some of these Architects began to translate their vision through media and teaching. The pedagogy needs speculation in how practical it was or in other words can something considered as utopian be pragmatic? This aside being debateable, a 2014 article published by the university of Cambridge spoke about one such architect “Price completed relatively little and never achieved stratospheric success, but his iconoclastic, eccentric and forward-thinking vision of architecture and its relationship with people shaped modern thinking and influenced a generation of architects and designers” (University of Cambridge, 2014). This research paper aims to investigate Architect Cedric Price’s “anti-building” design principle which highlights on building function being adaptable, flexible, disposable or even transformable. Price designed around the philosophy of permanent flexibility which means that buildings should either be transformed or demolished when they no longer serve the needs of the user. Through his projects and progressive ideas, there is something to learn from, his attempts to integrate them into a responsible system.
ARGUMENT The pedagogy of Cedric Price requires to be assimilated, whether to accept what his intentions were during his professional period and after his demise. Does his pedagogical principles and influence in architecture justified as being pragmatically utopian? In terms of contingency, can it reasonably resonate in the years to come?
NEED FOR RESEARCH ON CEDRIC PRICE
A British Architect of the 1960s and one of the most influential mind who was ahead of his time in terms of innovation and his sense of adaptability. Among the contemporary culture of architecture, teaching sessions in the Architectural Association are considered as most successful and during Priceâ€™s involvement, the discourse here at AA were politically driven (Bell, 2014). His practice included several wide range exhibitions, symposia and frequent lecture, while his publications found its prior global position in developing within the 60â€™s modern architecture culture. The research gradually also investigates how Cedric Price as an architect promotes social change, contemplates on the human potentiality, redefinition and enhancement. Although there are only a few built projects and less well-known schemes, it is his off-beat unbuilt concepts that cemented his influence in architecture and to utopian visionaries such as the Archigram. It is inquisitive how Cedric Price translated his socialist ideas through his drawings. The structure of this study is based on inputs from different points of view and comparisons. The point of departure (chapter 1) is on knowing about a collaborative research work which initiates a written description of pedagogical sense in lineage of being architecturally radical; that responsible act of enthusiasm to promote progressive learning. 2
The next chapters (2-3) deals with the analogy between design and reasoning; and conceiving project possibility. We gradually get to be introduced to Cedric Price’s system of ideals, for which appropriate cases are deliberated. Does he follow some sort of procedure or an assumed pattern in his work? How he induces himself into a social process and whether his “type” of architecture plays key role. The following chapters perhaps directed the thesis to next phase, an opportunity to have an incite about his major projects by outlining his experimented preferences in architecture; and also, to deduce his influence and how he is accepted by others in the society and architecture profession. By referring to some of the other architects who are in practice today, chapter 4 realises that although belonging to the 60’s era, Price’s design methodology has deeply influenced some. The sequence of information provided anticipates and tries to relate his architectural motive. Chapter 5 speaking about the only known or existing built project of his highlights his reasoning and solutions; while next chapter keeps track on curated exhibitions, Cedric Price’s interpretation and what we can learn from them. Further, the research extends to eye on how the shift in technology completely changes architectural thinking and application. In order to produce practical purpose, technology is perceived in specific version which opens to debate whether such, inculcates ‘user centred design and open-ended space’. But lately architecture tends to incline to eco-technology as a probable hightech solution. Hence there are sides to which young generation of architects would have to learn and at various points during his architecture career, Price had always been supporting education. The last chapter describes why it is significant to impart sensibilities as a social responsibility which is apparently why the architect is remembered even after his demise.
Beatrix Colomnia, curator of an ongoing multiyear collaborative archival research named “RADICAL PEDAGOGIES” with a few PhD students from Princeton University has written about Price’s practice of teaching and assessed his theoretical approach. Being extremely critical about the existing modern architecture, Cedric Price besides being an Architect, is figured as an educator and a liberator in the field of architecture. “I’m only radical because the architectural profession has got lost. Architects are such a dull lot and they’re so convinced that they matter.” – Cedric Price (Milmo, 2017). His notion of setting architecture free is reflected upon his practice, who would want to relieve architects and students from traditional enthusiasm. It was said that Price created a revolutionary set of unsolicited proposals aimed towards a pragmatic utopia, one in which individuals were liberated from behavioural and paternalistic patterns, while the British welfare state was breeding different versions of Corbusian modernism adjusted to post war demands (Garcia-German, 2017). Cedric price follows a learning process that is comprehensive and whose area of focus is on human activities or in other words, user function. He translated this being as an educator at the AA yet, insisted presence in juries and workshops for his judgemental views, which were in demand. There was a constant search to cater something better than mere problem solving by prioritizing his design as an alternative to conventional crafting of architecture. Other the other hand, what makes him libertarian is his response and understanding towards modernism’s culture of “objectuality”, evaluating architecture through its performance where the user animates, completes the building (Garcia-German, 2017). The writer of E18 article in radical pedagogies, Jacobo Garcia talks about Cedric Price’s mantra being “process, not product” (Garcia-German, 2017). Basically, Cedric Price allots more weightage on the building functionality, designing spaces which are useful or practical rather than attractive. His focus was never 4
primarily on aesthetics, rather inclined to pragmatist’s principle of “learning by doing” – an open-end approach to experimentation of 1960s (Garcia-German, 2017). He directed his students to assume the responsibility as an independent individual where he even initiated a program in AA named “taskforce”, a form of signed contract between student and tutor, in which the student’s duty is to define what one intends to achieve that particular year. In the 1970 Archigram #9 issue, ”The Cedric Price Column”, he made a statement about the nomadic student. Since his visions proposed that British students need education in an assortment of environments and locations, so as to collectively complement each other’s program and facilities – an idea for the British architecture schools, foreshowed by the concept of mobility. This, likely is suitable for today’s curious architecture students.
Figure 1: AD Magazine cover page (Cedric Price 1968)
One of his guest edited work for the Architectural Design magazine, May 1968 issue Figure 1. (Cedric Price 1968) showcased a photomontage of a wrist watch over a hand but having a built-in mini TV which seems to be a clear premonition. 5
Figure 2: Cedric Price. Potteries Thinkbelt. Cedric Price fonds Source: Canadian Centre for Architecture, MontrĂŠal
Figure 3: Potteries Thinkbelt. North Staffordshire. 1963-1967 England. conceptual drawing
The issue which included contributions by Peter Cook, Norman Foster, among others featured about one of his design proposal that was a collaborative effort with the students from Rice University. It was actually an extension of the lessons learned from the Potteries Thinkbelt scheme Figure 2. (Cedric Price 1968) and a medium to promote the idea as an educational tool, bridging learning process with travel, displacement and mobility. The project was about micro and macro network of terminals which could take the role as educational and information facilities apart from managing the suburban sprawl in America (Garcia-German, 2017). Cedric Price’s pedagogy was apparent with the kind of ideology he pursued.
In one of the chapters from “Experiments in Architecture” (Hardingham, 2005, p. 11) edited by Samantha Hardingham, she talks about why there needs to be a purpose in order to have an idea. Making room for ideas would then call for conjecture or speculation. The question raised was, how can designers exercise reasoning and the values of thinking ahead? whether one should experiment in future on not (Hardingham, 2005, p. 12). An insight at the information gathered from her writing; Architectural schools should take the initiative in reassuring consistent design efforts which involve building technology advancements and or analogy. Feliks Topolski’s, a polish expressionist painter states in one his passage: “ideas have to be born and to soar. And this cannot happen until the pioneers in the human progress evolve the spirit on terms of equality and equal employment. The artist should be in colloquy with the other creative men and the managers. They should be given 7
their day- dreaming laboratories and continuous opportunities for experimentation” (Hardingham, 2005, p. 11). Associate Architect of Richard Rogers partnership Kevin Gray, has his way of analysis which is; not by describing the process by which architecture is made but the relationship that makes it. The articulation of individual roles (their strengths and weaknesses) at the outset of the design process proved to be fundamental to allowing the generous development of a project (Hardingham, 2005, p. 10). This seems similar to how Cedric Price works, of giving importance to the process to develop a useful product. Apart from encouraging every student of architecture getting into practice to ask questions and be questioned, the architectural writer and curator Samantha Hardingham parallelly supports the notion with Price’s practice which is to invoke the search beyond one’s architectural profession as it was indispensable for architecture to respond and adapt to change, whether social, political, economic or ideological reasons (Hardingham, 2005, p. 8). Speaking of experiments in architecture, David Greene is another icon from the 60s who was a founder member of the Archigram, had developed a project in collaboration with the Architecture department in university of Westminster – the research centre for experimental practice (EXP). His “Invisible University” is an educational design proposal that dives to the “primitive” style something which got its influence from the Land art movement at that time. “We are entering primitive heterogeneity”, Greene noted in 1972, criticizing those architectural solutions that “ignore the social paradigm of the natural environment” (Sadler, 2005, p. 178). In an interview for an exhibition of his revived research projects in 2008, Greene mentions about how an imaginative electronic topology can have the potential to retune or adapt itself and nurtures into a vital system of a flexible evolving university model (Invisible university, 2003). The idea makes even more sense with the current age of mobile phone and wire-less technology as the research opens opportunities for reinterpreting the building programme. “The work that I’ve done for one reason or another has been a steady disinterest in architectural form, into the structures that 8
architecture is a residue of. To say, gradually, what is the architecture that results from the mobile phone? If you take a very extreme position you say, well, nothing” (bdonline, 2008) With an intention to closely relate human, nature and machine or in other words electronics, the invisible project was first revealed in architectural design magazine 1971. with regards to the existing cultural scenario, he instigates software with time than hardware to space. (Invisible University (2003 - ), 2003)(Studies in Electric Anthropology 1971). Architect David Greene seems to question the culture which is revolved by several technological circumstances so he had proposed a strategy similar to “Incidental Pastoralism” where this invisible university concept, having its electronic landscape that acts as a catalyst for flow of knowledge or data and so information circulates and retunes itself among a network of communication and possible internet technology. How does this kind of architecture weave a lifestyle supported by wire free or wire-less potential networks? Is the user experience subsided or mutated by technology influence in terms of architectural design or such newly emerging architectures are preparing us or have made us adaptive towards the visions of an advanced future? The invisible university was never a set of shapes but, a system which is a sensitively responsive model for education. Samantha Hardingham had been a help in revisiting David Greene projects for 2006 London Architecture Biennalea presentation. But how has Cedric price made more sense in conceiving his projects? which may or may not seem to have influenced Greene’s proposal. If David Greene’s work shows inclination in using advanced technology which although is entirely trans-spatial, structures a new intervention for the social fabric, Cedric price had attempted much earlier with his fascination towards communication technology in particular. He was being passionate about raising the human condition and the potential of one’s well-being. His most influential projects being the ‘laboratory of fun’ – the fun palace (which will be dealt in later section of thesis) and the ‘Potteries Thinkbelt’, 1964, which did critique the traditional tertiary education system by unconventionally to have integrated higher education in an industrial sense. What began as a means to test architecture’s capability to enhance environment formed as design 9
proposal that would signify a vast urban development. Although this response was not appreciated back then, it addressed the ceramic industry of north Staffordshire, unemployment and infrastructure impaired. To be a bit more specific in what made the scheme work in the post war era, is the establishment of an educational system or centre, over a vast area of unused land (about 100 square miles) but, loosely linked to nurture into a national centre of science and technology campus that entirely depends on the existing railway network in a sense which we can still relate to such as distance learning, electronically driven communities and modern networking complexities.
Figure 4: Cedric Price. Potteries Thinkbelt. Cedric Price fonds Source: Canadian Centre for Architecture, MontrĂŠal
But what about the proposed structures? In fact, Price did not propose anything which was meant to be permanent. It was probable that he understood the social shift and went for reconfigurable teaching and housing units which can be readily reassembled or repositioned â€“ a revolutionary alternative towards a knowledge based economy as a flexible network than a static structure (Anon., 2002).
Figure 5: Jagnefalt Milton. Views of A Rolling Masterplan.
For a Norwegian master plan competition for the city of Andalsnes in 2010, Jagnefalt Milton, a Swedish architecture office bagged an award for their proposal having buildings rolling through the city on rails (Etherington, 2010). Although the aim of the project is in no way related like how Thinkbelt project beholds, the idea of utilising structures which are mobile, non-static and more like hacking the railway network to suit and offer benefit in the aspect of seasonal tourism in region of Andalsnes. Through this, an adaptive design system which can reorganise opportunity for economic potential by which seasonal demands gets served, for example festivals and market need, other requirements etc. (Poucke, 2011). Furthermore, this proposal is considered itself to be open for newer ideas and adjustments as tourism attraction and development. Probably the jury was felt that the proposal is intact to context of Norway and reasonable to its purpose. Something so similarly innovative or possibly influence of a project which was proposed four and a half decades back. It was that lack of realisation in the 20th century generation which did not meet the forward thinking. â€œThe technical complexity of the project seemed too far-fetched to a public and a government unfamiliar with computers and advanced technology. Moreover, many of the government officials who might have been interested in Price's novel educational ideas were otherwise occupied with the development of the fledgling Open Universityâ€? (Mathews, 2007).
Considering playfulness as a design tool, which allows itself to be indispensable for a new kind of improvisational architecture. But, why is it observed to be improvisational? Architecture to inform the common citizens genuinely to embark on creative learning and individual fulfilment by escaping from everyday routine and serial existence (Lefaivre & Hall, 2007). It is better to explain with references from one of Cedric Price’s work so as to understand how playfulness and improvisation are relative. The fun palace (1959-61) is a reflection of a design which was supposedly be a mix of being didactic and playful. It was Joan Littlewood, the theatre director’s intention of having a new kind of interactive theatre which further conceived as a visionary design to appeal to the mass culture as a performative universal space, as a playground composed of artistic events. This concept of a theatre is said to act as a means of social communication which could address the socio-economic issues of the time. The fun palace required a form of architecture that stood democratic as a place which will combine learning and leisure mix of spaces; eventually an industrial set up plugged by supportive machinery, cranes and gantries (Mathews, 2007). Among the existing political scenario of the 60’s, this programmatic framework is inferred to be a social vision or imagination that is integrated into or within a design process. A design that would work with or negotiate to constantly changing condition, gets improvised as per the user’s need, something that is not a conventional building but otherwise a built fragment of agit-prop defying conformity (Lefaivre & Hall, 2007). Price devised and refined this concept of “assemblage”, where the prefabricated modules of leisure and pedagogical environments are housed within steel and glass that can be shifted constantly or rearranged just as tinkertoys using supportive cranes.
Figure 6: Cedric Price. Fun Palace: interior perspective.
There was always a political element to priceâ€™s work, an ebullient fusion of instruction and delight, socialism and surrealism (Lefaivre & Hall, 2007). This pragmatic approach was very much a portrayal in potteries Thinkbelt scheme in 1964 where again, his socio-architectural imagination solidified to be as anticipatory architecture. â€œeducation, if it is to be a continuous human service run by the community, must be provided with the same lack of peculiarity as the supply of drinking water or free teeth.â€? (Lefaivre & Hall, 2007). His sense of adaptability involved linking of mobile train wagons and the abandoned paleo-technic pottery factories by an old rail track, in Staffordshire. If, for instance What could have not worked? User needs to consider or know how the services operate such as water and electricity, how can they get replenished over a non-static structure which is in movement; use of kinetic 13
mechanisms; distance or accessibility, time with which the service is made available depending on usage or demand and speed of the movement may be! Each of which is interdependent, Exchange of ideas in sync with exchange of goods; and movement or circulation of people over mechanical means from one place to another, was his vision and anticipation. It is comparable within Cedric Price’s projects, as people then were able to relate to a constructive derivative of being mostly industrial and aesthetic less unlike a sketchy conception or composition. This technology driven, flexible and indeterminate featured architecture evoked possibilities, worked as catalyst for political opportunity and delight, especially in closures of people standards and innovative learning institution.
In one of Simon Sadler’s work along with Jonathan Hughes, NonPlan: Essays on Freedom, Participation and Change in Modern Architecture, describes briefly about the inter-action centre of Kentish town. This being another piece of work by price in 1984 which although resembles the fun palace but, built! Explaining how unfettered the design is, in the matter of its usage, improvising or changing function, the design enables a modification on the user’s thought to encourage a demonstration of do-it-yourself, creating a communal occupation which is informal, friendly but at the same time busy. Urbanist Peter Hall and Sociologist Paul Barker were arguing for cities being over-regimented, having a restrictive pattern which did not allow any element of play. It was then, works of Cedric Price appealed to specific urban contexts; right from the pop-up parliament 1965, project Nonplan 1969 and also the magnet city project throughout the 1990s.
In 2015, the Author of Places Journal, Anthony Fontenot produced a newsletter (Fontenot, 2015), “Notes Towards a History of NonPlanning”, where he quotes “The ‘Non-Plan’ authors tended to equate personal freedom with free-market capitalism.” A topic which retraces a special issue of the British weekly New Society; “NonPlan: An Experiment in Freedom,” a manifesto written collaboratively by Reyner Banham, Paul Barker, Peter Hall, and Cedric Price. The project aimed an effort to discredit the role of centralised planning and design in shaping the urban environment (Fontenot, 2015), challenging the existing and well-established land use and the orthodox principles of urban planning. It was a take on the socio-political background in 1969 where the argument is for the removal of regulations and in favour of the “spontaneous” urban development that would follow. Cedric’s contribution and the kind of ideology that follows is the motive force that drives such Urban theory based projects; stimulating a social process that frames a decentralised network of contextual spaces, creating in-between spaces that may or can trigger the sense of urbanity for allowing new patterns of encounter (Hughes & Sadler, 2000). Price attempts to make the social process visible by introducing them into our daily lives and letting people discuss about them (Jaque, 2011). Taking notes from Architect Richard Rogers commentary, from “Immitation is Suicide: The life-work of John M. Johansen”- in conversation with the Architect himself. It was more of a discussion about John Johansen’s take on architectural career, breaking down his principles and his conception of belief; who himself frankly recognise as being inspired from Cedric Price! Richard Rogers introduces John Johansen and states; “Throughout his career his architecture has demonstrated a rare consistency, transcending experimentation in a range of formal languages: from early experiments in neoclassicism and biomorphism to successive waves of conventional modernism, organicism, and deformed geometries. His buildings are equally informed by the organising principles of biotechnology and electromagnetics as they are by conventional functional requirements, confirming that design is an indeterminate science: a theoretical as well as an aesthetic process” (Johansen, 2011). 15
Certainly, he wasn’t the first to use technology as a pivot in architecture. In fact, Price’s inventiveness surfaced as a link between two periods; the hard-edged style of Brutalism which began to lose its hold on the liberal imagination and the Pop Art sensibility of London (Muschamp, 2003). John Johansen on speaking about his influence on the design of Pompidou centre (Johansen, 2011); “His buildings celebrate adhocism, improvisation, and change rather than acting as static monuments to an inflexible society: a notion which strongly influenced our design approach to the Pompidou Centre back in the early 1970s.” The term Ad-hocism’s origin was in 1950s from the American Economic Review but used architecturally in the book, Adhocism: The case for Improvisation by Charles Jencks and Nathan Silver to the relate architectural practice or movement of building in a style characterized by spontaneity, invention, and individuality. Subjectively, it means to achieve social variety in modern cities. Looking to find if their style of architecture coincide, Johansen identifies his design elements being classified as chassis (structural frame), components (functional elements), subcomponents (servant spaces) and harnesses (flow of information). “Johansen's designs are prototypical essays in passive environmental control, where materials, forms, and orientation create complete environments that respond to the changing social and economic needs of contemporary society”, informs Richard Rogers (Johansen, 2011). Considering lightness, movement, transparency and dynamism based on being logical, brings clarity and precision to his buildings. While on the other hand, CP’s architectural style is also traced as being high-tech among the imminent Architects of the 1960’s but, his conception of architecture calls for demolition of anything that has ceased to perform properly (Vodanovic, 2007). Apart from both having regards for Buckminster Fuller's pioneering work of the 1920s and 1930s, they perceive environmental impacts of architecture in dissimilar manner. Most of Price’s projects in relevance from the 60s till 70s, holds a conscious effort for incorporation of time in the process of a 16
design conception and construction. His expression or the language is not just about satisfying an object as antique. It is required to understand that the Architect demands a process of obsolescence, means by which his proposals offering logic will be contingent but not on being predictable or anticipated. Thereby, determining the potentiality in accordance to the interval where space as a product, can allow or follow a sequence of re-organisation if the demand or its usage is subject to change, formulating the obsolescence. Apparently, the information, the components, subcomponents aims for flexibility and the entire frame work needs adaptation if not, demolition. In his terms, the product can be used as long as there is a need or demand and the product can be taken apart or in other words transformed, dismantled, changed or reconfigured to adapt for another purpose after a time span. His practical designs seem to have transformed from social imagination but, one needs to think whether or relate “impermanence” as a deliberate solution to conceptualise his projects. But his intention of architecture restoration revolves around potentiality of a particular space; space which has a tendency for contingency over an interval. Then again, he also prefers to refrain from building anything, some almost arriving to a conclusion that the deserving solution is to not do anything, in order to determine the “spatially enable” in terms of its utility and productivity.
LEARNING FROM LIMITATIONS
In an urban design competition to rethink a large site; a portion on Manhattan city's west side, a group of architects and urbanists were involved in giving a solution. Since it was a vacant area that remains, there was not much of scope for proposal as the 17
choices were predictable ones- a scheme that should not disturb the existing fresh air from the river (Obrist, 2010). Unlike the other architects, Cedric Price did not intend to do anything as he gave thoughts on how New York actually suffers from being overly developed and that the least he would do is build anything that may increase the foul static nature of air. Although New York had faced several schemes that failed before, the city looks for short term advantage over any urban situation while Price’s judgement about the potentiality for the “future” is found to be ideally pragmatic, setting a phase for utopian encounter. His vision of creating having a space as a “lung” could necessarily weave between buildings and the infrastructure context (Melvin, 2003). Nevertheless, the Architect did not win and whereas, Architect Peter Eisenman was awarded for proposing something usual and as predictable (Obrist, 2010). This arguably seals his own definition of what anti-building relates to; impermanence and the ‘potential of not to be’ for the cause of future productivity and preservation. By initiating a social process, the architect builds a relationship between preservation and; building and demolition. Unlike Gustav Metzger’s “Auto-Destructive art”, a movement where artists get to dismantle and wreck objects as a form of protest. “Art and Design should not only be an object but an excuse for a dialogue.” Douglas Gordon and Thomas Kong (Anon., 2016). The whole nature of architecture for Cedric Price is to not solve problems as it is too slow but rather create new appetites, new hungers (Obrist, 2010) - by which he means new opportunities? There needs to be a creation of continuous dialogue but how does it sync and what is the purpose of architecture then, has it changed over the course of time? is an open-ended question. Another definition of Architecture might assist to frame an understanding; it was a Vitruvius Latin text translated by Sir Henry Wotton in the seventeenth century which states architecture as “commodity, firmness and delight”. Cedric Price considers architecture as a poor performer which does not do enough to enliven human conditions and that is the purpose! - recognising opportunities for improvement and consumption. The consumption part of it reflects the usefulness of architecture and its relevance.
The Zoo aviary project, London, 1961; with Lord Snowdon (designer) and frank Newby (engineer) is one of Cedric Price's built work. It was interesting to find out how he did not have any constrain over the aviary function and why so (Price, 2003). The existing London zoo aviary (figure 1) is an example that reflects his design ideology as a built form. Through photo elicitation, the study can be segregated and understood. The CP Aviary is an experimental project to propose a control and observation room among various nesting sites for birds breeding at different heights or levels (three-storey high structure) (figure 2). The idea was to have a plastic tubular tree like structure whose branches can be dismantled (figure 3) and even rearranged to suit different bird species and on the other hand constant information is acquired from the nests to carry on with the humidity, visual and thermal research in self-contained laboratory units.
Figure 7: View of London Zoo Aviary, 1965 Regent's Park, London, England
Figure 8: CP Aviary: conceptual drawing
Figure 9: CP Aviary: view of a model for stage 1
Source: Canadian Centre for Architecture
Concept highlights on how easily the structure can be dismantled, transformed and transported if in case of site extension. However, this project was a progressive phase after building what we know now as, the London Zoo aviary. The form of the proposed structure for this aviary is noticed as an application of tensegrity – an influence from Fuller’s work which involved the art of engineering. The enclosure is a netted structure meant to house large birds without disturbing their flight, more of an obstacle-free volume. Although the photographs are considered as a means of secondary source, the pictures are actual drawings from Cedric Price’s work, referenced from the Canadian Centre for Architecture. The developmental drawings are for the viewer’s interpretation to get a knowledge of how the design satisfies the function or its purpose. The type of information provided are pictures of the built project and also its developmental drawings but there was limited pictorial information regarding the actual construction details.
Nevertheless, from the writings of Frank Newby (Cedric Price, The Square Book) it was mentioned that the construction involved use of aluminium castings, light weight welded mesh and stainlesssteel forgings (Price, 2003).
Figure 10: London Zoo Aviary. Regents Park, London, England. bird's-eye perspectives
The netting is attached to tension cables that run length-wise in the rectilinear structure. They are anchored on the ground at the corners by assemblies of tetrahedral (four-face) tubular compression structures. The 'roof' consists of a pair of crossover cables running along the apex of the enclosure, also lengthwise. It is supported by pairs of tubular steel columns, each pair forming a giant 'V', which hold the cables in tension. The cable/net structure of the whole is clearly expressed through the use of steel compression members and cables in tension (University of Westminister, n.d.).
Figure 11: Views of a model for the Aviary at the London Zoo
In this paper, it was earlier mentioned the Architect as a liberator or an enabler. Cedric Price did not limit this project need, he wanted to extend its functionality. And hence, there was a progress in developing the project as something whose structure can be moved or displaced. His concern for having a supportive system which eases repair and maintenance of the London Aviary cage demanded the whole structure to enable itself to be portable – Which is what the CP Experimental Aviary 1981 is about. In a way, Price did compare specifically with Ron Herron’s Archigram project – The Walking City but, only difference is that the inhabitants being bird species themselves which moves in the city. What seems curious on having this sort of dialogue, is the connection between the engineering service and usefulness. This built form has its own sense of adaptability based on inhabitants. The commodity being the service involved or maintenance of the product, firmness denoting the structure integrity and stability while the delight factor would have been the dialogue between the user and the future use or purpose in other words (Price, 2003).
An artistic director at the serpentine gallery, London and an art curator, Hans Ulrich Obrist has always been there observing Cedric Price. Being the Author of the Interview project, which is an extensive project of interviews, he considers Price as someone the 20th century has never seen! in being such a significant figure in all discipline. They have met several times between 1999-2003 and one of his book, the conversation series holds a collection of interviews. Cedric Price on speaking about “cities on the move” exhibition, specifically conveyed his thoughts and appreciation on the dependence on change where time is the key element and how he acknowledges time as the fourth dimension besides length, breadth and height.
One of the discussion opens for how buildings are being ephemeral and Asian Architects are used to the notion of time in context of cities reinventing itself. Taking an example, Angkor Wat in Cambodia was a largest city in the world until the industrial revolution which simply faded into the jungle when people no longer needed it. “Cities exist for citizens, and if they do not work for citizens, they die.” (Obrist, 2001). It does make sense, isn’t it? People of a place animate the function of a city. Although it is not easy to define the flow of people sociologically that is, sometimes the demographic of the visitors may sore higher than the actual inhabitants – probably in the name of tourism, Singapore? But what is paradoxical is that a city as a space is never constant or as one perceives in a similar way how Price delivers, city changes through time and the word describing itself cannot be a frozen term but rather a permanent mutation which then again reflects even today’s scenario of evolving cities and human awareness of time associated with it. In one way or another, there seems to be an inclusive input of time, which is non-linearly evident. Can it be a supposition that, influence of time makes an approach to design as pragmatic? Elucidating another instance where time actually preludes user experience, which can imply a pedagogical component from Price’s point of view. Interestingly his “Anticipatory Architecture” self induces temporary buildings or structures which apparently autodissolves. But his interpretation and liking towards old museums gives an incite of how time could play a capable distortion with user experience and functionality. From a similar extended conversation with Hans Ulrich Obrist, revealed the feasibility of a museum as a distorter of place and time (Price, 2003) . In fact, Price personally shows interest in often visiting the British Museum. Paying visit to such a building typology on consecutive similar days may be an additional familiarity to some extent but will be quite different to engage our own self as a consumer or user since the space always distorts the climate, distorts his tired or lazy afternoons, distorts the sense of place and time- of making an enclosure which is categorised based on pre-described theme or time period, unlike what exists outside the building.
For someone who would prefer obsolescence and work towards epistemology, this sort of analysis of automatic distortion appeals a contradictory but valid sense (Price, 2003). How would it be if the uncertainty is calculative? In a touring exhibition curated by Samantha Hardingham, in Venice Biennale 2010 and again in the AA 2011, there were a series of interviews by Hans Ulrich Obrist upon Price, edited for the viewers who could click keywords to choose and select a passage. A thoughtful awareness, an unexpected route to reach, informative about his inspiring lectures and constant compulsive development of his semiotics and other details from notebooks (Tim, 2012). Cedric Price Potteries Thinkbelt exhibition by curator Barnabas Calder and designer Alan Pert of Nord revisits the drawings and plans as an invigoration to relate academic and industrial infrastructure in contemporary context. The centre of the exhibition showcased a scaled model of the project, depicting the railway network, trains and tracks and other various proposed housing typologies for the university. Around were his selective aphorisms collocating with the model, inclusive of other proclamations and criticisms relating to the Thinkbelt. The exhibition made a huge remark highlighting Price’s distinctive refinements as a provocateur. It was indeed a proposal for rethinking the infrastructural potentiality of transportation systems and mass industries, as a provocation to break the way in which traditional institution works. “The possible must become more important than the improbable”, said one of the slogans on the exhibition wall (Tim, 2012). More than making sense for mere aesthetic application, architecture is seen operating with social, economic, political and geophysical context. Price persuaded the English Heritage to not list his Inter-action Centre of Camden town, which is perhaps a notable built project of his in 1972-77, resembling his previous concepts as a reduced version of the Fun Palace project. He stood for pragmatism and against architecture prescribed by dominant socio – political norms, crystallised forms and habits for the future generations. Then again, refraining from prioritising aesthetics but appealing 25
to functionality as solutions enabled the society to find resurgence of such architecture. The Architect’s predilections for constructivism is encountered as a major challenge for the existing orthodoxy, ornamentation and brutalism (Tim, 2012).
USEFUL ADOPTION OF TECHNOLOGY
Norbert Wiener had defined what cybernetics mean by in 1948, it is as we understand – a scientific study of control and communication system in living mechanism and machine. It followed a historical significance in marking a revolution intellectually. There have been several examples in architecture where application of cybernetics was observed as an inspiring conceptual tool for experimental works; a propagation of technology in namely the postindustrial scenario. The shift in architectural thinking met adaptation technique on the basis of feedback of information and self-regulation. It is essential to notice how the British Archigram group thrived with their experimental portrayals and around this time so did Reyner Banham and Takis Zenetos, a Greek Urban visionary whose efforts were inspired from cybernetics (Yiannoudes, 2016). Although Takis Zenetos’s electronic urbanism project was never realised, his explorations were partly included in other constructed projects. Likewise, the work of some architects was considered as unrealised experiments but inspiring. Lack of human or political awareness might be a reason. It was in 1990s when similar ideas re-emerged within other architectural practice and research groups, when the information technology was more evident or prevalent for creating space that tends to react for the changing needs, possibly to synthesise literal technology with architecture.
Reyner Banham was also one apart from Price who inspired the Archigram by being a critic, as a theorist and gizmo-loving fellow eccentric. From their early phase, the architectural approach noticeably targeted the technocratic design of the state welfare. More than saying the designs were wild, it too had a version of fun element. Most memorable projects of Archigram underlines temporary and mobile architecture towards highly technology driven future. 1964 Ron Herron’s idea of a walking city, is literally a giant city in reptilian structure where more nomadic inhabitants are in search of a place to settle, who otherwise will be gliding over enormous legs. A vision that is nearing apocalypse or a vision that is pre-assumed as a utopian solution? Similar instance where the project is received as irrelevance to the era; Peter Cook’s Plug-in city 1964, where living pods can be plugged in or out from wherever and as per the inhabitant’s wish. The purpose of the two projects coincide to be a different design iteration. After winning a competition to design a leisure centre in Monte Carlo, Archigram opened an architectural practice in 1964 and as for the proposal for the leisure centre, its seating feature, lights and toilets were movable by wheels and the design included an enormous circular dome on land reclaimed from the Mediterranean Sea (Lefaivre & Hall, 2007). So many ideas emerged from this group as they published them in magazine which did stir attention and made society realise that architecture is beyond than providing a static nature of comfort. But the only issue arbitrary is the quotient of time which can allow such kind of ideas to be commemorated. As a matter of fact, the members of Archigram imagined to explore and research new architectures, new possibilities and did not prefer to build their drawings and illustrations, but also definitely did not appear to be in line with familiar mindset as that of Cedric Price. “Technology is the answer…but what was the question?” (Price, 1979), was quoted by Cedric Price; a provocation entitled in his 1966 lecture which turns out as a plate for discussion after almost two decades (Price, n.d.). What makes his approach comparably a pedagogy? While ending his lecture, Price defines architecture as something which creates possibilities for beneficial social conditions, as a “user centred design”, that is extremely thoughtful through natural distortion of time, interval and place. 27
Technology achieves a variation in reaching the appetites of the user (Price, n.d). This enabling factor must allow for changing needs over a course of time. Technologically enhanced user determined architecture of the iconographic Archigram and Reyner Banham’s work appealed as theoretical approaches which rather seemed sketchy when compared to Architect Cedric Price or even Yona Friedman as a matter of fact. In certain ways Friedman’s diagrams did parallel the cybernetic thinking of Price, who attempted to implement a cybernetic environment that is primarily adaptive in nature, in the megastructure of project Fun Palace. Unlike the conventional minds, the usefulness of architecture was put forth as a system which did not demand permanent structure of brick and mortar rather, involved technology responsive to human being and certain condition as a facilitator, as a service mechanism. Key thing to realise is how the sense of spatial adaptability progressed as a possible and workable nature in coordination with technology. In the book by Socrates Yiannoudes, Architecture and Adaptation: From cybernetics to Tangible computing, speaks about differences in what adaptation refers to. “The concept of flexibility in architecture has two meanings; a determinist flexibility, manifested in the predetermined and mechanistic, closed-system transformations of the so-called kinetic architectural structures; and a not-determinist, openended flexibility (or adaptability), which implies incalculable practices of appropriation by users in space.” (Yiannoudes, 2016) “open-ended” space and its response to user was no longer seen as a discourse as now users can actively and consciously determine their surrounding environment. Basically, “hard” flexibility techniques involve mechanical and kinetic systems and apart from these, cybernetics and communication systems in combination, may be employed for adaptation purpose to cope with constantly changing uncertain feedback. Was this a sort of deviation from being functionalist? It is only through practical considerations that buildings are defined based on their purpose, but how does the design turn out if the machines are empowering?
If this is the case, then the term flexibility is open for interpretation. The idea of flexibility is directly proportional to the architecture’s potential to properly function or operate as an interactive adaptive system guided by the user input. But in a way, architects ensure the parallelism between cybernetic systems and architecture, sometimes indirectly or figurative and sketchy; and on the other hand, literal and pragmatic. Towards involving spatial adaptability in synergy between the omnipresent system of computation and architecture, Price follows the open-ended category of design flexibility. One may think, why most of his projects were never realised to build? Is it because of the amount of mechanical technology or machinery involved? Or probably, the chances of design being disposable is considered as alien when the people are subjected to a new shift for open-ended environments with such an attitude for flexibility. What became evident is the cybernetic-driven architecture laid down as a pragmatic version of its own self by Cedric Price than Archigram’s sketchy and Banham’s theoretical approach (Yiannoudes, 2016). But where there any range of differences although the ideology is occasionally epistemological? If Architect Johansen’s designs were a take on passive environmental control, between Banham and Price there exists a distinction. The version of having environmental control can be received in both ways; a “controlled” and the “controllable” or in other words, a “responsive” environment (Yiannoudes, 2016). There may be limited choices when it is a controlled environment but whether architecture facilitates the open-ended situations in being responsive enough for changing social needs that can be constantly adaptive and manageable, is a controllable environment. An attempt of incorporating a second – order system of cybernetics, nurtured Price’s Fun Palace project as something which can manage both its program and form’s indeterminacy. Buckminster Fuller was a major inspiration and affinity for emerging computer technology led to the design of the Claverton Dome; a combined effort of Fuller and Price. And moreover, from the onset of 1961, the persuaded Archigram illustrated apocalyptic ideas inspired from science fiction and futuristic culture. 29
Besides the cultural transformation, the ideas of Cedric Price were inspired by anarchy! (Carr, 2008). It comes down to a realisation that, architecture was no longer the same, architecture enables itself to become actively performative or demonstrative. Such explorations were never meant to project a defined aesthetic assertion instead, the user animates the performance while the machine supports the operation. Even if the usage conditions are a combination of constantly shifting systems, formlessness is uncertain or, is it not? It is curious to relate how architecture can follow machinery. Something where one may effortlessly relate to- engineering and building service. It is not an objective to overwrite the architectural axiom of 'Form follows function' but, a genuine input of engineered appropriation does signify architecture being utilitarian and not frippery. Such, is perceptible then and is also even suitable in this decade of architecture, which may need to channelize in becoming pedagogical. Architecture may follow machinery. Architect Cedric Price had never promoted nor may have given a thought about aesthetics in any of his conception phase. Perhaps, in the aspect of conceiving the project as structurally short-term yet functional, the aesthetical notion was intentionally avoided or takes the least importance. In a series of experiments with pneumatics, Reyner Banham reacted against the aesthetice of machinery technology, by forcibly adopting mechanical systems to imbue with his architectural form or design â€“ The Environment Bubble is an example (Wei, 2014). Presumably the impact of technology in architecture led architects to prioritise for efficiency in performance or otherwise building function. By this manner, evolved ideas for the 21st century and beyond, demanded environment friendly or sustainable architecture. On a quantitative analysis, the eco-technology machines suggest building evaluation and assign values based on LEED to get a feedback of energy consumption and generate ways to reduce and measure architectureâ€™s performance. On an optimistic note, technology is more synonymous at present but this realisation had sprouted in 1960â€™s, in formalising architecture as performative and setting a major breakthrough from its tradition. Even though there are differences in approach and deduced technology to be 30
functional, it is a complex inheritance. Technological change interprets performance and this turned out as a lineage for architectural discussion. Hence it was a redefined period which did elicit various architectural responses from several innovative, experimented architects. However, in terms of “practicality” most of their projects were extremely gestural, not efficient enough, unable to execute during that period but yet conceptually expansive and unconventionally successful. Among which, Cedric Price efforts are perhaps most incentive and projected to be subjectively pragmatic as it demands an understanding that, mechanical systems or application caters the user need and serves functionally but this architectural performance does not require to be quantifiable unlike how technology serves man in this generation.
Around a week after Price’s demise, Author Jeremy Melvin of the British daily newspaper- The Guardian, published an article “Cedric Price: Hugely creative architect ahead of his time in promoting themes of lifelong learning and brownfield regeneration”. One who seemingly did not head a large firm, had enormously influenced a generation through teaching, by conversation and lecture and drawing proposals (Melvin, 2003). The relevance of the information from the Cedric Price’s monographs and from other publications are to some extent portrays his presentational drawings, some of which are exploded axonometric and sketched perspective ideas. Although Cedric Price was not an official member of the Archigram, his find for treating the future by architecture deeply imprinted the equally radical groupArchigram and their illustrations through pop art and culture.
Figure 12: Potteries Thinkbelt: Perspective view for transfer area
Figure 13 Potteries Thinkbelt: axonometric view
Photomontages were a means of depicting certain concepts or content, while the major drawings of his are of line sketches, plans and very few but probably not complete set of industrial type construction. Prior focus is provided to what kind of function the proposed temporary and incorporated mobile structure would cater or change over time. In the case of the pottery town project for example, since the take was on existing complex railway network, the conceptual layouts involved mapping and quite like that of an urban research study. Apart from the Archigram, traces of influence from such an anomalous thinker can be identified in the work of Norman Foster and Richard Rogers, possibly expanded toward the eastward London. “His interests anticipated the now fashionable themes of lifelong learning and brownfield regeneration”, mentions the obituary section of the issue (Melvin, 2003). Furthermore, his standalone projects were highlighted to let us know about how involved was his intellectual architecture profession for social development and not in offering aesthetic proclamation. But one thing was certain; inevitability of him building very few during the period of long lasting solid building space and why so, still his very nature of open-ended work and methodology is quite elusive and enticing (Melvin, 2003). Being suspicion of the formality and convention along with delight in referring to his own technical manuals might have sorted his contribution to rethink social relationships and to remake the built environment and society around opportunity (Melvin, 2003). It was in 2016 when Samantha Hardingham produced the two-volume monograph as her dedication to the work of Cedric Price, his major archives, drawings, talks and articles; ‘A Forward Minded Retrospective’ (Pritchard, 2016). In the same event, what transpired were some information which were seemingly Price’s foreknowledge, namely his “secret projects”- those which were lesser known. Some of which included the Heathrow airport expansion in the late 1960s; St Pancras railway station proposal for converting it to a shopping concourse, a decade even before it absolutely surfaced; drawing of detailed code for project McAppy, for improving the working conditions in an infinitely more thorough, meaningful and humane way than the government’s subsequent health and safety legislation (Buck, 2016). 33
Figure 13: Photograph from Cedric Price's archive. The McAppy project
One needs to relate himself with the conditions that were availed during his time but producing a range of projects emphasising on ephemerality, experience and systems. Being ahead of his time, yes indeed but perhaps not in a way of predicting the future directly and getting prepared for the possible outcomes or solutions. Certain characteristics of architecture might be interpreted as less tangible but making it prominent by responsible gesture is mentoring! Or maybe he did not have to strategize his technique in order to drive contingency. A lot of young generation of architects are open to get inspired and imparting sensibilities, who are looking to bring out a positive change in various semblance through architecture other than just building (Hill, 2017). 1959 was when he completed his education at the Architectural Association in London and pursued working on producing a set of projects at his own architectural firm the following year, which although are unrealised, propelled him to create international awareness and fame. Architect Cedric John Price, born on September 11 1934 in Stone of Staffordshire; died aged 68 on August 10 2003.
Perhaps Cedric Priceâ€™s architecture was based on an ethical dimension on being decisive or being mandatory in portions, having some sort of architectural expression upon its users. Recognising a particular time span for his design impermanence can itself be a constrain for the occupants to relate to the non-building typology, in this case- the Anti-building. With reference to Royston Landau writings (Price, 2003), Cedric Price often had stated and believes that if architecture can be an obstruction or constricts the user, be it socially in most cases or psychological or probably physical, then the counterpart will also be applicable.
This is what he postulates, demonstrating this awareness and speaking about its significance through his writings and teachings, the whole idea that architecture can be liberating. A section of this research is a precis of Cedric Price’s conceptual methodology, investigating how his anti-building signified an onset for a change in modern architecture, culture and society; his concern for people and educational revamp and translation into his pedagogy. Valuing one’s life-long effort unconsciously makes us realise that all in all the notion is one, but over the time the form in which it has to be translated; matures. It is definite to identify such an influence being reflected in other architect’s output but, probably not in an option of following a visionary’s footsteps who tried foreseeing future benefit. This is where the research paper divulges to look for philosophical connection, which may or may not turn out to be indefinite. So, having given a thought to apprehend towards such an outwardly radical take on architecture; were there similarities within designs of Cedric Price? may be, because the design intends to be temporary and industrial. His design intention of being flexible is noticed as time based, meaning the adaptive nature works hand in hand with human behaviour or in other words, when the user no longer needs or done utilising an activity, the design allows for change. Utilitarian, obsolescence yet iconoclastic. Physical forms as known are often the by-product of social, economic and technical conditions no longer relevant. Planning for activities must allow for change not only in content but in means of operation (‘Activity and change’ Archigram 2, 1962) (Price, 2003, p. 26). Perhaps it is partially subjective to have analysed teachings of an architect whose unbuilt work means more sense to forth coming generation, who should need to be inspired, could create a professional impact and thereby continue to hold on to justified commitment. To narrow down from a conjecture, the paper infers from collective resources and proposes that there are two sides of inspection. It can be viewed as being philosophical and treating the design principles as reasonably practical, another direction arrives from technology’s point of view which seems to justify design functionality and validation. The dimension with which Cedric Price explores, resembles certain theoretical aspects, one of which argues for Benthamite Utilitarianism. 36
It denotes a theory coined by Jeremy Bentham, which states that an action is morally right or at least not wrong if it obeys or acknowledges the principle or utility (Mautner, n.d.). Price’s reference to-be-enabling seems to reflect Benthamite utilitarianism (Price, 2003, p. 11). How? In terms of answering the society and providing solutions, more pragmatic than utopian or may be a balance, giving architectural guidance and curate theory into practice for user’s awareness and welfare. Scientifically achieving a process or methodology of design that demands a specific way of construction, here being ephemeral and not superficial. The idea of bestowing pronounced usefulness on the individual summarises Cedric Price’s production. His work suggests to utilise services and engineering for a period of time, mentions the appropriateness in the kind of available technology, which brings us to the second section of this research paper. The application of; or in other terms, use of technology in architecture can follow a classification. Is there any sort of hierarchy in architecture; to be specific, in what he devices? Aesthetics taking a back seat or likely commonality, building operates based on need; denoting user access and circulation, space functionality and transformation over time, which may or may not seem to coincide with Abraham Maslow’s hierarchy of needs theoretical proposal 1943 “A theory of human motivation”, needs that motivate an individual to perform certain activity and achieve a goal. Conceptualising through optimised technology creates a domain for future, while the utopian vision is speculated depending of the means of extending the technology. Marc Angelil’s article, ‘The Architecture of Making in Search of a Critical Theory of Building’ speaks of an ideology of being technocratic and utopian while progressing a design for the future (Angelil, 1985). The other modes of different conceptions in technology may fall under categories of being scenographic and other, tectonic. The perception of technology is made as non-existent but yet appeals form-making; where as in the latter it is the construction or the structural technique that inter dependently follows. Hence, what we can learn out of the efforts from 1960 era or specifically from the way Cedric Price treats his design may be suitable even today but whether the contingency is justified for the coming years, might be comprehended as something axiomatic. ________________________________________________________________ 37
BIBLIOGRAPHY Mathews, S., 2007. Audacity; From Agit-Prop to Free space: The Architecture of Cedric Price. [Online] Available at: http://www.audacity.org/SM-26-11-07-03.htm [Accessed 2017]. Angelil, M., 1985. The Architecture of Making in Search of a Critical. Oz, Volume 7. Anon., 2002. Cedric Price Potteries Thinkbelt Project, Staffordshire, England (Perspective of Madeley Transfer Area) 1964â€“1966. [Online] Available at: https://www.moma.org/collection/works/849?locale=en [Accessed 2017]. Anon., 2016. Art and Design. [Online] Available at: http://www.studiochronotope.com/dispatches/art-and-designquotations [Accessed 2017]. bdonline, 2008. Archigramâ€™s David Greene revisited. [Online] Available at: http://www.bdonline.co.uk/archigram%E2%80%99s-david-greenerevisited/3112136.article [Accessed 2017]. Bell, C. J., 2014. Space Unveiled: Invisible Cultures in the Design Studio. s.l.:Routledge. Buck, L., 2016. Legendary architect Cedric Price remembered at the Architecture Association. The Art Newspaper, Issue http://old.theartnewspaper.com/comment/legendary-architect-cedric-priceremembered-at-the-architecture-association/. Carr, R., 2008. From Agit-Prop to Free Space: The Architecture of Cedric Price. Studio International. Etherington, R., 2010. Dezeen; A Rolling Masterplan by Jagnefalt Milton. [Online] Available at: https://www.dezeen.com/2010/12/22/a-rolling-masterplan-byjagnefalt-milton/ [Accessed 2017]. Fontenot, A., 2015. Notes Toward a History of Non-Planning, On design, the market, and the state.. Places. Garcia-German, J., 2017. E18 Cedric Price, The Architectural Association and others, London, UK 1959-1965 and 1968. [Online] Available at: http://radical-pedagogies.com/search-cases/e18-architecturalassociation/ Hardingham, S., 2005. Experiments in Architecture. London: August.
Hill, J., 2017. A Daily Dose of Architecture. [Online] Available at: https://archidose.blogspot.in/2017/03/book-of-moment-forwardminded.html [Accessed September 2017]. Hughes, J. & Sadler, S., 2000. Non-plan: Essays on Freedom Participation and Change in Modern Architecture and Urbanism. s.l.:Routledge. Invisible University (2003 - ), 2003. L.A.W.U.N â€“ Invisible University. [Online] Available at: http://invisibleuniversity.org/index.php?/about-this-site/ [Accessed 2017]. Invisible university , 2003. Invisible University (2003 - ). [Online] Available at: http://invisibleuniversity.org/index.php?/invisible-university2003---/ [Accessed 2017]. Jaque, A., 2011. AndrĂŠs Jaque interviewed by Hans Ulrich Obrist [Interview] (8 December 2011). Johansen, Life-Work Available [Accessed
J. M., 2011. Richard Rogers Commentary, Imitation Is Suicide: The Of John Johansen. [Online] at: http://johnmjohansen.com/Richard-Rogers.html July 2017].
Lefaivre, L. & Hall, G., 2007. Ground-up City: Play as a Design Tool. s.l.:010. Mathews, S., 2007. From Agit-Prop to Free Space: The Architecture of Cedric Price. London: Black Dog. Mautner, T., n.d. An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation by Jeremy Bentham. [Online] Available at: https://www.utilitarianism.com/bentham.htm [Accessed May 2017]. Melvin, J., 2003. Cedric Price, Hugely creative architect ahead of his time in promoting themes of lifelong learning and brownfield regeneration. The Guardian. Milmo, C., 2017. Cedric Price: The most influential architect you've never heard of. [Online] Available at: http://www.independent.co.uk/artsentertainment/architecture/cedric-price-the-most-influential-architect-youvenever-heard-of-9852200.html Muschamp, H., 2003. Cedric Price, Influential British Architect With Sense of Fun, Dies at 68. The NewYork Times. Obrist, H. U., 2001. CEDRIC PRICE: Limited Lifespan of Cities. 032c, Issue 2. Obrist, H. U., 2010. Hans Ulrich Obrist & Cedric Price (The Conversation #21). s.l.:Verlag Der Buchhandlung Walther Konig.
Poucke, V., 2011. a rolling master plan by jagnefalt milton. [Online] Available at: http://blog.kineticarchitecture.net/2011/02/jagnefaltmilton/ [Accessed July 2017]. Price, C., 1979. Technology is the answer but what was the question?. [Sound Recording] (pidgeondigital). Price, C., 2003. RE: CP. s.l.:Springer Science & Business Media. Price, C., 2003. The Square Book. Chichester: Wiley-Academy. Price, C., n.d. Technology is the answer... but what was the question? [Interview] n.d. Pritchard, O., 2016. A forward-minded retrospective: behind the design of the massive Cedric Price monograph. [Online] Available at: https://www.itsnicethat.com/articles/cedric-priceretrospective-cca-aa-071216 [Accessed September 2017]. Sadler, S., 2005. Archigram: Architecture without Architecture. Illustrated ed. Cambridge: MIT Press. Tim, 2012. Price Was Right. Cosmopolitan scum. University of Cambridge , 2014. Anti-building for the future: The world of Cedric Price. [Online] Available at: https://www.cam.ac.uk/news/anti-building-for-the-future-theworld-of-cedric-price [Accessed 2017]. University of Westminister, n.d. The Architecture and Engineering of The Snowdon Aviary at London Zoo. Cedric Price and New Technologies. [Online] Available at: https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/w/images/1/11/Cedric_Price.pdf [Accessed 2017]. Vodanovic, L., 2007. Obsolescence and Exchange in Cedric Price's Dispensable Museum. [Online] Available at: https://www.rochester.edu/in_visible_culture/Issue_11/vodanovic/vodanovic.htm l [Accessed July 2017]. Wei, H. M., 2014. [dys]Functional Machines. [Online] Available at: http://www.harrywei.com/dys-Functional-Machines [Accessed September 20017]. Yiannoudes, S., 2016. Architecture and Adaptation: From Cybernetics to Tangible Computing. s.l.:Routledge.
Figure 1: Cedric Price 1968. The May 1968 issue of AD on What about Learning. [online image] Available at: http://radical-pedagogies.com/search-cases/e18-architectural-association/ [Accessed 2017]. Figure 2: Cedric Price. Potteries Thinkbelt. Cedric Price fonds. Image Source: Canadian Centre for Architecture, MontrĂŠal [online image] Available at: https://www.bureaueuropa.nl/en/manifestations/cedric_price_the_dynamics_of_time/3193 [Accessed 2017]. Figure 3: Potteries Thinkbelt. North Staffordshire. 1963-1967 England. conceptual drawing. [online image] Available at: http://www.cca.qc.ca/en/search/details/collection/object/307689 [Accessed 2017]. Figure 4: Cedric Price. Potteries Thinkbelt. Cedric Price fonds. Image Source: Canadian Centre for Architecture, MontrĂŠal [online image] Available at: https://www.bureaueuropa.nl/en/manifestations/cedric_price_the_dynamics_of_time/3194 [Accessed 2017]. Figure 5: Jagnefalt Milton. Views of A Rolling Masterplan. [online image] Available at: http://www.beta-architecture.com/rolling-masterplan-jagnefalt-milton/ [Accessed 2017]. Figure 6: Cedric Price. Fun Palace: interior perspective. [online image] Available at: http://www.cca.qc.ca/en/search/details/collection/object/378817 [Accessed 2017]. Figure 7: View of London Zoo Aviary under construction. Regent's Park, London, England. Image Source: Canadian Centre for Architecture [online image] Available at: http://www.cca.qc.ca/en/search/details/collection/object/381909 [Accessed 2017]. Figure 8: 1981-1983. CP Aviary: conceptual drawing. [online image] Available at: http://www.cca.qc.ca/en/search/details/collection/object/443299 [Accessed 2017]. Figure 9: 1981-1983. CP Aviary: view of a model for stage 1 [online image] Available at: http://www.cca.qc.ca/en/search/details/collection/object/443303 [Accessed 2017].
Figure 10: 1960-1965. London Zoo Aviary. Regents Park, London, England. bird's-eye perspectives [online image] Available at: http://www.cca.qc.ca/en/search/details/collection/object/394961 [Accessed 2017]. Figure 11: Views of a model for the Aviary at the London Zoo. [online image] Available at: http://www.cca.qc.ca/en/search/details/collection/object/434818 [Accessed 2017]. Figure 12: Potteries Thinkbelt: Perspective view for transfer area. [online image] Available at: http://www.cca.qc.ca/en/search/details/collection/object/407978 [Accessed 2017]. Figure 13 Potteries Thinkbelt: axonometric view. [online image] Available at: http://www.cca.qc.ca/en/search/details/collection/object/307873 [Accessed 2017]. Figure 13: Photograph from Cedric Price's archive. The McAppy project. [online image] Available at: https://cosmopolitanscum.com/2012/02/20/price-was-right/ [Accessed 2017].
Published on Oct 5, 2017