8

Cedric Price.The critic Reyner Banham approv- ingly compared it to a "gigantic erector set".7 In a conventional architectural sense, Fun Palace had no intrin- sic meaning or permanent

  • Upload
    others

  • View
    3

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Cedric Price.The critic Reyner Banham approv- ingly compared it to a "gigantic erector set".7 In a conventional architectural sense, Fun Palace had no intrin- sic meaning or permanent
Page 2: Cedric Price.The critic Reyner Banham approv- ingly compared it to a "gigantic erector set".7 In a conventional architectural sense, Fun Palace had no intrin- sic meaning or permanent
Page 3: Cedric Price.The critic Reyner Banham approv- ingly compared it to a "gigantic erector set".7 In a conventional architectural sense, Fun Palace had no intrin- sic meaning or permanent
Page 4: Cedric Price.The critic Reyner Banham approv- ingly compared it to a "gigantic erector set".7 In a conventional architectural sense, Fun Palace had no intrin- sic meaning or permanent
Page 5: Cedric Price.The critic Reyner Banham approv- ingly compared it to a "gigantic erector set".7 In a conventional architectural sense, Fun Palace had no intrin- sic meaning or permanent
Page 6: Cedric Price.The critic Reyner Banham approv- ingly compared it to a "gigantic erector set".7 In a conventional architectural sense, Fun Palace had no intrin- sic meaning or permanent
Page 7: Cedric Price.The critic Reyner Banham approv- ingly compared it to a "gigantic erector set".7 In a conventional architectural sense, Fun Palace had no intrin- sic meaning or permanent
Page 8: Cedric Price.The critic Reyner Banham approv- ingly compared it to a "gigantic erector set".7 In a conventional architectural sense, Fun Palace had no intrin- sic meaning or permanent