2 Architects10 Questions on ProgramRem Koolhaas +Bernard TschumiQuestions written by Ana Miljacki, Amanda Reeser Lawrence, and Ashley Schafer.
PRAXIS 8 Koolhaas + Tschumi: On Program 7
1. What role does program play in your current practice and how has it evolvedsince it first emerged in your thinking and design? Has the shift of your workfrom paper (both writing and design) to practice changed the way you concep-tualize and/or use program?
KOOLHAAS: Would it be shocking if I claimed that it is no different than it used to be? Itis straightforward. My work with program began as a desire to pursue different meansof expression that were similar to writing screenplays. At an interesting moment myobsession with script writing almost randomly intersected the world of constructivism,and with that I discovered an exceptionally interesting hybrid, where any aspect of dailylife could be imagined and enacted through the architect’s imagination.
I think that there are underlying structures in the process of architectural creationand design that critics never recognize. For instance, the difference between a com-petition and a commission dictates your room to maneuver and has a decisiveimpact on the design. As the Seattle Library was presented to a Board of Trustees ithad to be understood as a linear, logical process. Porto, on the other hand, was acompetition so it could be a totally irrational, insane, and surprising project. Seattlehad to be diagrammatic—in order to win the commission, we had to generate mate-rial that explained it step by step as an educational process. There is a dialecticdimension to this project, which was not my motivation, but became a tool for a cer-tain explanation of the project.
Program increasingly has another connotation for me, which is closer to agenda. Ihave been trying to find ways that we could circumvent or avoid the architect’s pas-sivity and by this I mean his or her dependence on the initiatives of others. Howeverit is framed and pursued, our agenda/program is an important term for me, to theextent that—contrary to my longstanding reputation as a capitalist sell-out andcynical bystander in the process of globalization—I was actually very interested inselective participation. The key is being “selective” while also looking for strategiesthat would allow us to pursue (programmatically) our own interests. AMO has beenan important part of that initiative, affording us a greater means to redefine the ini-tial project brief, through the addition of political or cultural dimensions. We havejust completed a competition in Dubai for a vast museum that includes componentsof the Hermitage, the Tate, and the Serpentine and that forms amalgamations in cul-ture and politics. This kind of programming allows us to finally engage a practicethat really interests me.
Brief is merely an architectural word, but for me program is a word that exceedsthat sheer limitation. I am not suggesting that we are not interested in briefs—weare highly literal about briefs. In fact, in a certain way, we are earnest and innocent,maybe too earnest and innocent. In Porto, the Berlin Embassy, IIT, and Seattle we lit-erally pushed the brief in a particular critical direction to produce specific effects. Inthat sense I wouldn’t claim any sophistication or uniqueness in our approach.
TSCHUMI: My current practice explores a number of dif-ferent issues and concepts. Program is only one of them.Envelopes, movement vectors, and, more recently, a newquestioning of contexts are among our lines of research.The shift from paper to practice really happened with theshift from The Manhattan Transcripts of 1978-81 to LaVillette in 1982-83, since I had consciously entered theLa Villette competition in order to move from “invented”programs to a “real” program, from pure mathematics toapplied mathematics.
What strikes me is that some of the theoretical themesfrom years past are still present in our work today, but nowpractice precedes theory as often as theory once pre-ceded practice. It is a very fluid relationship. For example,the recent foreword on “Concepts, contexts, contents” inEvent-Cities 3 was my conscious attempt to post-theorizewhat I had learned from our practice.
In our recent projects, concepts often begin as muchwith a strategy about content or program as with a strat-egy about contexts. For example, in our conceptualizationof Dubai, a “cultural island” with an opera house, we pur-posefully revisited an earlier programmatic concept (thestrips of our opera house in Tokyo of 1986) by combining itwith our recent research on double envelopes.
44
68
69
70
72
73
74
Bor
n, R
otte
rdam
,T
he N
ethe
rland
s
Enr
olls
at
Arc
hite
ctur
alA
ssoc
iati
on,
Lond
on
Gra
duat
es f
rom
Arc
hite
ctur
alA
sso
ciat
ion ,
Lond
onT
hesi
s: E
xodu
s or
the
Vol
unta
ry P
rison
ers
of A
rchi
tect
ure
Stu
dies
at
Cor
nell
wit
h U
nger
s
Vis
itin
g fe
llow
at
the
Inst
itut
e fo
rA
rchi
tect
ure
and
Urb
an S
tudi
es(IA
US
),N
ew Y
ork
Bor
n, L
ausa
nne,
Sw
itze
rlan
d
Gra
duat
es f
rom
ET
H, Z
uric
h
Beg
ins
teac
hing
at t
heA
rchi
tect
ural
Ass
ocia
tion
,Lo
ndon
2. What is the relationship between program and form? And event? And poli-tics? (Feel free to answer any one or all three of these questions)
We have learned that there is no given relationship between program and form. In the pastthree years we’ve engaged in radical experimentation that at times produced an extreme rela-tionship between program and form while at others produced no relationship, which simplyshows how unbelievably unstable, unspecific, and also inconsistent it can be. It is impossible toabstract from these projects a single direction for the office, but the relationship of form andprogram is always a large preoccupation. The fact that the users of these projects have appropri-ated them all with relish is incredibly significant to me. None of them suffers from the slightestdysfunction or offense to its users. The Dutch Embassy employees are unbelievably happy touse it the way it was intended to work, even though that was not obvious when it was designed.
Although form and politics is a tempting subject, I’ll address your question about program andpolitics. Contrary to our official stance as cynical bystanders, we have been trying to find ways tocreate positions that enable us to address what interests us rather than being an extension ofthe market economy or developers’ desires or individuals’ desires, which intensely begs the ques-tion of politics. For instance there is a very strong connection to politics in the CCTV building. Noother political system today would collect so many programs together in a single structure andcreate as many interconnections between different components in a single entity. In the West,the equivalent of the CCTV program would have been dismantled and distributed, while in China,the consolidation is relished. There is a direct correlation between centralization of program andthe presence of the state. We are not so much flirting with authoritarian regimes as investigatingthe world and what systems enable what type of architecture.
The relationship between program and formcan be one of reciprocity, indifference, or con-flict. Let me explain. Reciprocity is when youshape the program so that it coincides with theform, or shape the form so that it reciprocatesthe configuration you gave to the program.Indifference is when a selected form canaccommodate any program, often resulting in adeterministic form and an indeterminate pro-gram. And with conflict you let program andform purposefully clash—i.e., pole vaulting inthe chapel or the running track through thelibrary reading room—so as to generate unex-pected events.
But you must decide which one to use. That’swhere architecture begins. There is no valuejudgment here. All three are fine, depending onyour objectives for a given project.
A program is never neutral. The people whodraft it are full of preconceptions. The firstthing an architect needs to do is to dismantlethat program and redirect it. As an architect,you need to have an agenda. My agenda is oftenabout generating public spaces or spaces ofencounters, like the generators and the court-yard in the Miami School of Architecture or thecentral linear court in the Athletic Center inCincinnati. Program is not the only issue toaddress, but it is often what you start with.
Events? Events are different from programs.A program relies on repetition and habit; it canbe written down and be prescriptive. In con-trast, an event occurs unexpectedly. Yourdesign may contribute to conditions for somefuture, unknown event to occur, but you do not“design” the event. Programs and politics?Programmatic configurations are always politi-cal: a house with a corridor serving privaterooms has different political implications than ahouse as a large loft space without doors.
Cafe + Meeting
F25Cafe + Meeting
F25
VIP Lounge
VIP (B1)
VIP(F1)
VIP(B1)
20002000
StudioStudio
800Studio
800Studio
Staff / Selcted. Audience
LOOP
VIP/ Actors
1
F1F1
400Studio
400Studio
400Studio
400Studio
F1
B2
Studio
250250StudioStudio
250250StudioStudio
F9
Central Kitchen
Canteen
Canteen
Staff Cafe
F50
F52F51
F49F48F47
F46F45F44F43F42F41
F40F39
F38F37
F36F35F34
F33F32F31
F30F29F28F27
F26F25F24
F23F22F21
F20F19F18F17
F16F15F14F13F12F11
F10F09
F08F07
F06F05F04F03F02
F01B01B02B03
F39
F38
F37
F32
F30
F29
F28F27
F26
F25
F24
F23
F22
F21
F20
F19
F18
F17
F16
F15
F14
F13
F12
F11
F10
F09
F08
F07
F06
F05
B02B01
B03
F04
F03
F02
F01
11
4
13
2
9
14
1
15
7
VIP Lounge
Lobby
F02
VIP
VIP LoungeF02
Lobby
Lobby
Lobby
Lobby
Lobby
Lobby
Lobby
Lounge
LoungeAudience
Audience
F1
F03F02
F01F01F01B01B01B01B01B02B02B02B02B03
LOOPLOOP
F1
1111
VIPVIPVIP/ Actors
VIPVIPVIP/
VIPVIPVIPVIP Lounge
VIPVIPVIP Lounge
Lounge
Lounge
Lounge
Lounge
Lounge
Lounge
ransfer Lobby
ransfer Lobby
ransfer Lobby
ransfer Lobby
ransfer Lobby
ransfer Lobby
ransfer Lobby
ransfer Lobby
ransfer Lobby
ransfer Lobby
ransfer Lobby
ransfer Lobby
ransfer Lobby
ransfer Lobby
ransfer Lobby
ransfer Lobby
F1
Staff Canteen
Studio
Marketing Dept.
Sports H
all
Gym
Health C
enter
Open StudiosOpen Studios
250
210
150
150
80
80
80
80
80
80
B1
B1F1
Actors
Actors/ Seclected Audience
VIP L
ounge
+ Meetin
g
Staff
F38
Broadcasting
F37
Sky Lobby
Sky Lobby
Public Lobby
TOW
ER II
Lobby
TOW
ER I
Lobby
F38
Cafe + Meetin
g
Cafe + Meetin
gF20
Staff Cafe
Staff Cafe
Staff Cafe
F38 Sky Lobby
Sky Lobby
Sky Lobby
Sky Lobby
Sky Lobby
Sky Lobby
Sky Lobby
Sky Lobby
Sky Lobby
Sky Lobby
Sky Lobby
F38
Executive Floor
F42
Executive Floor
Fou
nds
OM
A
Leav
es N
ew Y
ork
and
the
IAU
S;
teac
hes
at t
he A
A,
Lond
on
Pub
lishe
sD
eliri
ous
New
Yor
kB
y se
para
ting
ext
eri-
or a
nd in
terio
r ar
chi-
tect
ure
and
deve
lop-
ing
the
latt
er in
sm
all
auto
nom
ous
inst
all-
men
ts—
[Sky
scra
pers
]ca
n de
vote
the
ir ex
te-
riors
onl
y to
for
mal
-is
m a
nd t
he in
terio
rson
ly t
o fu
ncti
onal
ism
.In
thi
s w
ay, t
hey
not
only
res
olve
for
ever
the
conf
lict
betw
een
form
and
fun
ctio
n, b
utcr
eate
a c
ity
whe
repe
rman
ent
mon
olit
hsce
lebr
ate
met
ropo
li-ta
n in
stab
ility
CO
MP
ET
ITIO
N
Pan
opti
con
Pris
on,
Arn
hem
, T
he N
ethe
rland
s“M
oder
n ar
chite
ctur
eis
bas
ed o
n a
dete
r-m
inis
tic c
oinc
iden
cebe
twee
n fo
rm a
ndpr
ogra
m, i
ts p
urpo
seno
long
er a
n ab
stra
c-tio
n lik
e ‘m
oral
impr
ovem
ent’
but
a lit
-er
al in
vent
ory
of a
llth
e de
tails
of d
aily
life.
”
CO
MP
ET
ITIO
NP
arc
de la
Vill
ette
, Par
isP
rogr
am “i
s no
t de
fini-
tive
: it
is s
afe
to p
re-
dict
tha
t du
ring
the
life
of t
he p
ark,
the
prog
ram
will
und
ergo
cons
tant
cha
nge
and
adju
stm
ent.”
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
Leav
es L
ondo
n,M
oves
to
New
York
; tea
ches
at
the
IAU
SP
ublis
hes
Adv
erti
sem
ents
for
Arc
hite
ctur
e,
“Arc
hite
ctur
e is
defi
ned
by t
heac
tion
s it
wit
ness
esas
muc
h as
by
the
encl
osur
e of
its
wal
ls.”
Pub
lishe
sS
cree
npla
ys
Arc
hite
ctur
e w
ill b
ede
fine
d as
the
con
-ve
rgen
ce o
f ob
ject
s,ev
ents
and
pla
ces.
Suc
h co
nver
genc
ein
tens
ifie
s, r
einf
orce
san
d ac
cele
r ate
s”
Fir
st e
xhib
its
The
Man
hatt
anTr
ansc
ript
s“T
he T
rans
crip
ts a
reab
out
a se
t of
dis
-ju
ncti
ons
amon
g us
e,fo
rm a
nd s
ocia
l val
-ue
s…Th
e no
n-co
inci
-de
nce
betw
een
mea
ning
and
bei
ng,
mov
emen
t an
d sp
ace,
man
and
obj
ect
is t
hest
arti
ng c
ondi
tion
of
the
wor
k…U
ltim
atel
yth
e Tr
ansc
ript
s tr
y to
offe
ra
diff
eren
t re
ad-
ing
of a
rchi
tect
ure
inw
hich
spa
ce, m
ove-
men
t an
d ev
ents
are
inde
pend
ent,
yet
stan
d in
a n
ew r
ela-
tion
to
on e
ano
ther
so t
hat
the
conv
en-
tion
al c
ompo
nent
s of
arch
itec
ture
are
bro
-ke
n do
wn
and
rebu
iltal
ong
diff
eren
t ax
es.”
CO
MP
ET
ITIO
N
Parc
de
la V
illet
te,
Pari
s, W
inne
rC
ompl
eted
, 19
98
“At
La V
illet
te (o
rany
-w
here
els
e fo
rtha
tm
atte
r) t
here
is n
olo
nger
any
rela
tion
-sh
ip p
ossi
ble
betw
een
arch
itec
ture
and
pro
-gr
am, a
rchi
tect
ure
and
mea
ning
.”
Pub
lishe
s S
pace
s an
dE
vent
s“T
here
is n
o sp
ace
wit
hout
eve
nt, n
oar
chit
ectu
re w
itho
utpr
ogra
m…
”
PRAXIS 8 Koolhaas + Tschumi: On Program 9
3. How would you trace the genealogy of program?
Programs are as old as architecture. The first Greek temples began with pro-gram, not form. Most architects are blinded by form and ignore the potential ofprograms to generate forms. Think of department stores and railway stations inthe 19th century: programs came first. It’s the same with the merging of air-ports and shopping malls today.
What struck me early on was that most architects are unbelievably passivetowards programs. They accept them in a completely uncritical way, dress themup with forms, and thereby miss major opportunities. I admit to having been veryirritated vis-à-vis the prevalent ideologies of the seventies, whether the mod-ernist “form follows form” dictum or the subsequent “form follows historical allu-sion” of architectural postmodernism. The programmatic dimension had becomean abandoned territory since the days of the early 20th century avant-gardes,including constructivism and surrealism. In my case, I was also interested in the-oretical issues of intertexuality—mixing spaces and uses in odd or unexpectedconfigurations, intersecting spatial envelopes with movement vectors.
If you mean the genealogy of program in my work, I wouldtrace it to my childhood. Even then, I was interested in organi-zation; I was completely hypnotized by how urban systemswere organized, or how different cultures imagined cities. Ithink that must be simply an unconscious preoccupation.
Everyone who uses the term organization immediatelyannounces a space between rigor and default, or betweenconformity and independence. Organization is the back-ground, and the tension that interests me is created betweencompliance and independence. When layered with script writ-ing and constructivism, this tension lead me to a particulardefinition of program, borne out of a particular moment. Thisidea of program is very similar to the program of DeliriousNew York, rather than the generic term of program that couldhave any contents. During my time in New York, I was trying toassert that the city, or its architecture, did not just have a pro-gram but was in fact a program. That was the intention andambition of the book.
Fou
nds
OM
A
Leav
es N
ew Y
ork
and
the
IAU
S;
teac
hes
at t
he A
A,
Lond
on
Pub
lishe
sD
eliri
ous
New
Yor
kB
y se
para
ting
ext
eri-
or a
nd in
terio
r ar
chi-
tect
ure
and
deve
lop-
ing
the
latt
er in
sm
all
auto
nom
ous
inst
all-
men
ts—
[Sky
scra
pers
]ca
n de
vote
the
ir ex
te-
riors
onl
y to
for
mal
-is
m a
nd t
he in
terio
rson
ly t
o fu
ncti
onal
ism
.In
thi
s w
ay, t
hey
not
only
res
olve
for
ever
the
conf
lict
betw
een
form
and
fun
ctio
n, b
utcr
eate
a c
ity
whe
repe
rman
ent
mon
olit
hsce
lebr
ate
met
ropo
li-ta
n in
stab
ility
CO
MP
ET
ITIO
N
Pan
opti
con
Pris
on,
Arn
hem
, T
he N
ethe
rland
s“M
oder
n ar
chite
ctur
eis
bas
ed o
n a
dete
r-m
inis
tic c
oinc
iden
cebe
twee
n fo
rm a
ndpr
ogra
m, i
ts p
urpo
seno
long
er a
n ab
stra
c-tio
n lik
e ‘m
oral
impr
ovem
ent’
but
a lit
-er
al in
vent
ory
of a
llth
e de
tails
of d
aily
life.
”
CO
MP
ET
ITIO
NP
arc
de la
Vill
ette
, Par
isP
rogr
am “i
s no
t de
fini-
tive
: it
is s
afe
to p
re-
dict
tha
t du
ring
the
life
of t
he p
ark,
the
prog
ram
will
und
ergo
cons
tant
cha
nge
and
adju
stm
ent.”
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
Leav
es L
ondo
n,M
oves
to
New
York
; tea
ches
at
the
IAU
SP
ublis
hes
Adv
erti
sem
ents
for
Arc
hite
ctur
e,
“Arc
hite
ctur
e is
defi
ned
by t
heac
tion
s it
wit
ness
esas
muc
h as
by
the
encl
osur
e of
its
wal
ls.”
Pub
lishe
sS
cree
npla
ys
Arc
hite
ctur
e w
ill b
ede
fine
d as
the
con
-ve
rgen
ce o
f ob
ject
s,ev
ents
and
pla
ces.
Suc
h co
nver
genc
ein
tens
ifie
s, r
einf
orce
san
d ac
cele
r ate
s”
Fir
st e
xhib
its
The
Man
hatt
anTr
ansc
ript
s“T
he T
rans
crip
ts a
reab
out
a se
t of
dis
-ju
ncti
ons
amon
g us
e,fo
rm a
nd s
ocia
l val
-ue
s…Th
e no
n-co
inci
-de
nce
betw
een
mea
ning
and
bei
ng,
mov
emen
t an
d sp
ace,
man
and
obj
ect
is t
hest
arti
ng c
ondi
tion
of
the
wor
k…U
ltim
atel
yth
e Tr
ansc
ript
s tr
y to
offe
ra
diff
eren
t re
ad-
ing
of a
rchi
tect
ure
inw
hich
spa
ce, m
ove-
men
t an
d ev
ents
are
inde
pend
ent,
yet
stan
d in
a n
ew r
ela-
tion
to
on e
ano
ther
so t
hat
the
conv
en-
tion
al c
ompo
nent
s of
arch
itec
ture
are
bro
-ke
n do
wn
and
rebu
iltal
ong
diff
eren
t ax
es.”
CO
MP
ET
ITIO
N
Parc
de
la V
illet
te,
Pari
s, W
inne
rC
ompl
eted
, 19
98
“At
La V
illet
te (o
rany
-w
here
els
e fo
rtha
tm
atte
r) t
here
is n
olo
nger
any
rela
tion
-sh
ip p
ossi
ble
betw
een
arch
itec
ture
and
pro
-gr
am, a
rchi
tect
ure
and
mea
ning
.”
Pub
lishe
s S
pace
s an
dE
vent
s“T
here
is n
o sp
ace
wit
hout
eve
nt, n
oar
chit
ectu
re w
itho
utpr
ogra
m…
”
4. New York, 1976: You were pursuing research and developing theories of pro-gram that spawned what became for both of you seminal publications: DeliriousNew York and The Manhattan Transcripts. What was so urgent about the issueof program at this moment? What made New York such fertile ground—both asa working environment and as a subject—at that particular time?
Today there’s a total banality of travel and intellectual trafficthat didn’t exist in the seventies. As a very technical European, Iam deeply influenced by almost any of the “isms” that havecomprised Europe’s history. Therefore I was ambitious enoughnot so much to want my own “ism” but to look at the world interms of “isms.” On the one hand, I felt a real disenchantmentwith the slackening of modernity that was an outcome of‘flower-power’ or the emergence of postmodernism. And yet Iwas simultaneously keenly aware of how manifestos them-selves had introduced so many failures that the whole typologycould not be rescued.
So I approached New York indirectly, with a manifesto thatconsisted of a volume or quantity of pre-existing evidence. Itook a journalistic but also a personal approach, which I had toshield behind America. Bernard Tschumi’s project seems muchmore clearly a manifesto, or at least it more openly uses thetraditional methodology and appearance of a manifesto.
I came to New York from London because of an interest in the art scene, whichseemed to be in extraordinarily creative flux at the time. Many artist friends,including Robert Longo, David Salle, Cindy Sherman, and Sarah Charlesworth,had come to New York about the same time. For me, architecture was a blankpage: everything seemed to need to be invented. I became obsessed with NewYork City itself, a city in which everything seemed possible. I also watched a lotof black-and-white B-movies at the time. I was struck by how space and build-ings could also be protagonists in the action. Performance art seemed a natu-ral extension of conceptual art. These two forms of art practice echoed mydefinition of architecture: as concept and experience, or the definition ofspace and the movement of bodies within it.
Vill
a da
ll’Ava
,P
aris
, Fra
nce
Com
plet
ed, 1
99
1“H
e w
ante
d a
glas
sho
use.
She
wan
ted
asw
imm
ing
pool
on
the
roof
. The
oret
ical
ly, i
tw
ould
be
poss
ible
to
see
the
Eiff
el T
ower
whi
le s
wim
min
g”.
CO
MP
ET
ITIO
N
The
Hag
ue C
ity
Hal
l, T
he H
ague
,T
he N
ethe
rland
s“It
s un
stab
le c
onfig
u-ra
tion
allo
wed
us...a
fter
our
pro
ject
for
Par
c de
la V
illet
te,
to r
eexp
erim
ent
wit
hth
e re
lati
onsh
ipbe
twee
n sp
ecifi
city
and
inde
term
inac
y,th
is t
ime
in a
bui
ldin
g.”
EX
HIB
ITIO
N
Dec
onst
ruct
ivis
tA
rchi
tect
ure,
MoM
A, N
ew Y
ork
CO
MP
ET
ITIO
N
Bib
lioth
èque
Nat
iona
le d
eF
ranc
e, P
aris
Hon
orab
le M
enti
on“T
he a
mbi
tion
of
this
proj
ect
is t
o rid
arc
hi-
tect
ure
of r
espo
nsi-
bilit
ies
it c
an n
olo
nger
sus
tain
and
to
expl
ore
this
new
fre
e-do
m a
ggre
ssiv
ely.
Itsu
gges
ts t
hat,
liber
at-
ed f
rom
its
form
erob
ligat
ions
, arc
hite
c-tu
re’s
last
fun
ctio
nw
ill b
e th
e cr
eati
on o
fth
e sy
mbo
lic s
pace
sth
at a
ccom
mod
ate
the
pers
iste
nt d
esire
for
colle
ctiv
ity.
””
CO
MP
ET
ITIO
N
Cen
ter
for
Art
and
Med
iaT
echn
olog
y,K
arls
ruhe
, win
ner
Vid
eo P
avili
on,
Gro
ning
en,
The
Net
herla
nds
Eur
alill
e, L
ille,
Fra
nce
Com
plet
ed, 1
99
4“In
thi
s fin
-de-
sièc
le,
‘pro
gram
s’ h
ave
beco
me
abst
ract
inth
e se
nse
that
the
yar
e no
long
er c
on-
nect
ed t
o a
plac
e or
aci
ty; t
hey
float
and
grav
itat
e op
port
unis
-ti
cally
to
that
sit
e-w
hich
off
ers
the
high
-es
t nu
mbe
r an
d qu
ali-
ty o
f co
nnec
tion
—w
hich
see
ms
near
est
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
CO
MP
ET
ITIO
N
New
Nat
iona
lTh
eate
ran
dO
pera
Hou
se,
Toky
o, J
apan
Sec
ond
Pri
zeW
e ab
ando
ned
trad
i-ti
onal
rul
es o
f co
mpo
-si
tion
and
har
mon
y,re
plac
ing
them
wit
h a
mod
e of
org
aniz
atio
nba
sed
not
on “f
orm
follo
ws
func
tion
,”“f
orm
fol
low
s fo
rm” o
rev
en “f
orm
fol
low
sfi
ctio
n” b
ut r
athe
ron
brea
king
apa
rt t
hetr
adit
iona
l com
po-
nent
s of
the
the
ater
and
oper
a ho
use…
No
mor
e ar
tful
art
icul
a-ti
ons
amon
g th
e au
di-
tori
um, t
he s
tage
, the
foye
r, th
e gr
and
stai
r-ca
se; a
new
ple
asur
elie
s in
the
par
alle
l jux
-ta
posi
tion
of
inde
ter-
min
ate
cult
ural
mea
n-in
gs…
App
oint
ed D
ean,
Col
umbi
aU
nive
rsit
y, G
SA
PP
EX
HIB
ITIO
N
Dec
onst
ruct
ivis
tA
rchi
tect
ure,
MoM
A, N
ew Y
ork
CO
MP
ET
ITIO
N
Bib
lioth
èque
Nat
iona
le d
eF
ranc
e, P
aris
“Tra
nspr
ogra
mm
ing:
Com
bine
d tw
o pr
o-gr
ams,
reg
ardl
ess
ofth
eir
inco
mpa
tibi
li-ti
es, t
oget
her
wit
hth
eir
resp
ecti
ve s
pa-
tial
con
figu
rati
ons.
Ref
eren
ce: p
lane
tari
-um
+ r
olle
r-co
aste
r.””
CO
MP
ET
ITIO
N
Cen
ter
for
Art
and
Med
iaTe
chno
logy
,K
arls
ruhe
3rd
Pri
ze
Gla
ss V
ideo
Pavi
lion,
Gro
ning
en,
The
Net
herl
ands
PRAXIS 8 Koolhaas + Tschumi: On Program 11
5. Tell us about your time at the Institute for Architecture and Urban Studiesand how it influenced your development as an intellectual and as a designer?Who were your allies there?
It was a time when the Institute was probably much less rigorous and much less rigid in itsalliances. There was not a single person in that period in New York that I was not at somepoint, or to some extent, sympathetic to or involved with, or who did not in some ways influ-ence what I was doing.
The big unknown in this story is the influence of Matthias Ungers. I spent a year [1972] atCornell prior to going to New York, which was significant. There were two phenomena thatmade it important. First, studying with Ungers exposed me to his way of thinking, particu-larly his conceptual abilities to think about cities. Michel Foucault also happened to beteaching there that year, as well as Herbert Damisch, another French intellectual with whomI became close friends. He introduced me to Foucault, so even before arriving in New York Ispent a year in America immersed in French Intellectual culture, which reinforced my alreadyconsiderable involvement with Roland Barthes’ work.
Weirdly enough I think I was more intellectual than any of them, but I was working on aproject that seemed less intellectual than any of their ideas. They were all outside architec-ture, and so that was a kind of double, an interesting stereo that was more literary thanarchitectural. Maybe Delirious New York is about architecture, but it is more a literary cre-ation—more writing than thinking.
The Institute for Architecture and Urban Studies,with its conjoined publications, was one of the onlyarchitectural settings at the time that graspedarchitecture as part of a rigorous intellectual dis-course. But many of the interests of the Institutewere quite distant from my own. Again, I felt closerto the New York art scene of the time. I was at theInstitute for just one year, 1976. Perhaps beingthere sharpened my desire to challenge the for-malized discourse on the primacy of form. I beganThe Manhattan Transcripts immediately afterleaving the Institute. Allies? Ironically enough, thekey people at the Institute really became myfriends only after I left.
6. What was the status of program in this laboratory of Eisenman-inspired formalism?
I wrote Delirious New York when I returned to London. I did the research for itin New York, but I couldn’t write there. Back in London, I gave a series of lec-tures at the AA that then became the basis of the book. And in terms ofallies, Peter has a rare and unbelievable generosity to create and support afield in which other people flourish. Probably he is partially motivated out of akind of perverse sense of curiosity of what will happen to them. It was simul-taneously a stimulating field, a test bed, and an accelerated aging procedure.He was extremely skeptical, but also extremely supportive.
At that time I also had the luxury of being the only person in almost theentire New York scene—except the Greys—to be involved in American issues.So I had the great advantage of invisibility, as no one was interested in thematerial I was researching. I was an intelligent person dealing with thedebased material that nobody could understand. I had the best of both worlds.
In the early Institute years, Eisenman wrote an editorial inOppositions called “Postfunctionalism” which dismissed programand function as part of a 500 year old, pre-industrial humanistpractice. So a redefinition of program was certainly not part ofthe Institute’s agenda. Yet, as is often the case, what is hidden isas interesting as what is in full view. Anthony Vidler’s texts andlectures on Boullée, Ledoux, and Lequeu were extraordinarily per-ceptive, for example, showing programmatic rituals and spatialsequences in the architecture of Lequeu’s lodges. Far from beingpre-industrial, his lectures suggested bridges to the most con-temporary art practices, including modes of notation used in per-formance art. But the Institute’s prevalent discourse then wasautonomy. My inclinations were more towards intertextuality.
Vill
a da
ll’Ava
,P
aris
, Fra
nce
Com
plet
ed, 1
99
1“H
e w
ante
d a
glas
sho
use.
She
wan
ted
asw
imm
ing
pool
on
the
roof
. The
oret
ical
ly, i
tw
ould
be
poss
ible
to
see
the
Eiff
el T
ower
whi
le s
wim
min
g”.
CO
MP
ET
ITIO
N
The
Hag
ue C
ity
Hal
l, T
he H
ague
,T
he N
ethe
rland
s“It
s un
stab
le c
onfig
u-ra
tion
allo
wed
us...a
fter
our
pro
ject
for
Par
c de
la V
illet
te,
to r
eexp
erim
ent
wit
hth
e re
lati
onsh
ipbe
twee
n sp
ecifi
city
and
inde
term
inac
y,th
is t
ime
in a
bui
ldin
g.”
EX
HIB
ITIO
N
Dec
onst
ruct
ivis
tA
rchi
tect
ure,
MoM
A, N
ew Y
ork
CO
MP
ET
ITIO
N
Bib
lioth
èque
Nat
iona
le d
eF
ranc
e, P
aris
Hon
orab
le M
enti
on“T
he a
mbi
tion
of
this
proj
ect
is t
o rid
arc
hi-
tect
ure
of r
espo
nsi-
bilit
ies
it c
an n
olo
nger
sus
tain
and
to
expl
ore
this
new
fre
e-do
m a
ggre
ssiv
ely.
Itsu
gges
ts t
hat,
liber
at-
ed f
rom
its
form
erob
ligat
ions
, arc
hite
c-tu
re’s
last
fun
ctio
nw
ill b
e th
e cr
eati
on o
fth
e sy
mbo
lic s
pace
sth
at a
ccom
mod
ate
the
pers
iste
nt d
esire
for
colle
ctiv
ity.
””
CO
MP
ET
ITIO
N
Cen
ter
for
Art
and
Med
iaT
echn
olog
y,K
arls
ruhe
, win
ner
Vid
eo P
avili
on,
Gro
ning
en,
The
Net
herla
nds
Eur
alill
e, L
ille,
Fra
nce
Com
plet
ed, 1
99
4“In
thi
s fin
-de-
sièc
le,
‘pro
gram
s’ h
ave
beco
me
abst
ract
inth
e se
nse
that
the
yar
e no
long
er c
on-
nect
ed t
o a
plac
e or
aci
ty; t
hey
float
and
grav
itat
e op
port
unis
-ti
cally
to
that
sit
e-w
hich
off
ers
the
high
-es
t nu
mbe
r an
d qu
ali-
ty o
f co
nnec
tion
—w
hich
see
ms
near
est
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
CO
MP
ET
ITIO
N
New
Nat
iona
lTh
eate
ran
dO
pera
Hou
se,
Toky
o, J
apan
Sec
ond
Pri
zeW
e ab
ando
ned
trad
i-ti
onal
rul
es o
f co
mpo
-si
tion
and
har
mon
y,re
plac
ing
them
wit
h a
mod
e of
org
aniz
atio
nba
sed
not
on “f
orm
follo
ws
func
tion
,”“f
orm
fol
low
s fo
rm” o
rev
en “f
orm
fol
low
sfi
ctio
n” b
ut r
athe
ron
brea
king
apa
rt t
hetr
adit
iona
l com
po-
nent
s of
the
the
ater
and
oper
a ho
use…
No
mor
e ar
tful
art
icul
a-ti
ons
amon
g th
e au
di-
tori
um, t
he s
tage
, the
foye
r, th
e gr
and
stai
r-ca
se; a
new
ple
asur
elie
s in
the
par
alle
l jux
-ta
posi
tion
of
inde
ter-
min
ate
cult
ural
mea
n-in
gs…
App
oint
ed D
ean,
Col
umbi
aU
nive
rsit
y, G
SA
PP
EX
HIB
ITIO
N
Dec
onst
ruct
ivis
tA
rchi
tect
ure,
MoM
A, N
ew Y
ork
CO
MP
ET
ITIO
N
Bib
lioth
èque
Nat
iona
le d
eF
ranc
e, P
aris
“Tra
nspr
ogra
mm
ing:
Com
bine
d tw
o pr
o-gr
ams,
reg
ardl
ess
ofth
eir
inco
mpa
tibi
li-ti
es, t
oget
her
wit
hth
eir
resp
ecti
ve s
pa-
tial
con
figu
rati
ons.
Ref
eren
ce: p
lane
tari
-um
+ r
olle
r-co
aste
r.””
CO
MP
ET
ITIO
N
Cen
ter
for
Art
and
Med
iaTe
chno
logy
,K
arls
ruhe
3rd
Pri
ze
Gla
ss V
ideo
Pavi
lion,
Gro
ning
en,
The
Net
herl
ands
7. What was the relationship between this early research and writing and theradical reconceptualization of program evidenced in your design for the Parcde la Villette?
My work on The Manhattan Transcripts began with a tripartite definition ofarchitecture as space, action, and movement. The resulting mode of nota-tion was used throughout the Transcripts and led directly to the La Villetteprinciple of superimposing points (of activities), lines (of movement), andspaces (of appropriation). The precedent for my point grid was interestingin its relationship to programs. In the mid-1970s, I used to give my stu-dents at the AA excerpts from Kafka, Poe, Borges, and Joyce as programs.In order to organize the complexity of Joyce’s text with a number of stu-dents, I gave them a point grid that announced the one at La Villette. Itproved a great way to explode the park’s programmatic complexity andreorganize it around the points of intensity of the folies. Simultaneously, Iwas writing more theoretical texts—”Architecture and Limits” and“Violence of Architecture”—which addressed the issue of program directly.
There is a very direct relationship. I explained La Villette as a kind ofhorizontal skyscraper. The relationship to Delirious New York wasso unbelievably literal that, as our practice evolved, it has inevitablybecome more indirect. At first those ideas worked as an example orprototype, but then it became simply an influence or area of atten-tion. I still notice occasionally that the early research returns in analmost literal way, certainly in CCTV. So it’s a source that we feelfree to ignore, but there’s always a pull. Except when there’s a kindof anti-pull. Or when it has no relevance whatsoever. For instancewhen I work on a house, it’s totally in abeyance.
But I also consider it as a historical given, and so in texts like“Generic City” and “Junkspace” it remains a reference, but a refer-ence we constantly suppress or refine.
to a
ll ot
her
plac
es.”
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
CO
MP
ET
ITIO
N
JRR
ail S
tati
onK
yoto
, Jap
an“D
ispr
ogra
mm
ing:
Com
bini
ng t
wo
orm
ore
prog
ram
s,w
here
by a
req
uire
dsp
atia
l con
figu
rati
onof
pro
gram
A c
on-
tam
inat
es p
rogr
am B
and
B’s
pos
sibl
e co
n-fi
gura
tion
. The
new
prog
ram
B m
ay b
eex
trac
ted
from
the
inhe
rent
con
trad
ic-
tion
s co
ntai
ned
inpr
ogra
m A
, and
B’s
requ
ired
spa
tial
con
-fi
gura
tion
may
be
appl
ied
to A
.”
CO
MP
ET
ITIO
N
Le F
resn
oy,
Tour
coin
g,
Fra
nce,
W
inne
rC
ompl
eted
, 19
98
Eve
nt-C
itie
s(P
raxi
s) p
ublis
hed
“…th
e ca
use-
and-
effe
ct r
elat
ions
hip
sanc
tifi
ed b
y m
od-
erni
sm, b
y w
hich
form
fol
low
s fu
ncti
on(o
rvi
ce v
ersa
) nee
dsto
be
aban
done
d in
favo
rof
pro
mis
cuou
sco
llisi
ons
of p
ro-
gram
s an
d sp
aces
, in
whi
ch t
he t
erm
sin
term
ingl
e, c
ombi
ne,
and
impl
icat
e on
anot
her
in t
he p
ro-
duct
ion
of a
new
arch
itec
tura
l rea
lity.”
EX
HIB
ITIO
N
Ligh
tC
onst
ruct
ion,
MoM
A, N
ew Y
ork
CO
MP
ET
ITIO
N
MoM
A E
xpan
sion
,N
ew Y
ork
Fin
alis
t“[T
he G
arde
n’s]
Pro
gram
mat
ic f
lexi
-bi
lity
and
soci
alsp
ace
prov
ides
plac
es f
orac
tivi
ties
and
art
form
s th
atar
e no
t ea
sily
con
-ta
ined
wit
hin
conv
en-
tion
al e
xhib
itio
n ga
l-le
ries
. Our
conc
ept
exte
nds
this
qua
lity
thro
ugho
ut t
heM
useu
m in
the
for
mof
mul
tipl
e co
urts
.”
PRAXIS 8 Koolhaas + Tschumi: On Program 13
8. Some critics have written about the return of the megastructure, not only inyour practice but also in other architect’s designs. Do you agree, and to whatwould you attribute the recuperation of this type? How is this ‘new’ megastruc-ture different from its sixties predecessors?
There’s a very seductive and potentially very naïve form of look-ing at the past fifteen years, whereby you begin by saying thatarchitecture meets megalomania, and megalomania isdebased. But fortunately the force of the market flushed itaway with the unfortunate commitment to postmodernism.Then in the 90s the market seemed to parallel and even spon-sor or support radical redefinitions of form. In the late 90s,together with the destruction of the World Trade Center, formwas discredited, and perhaps also the possibility for architects’participation and complicity with the market economy. Nowwe’re all looking for something which gives us not so muchpower—because I don’t think many people are nostalgic forpower, and it’s still a very dirty word—but perhaps a largerscope of what architecture could do, or could say.
The recent Factory 798 project in Beijing started with our wish to save theliveliest cultural center in China from being razed to make way for ten millionsquare feet of residential towers. After talking to the artists and galleriststhere, we proposed to keep the art program below and put the housing pro-gram above, hovering over the existing art neighborhood. The vertical supportpoints were located anywhere we could place them between the existing build-ings on the ground, so that the resulting “random” grid became a lattice. Theproject generated an enormous amount of media coverage since people saw itas a way to keep the old while moving forward with the new. Maybe in part dueto the response to our project, the government decided not to go ahead withdemolition. So maybe we saved the neighborhood but ultimately lost a project.
I do not think the project could have been done elsewhere but China. Free-market economy and megastructure are two terms that rarely go together.Who will pay for megastructures? Today’s capital is transient, while megas-tructures are not. So maybe you can call the newest megastructures a resur-gence of criticality. (What an ugly word!) Megastructures often act asmanifestos. Our Factory 798 project was a buildable manifesto.
to a
ll ot
her
plac
es.”
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
CO
MP
ET
ITIO
N
JRR
ail S
tati
onK
yoto
, Jap
an“D
ispr
ogra
mm
ing:
Com
bini
ng t
wo
orm
ore
prog
ram
s,w
here
by a
req
uire
dsp
atia
l con
figu
rati
onof
pro
gram
A c
on-
tam
inat
es p
rogr
am B
and
B’s
pos
sibl
e co
n-fi
gura
tion
. The
new
prog
ram
B m
ay b
eex
trac
ted
from
the
inhe
rent
con
trad
ic-
tion
s co
ntai
ned
inpr
ogra
m A
, and
B’s
requ
ired
spa
tial
con
-fi
gura
tion
may
be
appl
ied
to A
.”
CO
MP
ET
ITIO
N
Le F
resn
oy,
Tour
coin
g,
Fra
nce,
W
inne
rC
ompl
eted
, 19
98
Eve
nt-C
itie
s(P
raxi
s) p
ublis
hed
“…th
e ca
use-
and-
effe
ct r
elat
ions
hip
sanc
tifi
ed b
y m
od-
erni
sm, b
y w
hich
form
fol
low
s fu
ncti
on(o
rvi
ce v
ersa
) nee
dsto
be
aban
done
d in
favo
rof
pro
mis
cuou
sco
llisi
ons
of p
ro-
gram
s an
d sp
aces
, in
whi
ch t
he t
erm
sin
term
ingl
e, c
ombi
ne,
and
impl
icat
e on
anot
her
in t
he p
ro-
duct
ion
of a
new
arch
itec
tura
l rea
lity.”
EX
HIB
ITIO
N
Ligh
tC
onst
ruct
ion,
MoM
A, N
ew Y
ork
CO
MP
ET
ITIO
N
MoM
A E
xpan
sion
,N
ew Y
ork
Fin
alis
t“[T
he G
arde
n’s]
Pro
gram
mat
ic f
lexi
-bi
lity
and
soci
alsp
ace
prov
ides
plac
es f
orac
tivi
ties
and
art
form
s th
atar
e no
t ea
sily
con
-ta
ined
wit
hin
conv
en-
tion
al e
xhib
itio
n ga
l-le
ries
. Our
conc
ept
exte
nds
this
qua
lity
thro
ugho
ut t
heM
useu
m in
the
for
mof
mul
tipl
e co
urts
.”
All of the above. Most projects start with a program. First, you have to understandthe program’s intricacies, but also what you want to do with it. So you explore possi-ble configurations and relations. I do not mean bubble diagrams here, but spatialconnections or sequential routes. The quickest way is to diagram it, i.e. to concep-tualize what you want to do with that program. There are many potential program-matic concepts. Sometimes that’s it: your programmatic concept becomes yourarchitectural form.
At Lerner Hall, we had to put in 6,000 mailboxes, an auditorium, music rooms,and so on. I wanted a central meeting space (which was not in the official program)so that all the parts of the program would be visible and accessible—a verticalsocial space of sorts. But a program always has to be inserted into a given site,which often has multiple constraints, whether physical or otherwise; in other words,it has a context. That in turn affects the selection or the expression of the program-matic concept. At Lerner, there were many specific site constraints, including his-toricist ones, but I could take advantage of one of them, namely, the fact that thecampus is half a level higher than Broadway. I could link these two levels by a rampand continue the ramp to the top of the building, assembling the pieces of the pro-gram with its 6,000 mailboxes along the ramp. Program? You need to figure it out,literally. That’s what this diagram is.
Not that I have a particularly high regard for diagrams, butthis one is simply an illustration to enable others to under-stand our process. It’s not at all a diagram, but a drawingthat came after the fact. Hidden in it is a more simple read-ing of which elements of a particular kind of building can bestable, and which have to remain volatile. This is simply anend product, a retroactive illustration of what, in a moreprivate sense, is a way of thinking.
The real diagram is the one that addresses stabilityand instability. In other projects there were diagrams,barcodes of stability and instability, or defined and unde-fined spaces.
9. How does the above drawing represent program? Is this a diagrammaticdevice, an operative tool, a formal construct, a descriptive idea, or a combina-tion of these or none of these?
Edu
cato
rium
,U
trec
ht, T
heN
ethe
rland
sC
ompl
eted
19
97
“Big
ness
, Or
the
Pro
blem
of
Larg
e”pu
blis
hed
inD
omus
, “In
Big
ness
, the
faça
de b
ecom
es d
is-
conn
ecte
d fr
om t
hepr
ogra
mm
atic
ele
-m
ents
insi
de.
Pro
gram
cha
nges
,bu
t fa
çade
rem
ains
stab
le...
The
art
ific
iali-
ty a
nd c
ompl
exit
y of
Big
ness
rel
ease
func
tion
fro
m it
sde
fens
ive
arm
or t
oal
low
a k
ind
of li
que-
fact
ion;
pro
gram
mat
-ic
ele
men
ts r
eact
wit
h ea
ch o
ther
to
crea
te n
ew e
vent
s—B
igne
ss r
etur
ns t
o a
mod
el o
f pr
ogra
m-
mat
ic a
lche
my.
”
EX
HIB
ITIO
N
Ligh
tC
onst
ruct
ion,
MoM
A, N
ew Y
ork
S,M
,L,X
Lpu
blis
hed
Pro
gram
me
(glo
ssar
yen
try)
: “T
he s
low
rea
l-iz
atio
n th
at t
heex
cite
men
t of
asc
hem
e is
not
in it
sou
trag
eous
com
po-
nent
s, b
ut is
the
mos
tm
odes
t pr
ogra
mm
e.”
—P
eter
Sal
ter
CO
MP
ET
ITIO
N
MoM
A E
xpan
sion
, N
ew Y
ork
“Bec
ause
an
enti
rely
new
bui
ldin
g w
ill c
on-
tain
the
ent
ireM
useu
m p
rogr
am it
will
hav
e th
e ad
van-
tage
s of
Big
ness
:‘p
rogr
amm
atic
hybr
idiz
atio
n, p
roxi
mi-
ties
/fric
tion
s/ov
er-
laps
/sup
erpo
siti
ons,
the
enti
re a
ppar
atus
of m
onta
ge in
vent
edat
the
beg
inni
ng o
fth
e ce
ntur
y to
org
an-
ize
the
rela
tion
ship
sbe
twee
n in
depe
nden
tpa
rts…
”’
99
00
01
02
03
04
05
06
CO
MP
ET
ITIO
N
Sch
ool o
fA
rchi
tect
ure,
Flo
rida
Inte
rnat
iona
lU
nive
rsit
yM
iam
i, F
lori
daW
inne
r, C
ompl
eted
, 20
03
“Her
e, w
hat
a bu
ild-
ing
does
bec
omes
as
impo
rtan
t as
wha
t it
look
s lik
e. T
he b
uild
-in
g m
ust
act
as a
gene
rato
r, ac
tiva
ting
spac
es a
s w
ell a
sde
fini
ng t
hem
.”
CO
MP
ET
ITIO
N
Dow
nsvi
ew P
ark,
Toro
nto,
Can
ada
EX
HIB
ITIO
N
Wex
ner
Cen
ter
for
the
Art
sPe
rfec
t A
cts
ofA
rchi
tect
ure
Fact
ory
97
8,
Bei
jing,
Chi
na“A
ckno
wle
dgin
g th
ein
evit
able
con
fron
ta-
tion
of
old
and
new
,th
e pr
opos
al is
inte
nded
as
an a
lter
-na
tive
to
the
who
le-
sale
dem
olit
ion
of t
heex
isti
ng a
rts
faci
li-ty
…Th
e pr
ojec
t, t
hus,
is a
bout
a s
trat
egy
ofin
betw
eens
.”
Eve
nt-C
itie
s 3
(Con
cept
vs.
Con
text
vs.
Con
tent
)pu
blis
hed
“The
re is
no
arch
itec
-tu
ral s
pace
wit
hout
som
ethi
ng t
hat
hap-
pens
in it
, no
spac
ew
itho
ut c
onte
nt.
Mos
t ar
chit
ects
begi
n w
ith
a pr
ogra
m,
that
is, a
list
of
user
s’re
quir
emen
tsde
scri
bing
the
inte
nded
pur
pose
of
the
build
ing.
At
vari
-ou
s m
omen
ts in
his
-to
ry, i
t ha
s be
encl
aim
ed t
hat
prog
ram
of f
unct
ion
can
be t
hege
nera
tor
of f
orm
,th
at “f
orm
fol
low
sfu
ncti
on,”
orpe
rhap
sth
at “f
orm
fol
low
sco
nten
t.” In
ord
erto
avoi
d en
gagi
ng in
adi
scou
rse
of f
orm
per
se o
rof
for
m v
ersu
sco
nten
t, t
he w
ord
“for
m” i
s re
plac
edhe
re w
ith
the
wor
d“c
once
pt.”
Can
one
ther
efor
e su
bsti
tute
“for
m f
ollo
ws
func
-ti
on” w
ith
an a
lter
na-
tive
for
mul
atio
n,na
mel
y, “c
once
pt f
ol-
low
s co
nten
t”?
PRAXIS 8 Koolhaas + Tschumi: On Program 15
I can’t deny that I’m perversely interested in these ‘attributions.’ I have such a vast attentionspan that I can’t deny that I follow them. But I think that at this point it is not attribution. Theextent of media coverage has reached complete insanity. It is sad that the discipline is sodependant on one group of people to provide its subject.
I’m still totally dedicated to the discipline, in terms of working in it, but since 1995 I’veeffectively left the discipline. I have almost no friends left in architecture. My intimatefriends used to be architects, but now they’re all outside the discipline because I need nour-ishment and within the field there is an almost infernal circle of regurgitation. And that ofcourse makes everyone who is regurgitated bitter. So that even if you produce somethinggood, there is a cynical view of it from the beginning. So while I’m increasingly disenchantedwith the practice of being interviewed, I hope this questionnaire produces something newor at least something less than totally predictable.
Look, I do not think that architecture must beginwith form. It begins with a concept or an idea. Someof these concepts or ideas may be programmatic.Architecture is the materialization of a concept,and I feel no qualms about calling the program amaterial, much as concrete walls or glass enclo-sures are materials. You can also use programs theway Malevich or Mondrian transformed painting, orJoyce and Schönberg transformed writing andmusic. Most interesting, however, is to design newconditions for living, whether urban or otherwise.
10. Recently, various critics have argued that you are responsible for inspiringan entire body of work regarding program, both pedagogical projects and alsotrends in architectural production outside of academia. What is your reactionto this type of ‘blame:’ acknowledgment, or attribution?
Edu
cato
rium
,U
trec
ht, T
heN
ethe
rland
sC
ompl
eted
19
97
“Big
ness
, Or
the
Pro
blem
of
Larg
e”pu
blis
hed
inD
omus
, “In
Big
ness
, the
faça
de b
ecom
es d
is-
conn
ecte
d fr
om t
hepr
ogra
mm
atic
ele
-m
ents
insi
de.
Pro
gram
cha
nges
,bu
t fa
çade
rem
ains
stab
le...
The
art
ific
iali-
ty a
nd c
ompl
exit
y of
Big
ness
rel
ease
func
tion
fro
m it
sde
fens
ive
arm
or t
oal
low
a k
ind
of li
que-
fact
ion;
pro
gram
mat
-ic
ele
men
ts r
eact
wit
h ea
ch o
ther
to
crea
te n
ew e
vent
s—B
igne
ss r
etur
ns t
o a
mod
el o
f pr
ogra
m-
mat
ic a
lche
my.
”
EX
HIB
ITIO
N
Ligh
tC
onst
ruct
ion,
MoM
A, N
ew Y
ork
S,M
,L,X
Lpu
blis
hed
Pro
gram
me
(glo
ssar
yen
try)
: “T
he s
low
rea
l-iz
atio
n th
at t
heex
cite
men
t of
asc
hem
e is
not
in it
sou
trag
eous
com
po-
nent
s, b
ut is
the
mos
tm
odes
t pr
ogra
mm
e.”
—P
eter
Sal
ter
CO
MP
ET
ITIO
N
MoM
A E
xpan
sion
, N
ew Y
ork
“Bec
ause
an
enti
rely
new
bui
ldin
g w
ill c
on-
tain
the
ent
ireM
useu
m p
rogr
am it
will
hav
e th
e ad
van-
tage
s of
Big
ness
:‘p
rogr
amm
atic
hybr
idiz
atio
n, p
roxi
mi-
ties
/fric
tion
s/ov
er-
laps
/sup
erpo
siti
ons,
the
enti
re a
ppar
atus
of m
onta
ge in
vent
edat
the
beg
inni
ng o
fth
e ce
ntur
y to
org
an-
ize
the
rela
tion
ship
sbe
twee
n in
depe
nden
tpa
rts…
”’
99
00
01
02
03
04
05
06
CO
MP
ET
ITIO
N
Sch
ool o
fA
rchi
tect
ure,
Flo
rida
Inte
rnat
iona
lU
nive
rsit
yM
iam
i, F
lori
daW
inne
r, C
ompl
eted
, 20
03
“Her
e, w
hat
a bu
ild-
ing
does
bec
omes
as
impo
rtan
t as
wha
t it
look
s lik
e. T
he b
uild
-in
g m
ust
act
as a
gene
rato
r, ac
tiva
ting
spac
es a
s w
ell a
sde
fini
ng t
hem
.”
CO
MP
ET
ITIO
N
Dow
nsvi
ew P
ark,
Toro
nto,
Can
ada
EX
HIB
ITIO
N
Wex
ner
Cen
ter
for
the
Art
sPe
rfec
t A
cts
ofA
rchi
tect
ure
Fact
ory
97
8,
Bei
jing,
Chi
na“A
ckno
wle
dgin
g th
ein
evit
able
con
fron
ta-
tion
of
old
and
new
,th
e pr
opos
al is
inte
nded
as
an a
lter
-na
tive
to
the
who
le-
sale
dem
olit
ion
of t
heex
isti
ng a
rts
faci
li-ty
…Th
e pr
ojec
t, t
hus,
is a
bout
a s
trat
egy
ofin
betw
eens
.”
Eve
nt-C
itie
s 3
(Con
cept
vs.
Con
text
vs.
Con
tent
)pu
blis
hed
“The
re is
no
arch
itec
-tu
ral s
pace
wit
hout
som
ethi
ng t
hat
hap-
pens
in it
, no
spac
ew
itho
ut c
onte
nt.
Mos
t ar
chit
ects
begi
n w
ith
a pr
ogra
m,
that
is, a
list
of
user
s’re
quir
emen
tsde
scri
bing
the
inte
nded
pur
pose
of
the
build
ing.
At
vari
-ou
s m
omen
ts in
his
-to
ry, i
t ha
s be
encl
aim
ed t
hat
prog
ram
of f
unct
ion
can
be t
hege
nera
tor
of f
orm
,th
at “f
orm
fol
low
sfu
ncti
on,”
orpe
rhap
sth
at “f
orm
fol
low
sco
nten
t.” In
ord
erto
avoi
d en
gagi
ng in
adi
scou
rse
of f
orm
per
se o
rof
for
m v
ersu
sco
nten
t, t
he w
ord
“for
m” i
s re
plac
edhe
re w
ith
the
wor
d“c
once
pt.”
Can
one
ther
efor
e su
bsti
tute
“for
m f
ollo
ws
func
-ti
on” w
ith
an a
lter
na-
tive
for
mul
atio
n,na
mel
y, “c
once
pt f
ol-
low
s co
nten
t”?