1

2

Thrid Year DissertationMatthew Bloomfield

Matthew Bloomfield2012-2013University of Lincoln;Department of Art, Architecture and Design3rd Year BA(hons.) ArchitectureStudio 2: ResponseTutor: James DaleDissertation Tutors: David Hall and Francesco Proto

©Matthew Bloomfield, 2013Layout and content are the copyright of the author.Produced using Adobe InDesign and other Adobe software.

3

Utopia’s Last Stand: How is the Utopian Project asUndertaken under Modernism Relevant Today?

Abstract 5

List of Illustrations 6

Introduction: A Brief History and Definition of Utopia 8

1. The Last Trends of the Modernist Utopia 13

2. Grounds For Utopia: Technology, Politics and Culture 16

3. Utopia for Everyone: Overcoming Geography and Economics 21

Conclusion: Utopia Now 29

Bibliography 32

4

5

Abstract

This thesis forms an investigation into the utopian architecture of late modernism. Within the modernist dogma it was assumed that technological advancement could overcome all problems and that Utopia was a certainty. The architectural solutions explored aimed to unite people across geographic and economic boundaries, promising liberation from work due to mechanised production.Free movement throughout the built environment was prioritised by Archigram, Constant, Superstudio and the Situationists. This promised a greater variety of human interaction, bringing people together and letting them make the most of their liberation from manual labour. The modular megastructures proposed permitted flexibility and shifting intentions. This was a new architecture that was hoped to be accessible by all, breaking down class barriers. Within our current Postmodern age, a single utopian solution is not recognised as feasible because of the emphasis placed upon individuality. The rejection of this ultimate goal has resulted in a pervading sense ofnihilism within society as there is no longer any need for a netadvancement in the human condition. Utopianism is a powerful tool for combating this aimlessness. While it may not actually be achievable, Utopia is the yardstick with which to measure existing societies; highlighting their shortcomings and encouraging them to move forward.

6

List of IllustrationsFigure 1: The Ideal City (c. 1480) [Painting] Available from: http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/arts-entertainment/ideal-city-paintings-ex press-renaissance-concepts-247129.html [Accessed 4th February 2013]. p.9.

Figure 2: Author’s own Diagram (2013)[Diagram] Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. p.10.

Figure 3: Author’s own Diagram (2013) [Diagram] Baudrillard’s Dialectic Utopia. p.11.

Figure 4: Archigram (1965) [Illustration] Plug-In University Node. Taken from: Cook, P., Chalk, W., Crompton, D., Greene, D., Herron, R. and Webb, M. (eds.) (1999) Archigram. New York: Princeton Architectural Press. Or available from: http://archigram.westminster.ac.uk/project.php?id=65 [Accessed 5th February 2013]. p.13.

Figure 5: Debord, G. (1955) [Illustration] Psychogeographic Guide to Paris. Available from: http://imaginarymuseum.org/LPG/Mapsitu1.htm [Accessed 5th February 2013]. p.14.

Figure 6: Constant Nieuwenhuys (1959-74) [Model] New Babylon. Available from: http://www-scf.usc.edu/~pbourgeo/itp104/project/ [Accessed 5th February 2013]. p.15.

Figure 7: Superstudio (1969) [Illustration] Continuous Monument. Available from: http://www.architakes.com/?p=10860 [Accessed 5th February 2013]. p.17.

Figure 8: García, G.H. (2013) [Photograph] Casa del Fascio by Giuseppe Terragni. Available from: http://www.archdaily.com/312877/ad-classics-casa-del-fascio- giuseppe-terragni/ [Accessed 5th February 2013]. p.18.

Figure 9: Superstudio (1971) [Illustration] Continuous Monument. Available from: http://openbuildings.com/buildings/continuous-monument-profile-39249?_show_ description=1 [Accessed 5th February 2013]. p.19.

Figure 10: Archigram (1968) [Illustration] Instant City. Taken from: Cook, P., Chalk, W., Crompton, D., Greene, D., Herron, R. and Webb, M. (eds.) (1999) Archigram. New York: Princeton Architectural Press. Or available from: http://archigram.westminster.ac.uk/project.php?id=119 [Accessed 5th February 2013]. p.21.

Figure 11: Archigram (1966) [Illustration] Cushicle and Suitaloon. Taken from: Cook, P., Chalk, W., Crompton, D., Greene, D., Herron, R. and Webb, M. (eds.) (1999) Archigram. New York: Princeton Architectural Press. Or available from: http://archigram.westminster.ac.uk/project.php?id=92 [Accessed 5th February 2013]. p.22.

7

Figure 12: Archigram (1968) [Illustration] Info-Gonks. Taken from: Cook, P., Chalk, W., Crompton, D., Greene, D., Herron, R. and Webb, M. (eds.) (1999) Archigram. New York: Princeton Architectural Press. Or available from: http://archigram.westminster.ac.uk/project.php?id=121 [Accessed 5th February 2013]. p.22.

Figure 13: Constant Nieuwenhuys (1969) [Collage] Symbolic Representation of New Babylon. Available from: http://www.architettando.org/?p=1242 [Accessed 5th February 2013]. p.22.

Figure 14: Ferriss, H. (1929) [Illustration] The Metropolis of Tomorrow. Available from: http://ucarochester-cgartsandanimation.blogspot.co.uk/2011/04/supple ment-hugh-ferriss.html [Accessed 5th February 2013]. p.24.

Figure 15: Brand, S. (1999) [Diagram] Pace Layering. Available in Brand, S. (1999) The Clock of the Long Now. New York: Basic Books. p.37. Or from: http://www.peopleandplace.net/media_library/image/2008/12/19/pace_ layering [Accessed 5th February 2013]. p.26.

Figure 16: Koolhaas, R., Vreisendorp, M., Zenghelis, E. and Zenghelis, Z. (1972) [Collage] Available from: http://thefunambulist.net/2010/12/16/students-exo dus-or-the-voluntary- prisoners-of-architecture/ [Accessed 5th February 2013]. p.27.

Figure 17: Drop City Complex under Construction. (2010) [Photograph] Available from: http://v2.joyengine.com/art/the-denver-voice-clark-richert-drop-city/ [Accessed 5th February 2013]. p.30.

8

Utopia’s Last Stand: How is the Utopian Project as Undertaken under Modernism Relevant Today?

Introduction: A Brief History and Definition of Utopia

How could architects ever propose Utopia?... It is a contradiction in architectural terms.(Till)

The word Utopia literally translates as Good-No-Place, hence Jeremy Till’s frustration that a discipline concerned with place making seems obsessed with a theory of impos-sible societies. (Bose, 1997: vii).The Modern era produced a wealth of utopian speculation, spurred on by technological advances and political turmoil. Constant Nieuwenhuys envisioned his New Babylon; a city of pleasure, Archigram proposed mass produced instant towns, Superstudio designed Monolithic blocks uniting continents and the Situationists attempted todissolve all this urban development.Now, there is a similar rate of advancement in technology as society shifts from themachine age to the information and digital age (Gann, 2000: 21). With the challenges faced by architecture due to sustainability requirements and the crisis of meaning presented by Postmodernism, utopian aspiration can be the driving force for future development. The paper architecture produced within the modern period was outlandish and oftenunrealistic (Gold, 1997: 10). It is easy to criticise it as being an escape from reality. But these few theoretical projects influenced a mass of built work, “Architects must reclaim the city, even if it is only on paper.” (Alison et al., 2007: 9).

This essay will explore architectural projects produced from the late modernist period, analysing the society that provoked them and questioning their objectives. Through this common themes will emerge between the work of different theorists and the relevance and impact of these projects can be judged. Specifically, answering the questions of whether Utopia is achievable, and whether it has any relevance today.

The history of utopian thought stretches back millennia. In Ancient Greece Plato theorised his Republic, a state ruled by philosopher-kings who sought knowledge rather than material wealth. Making them able to be trusted with their citizens best interests (Lane, 2007: xi and xxxiii). The Republic can be seen as the foundation of Western philosophy and politics, and is the direct inspiration for works including More’s Utopia (Ibid: xxxix).Contemporary to Plato were other utopian speculations based on communistic farmingand equal division of land. Lycurgus proposed communal eating and partaking in extra-marital sex to promote good breeding. Seneca promoted a “universal moral commonwealth” where all actions should benefit wider existence and not just the society that an individual lives within; acting as a transcendent utilitarianism and showing benevolence to the whole of mankind. (Schmidt, 2001: 10-13).

9

The word Utopia was not created until 1516, when Sir Thomas More wrote A Truly Golden Account of the Best State of a Commonwealth and of the New Island of Utopia. It is an idealistic work in its description of the “Best” possible organisation of society (Baker-Smith, 2000: 1). It is also “prescriptive”, laying down a template for society, not creating laws but showing best practice and convincing the reader of its feasibility (Bose, 1997: xiii). More also promoted a communistic approach to property, claiming that because of the notion of property, “no equal and just distribution of things can be made” (More, 1997: 54). It is important to note that with the term Utopia, More introduced an ambiguity into the topic. It was derived from the Greek Topos meaning place, and the homophones Eu and U meaning good and not respectively. Hence the dual meaning of Good-place and No-place (Segal, 2012: 5).

As the laws of perspective were derived during the Renaissance, it became possible to measure space and therefore idealise and shape it. Paintings of ideal cities were produced based on ideal proportions. Whereas Medieval cities were “images of power, domination and control”, the Renaissance city is based on harmony both between people and between the proportions of buildings. This is the beginning of the built Utopia, where the use of the mathematical rules of perspective translates thought into a “construction of reality”. (Russano, 2012)(Fig.1).

Figure 1: The Ideal City, a Renaissance idea of built Utopia.

Before we can begin to analyse specific utopian projects, we first need to settle upon a definition of Utopia. We have More’s original translation of Good-No-Pace, an ideal but non-existent society but this in itself does not explain what makes the society good.Segal lays down three criteria for a society to meet in order to be seen as utopian. First there must be a qualitative improvement in physical, social, economic and psycho-logical conditions compared to pre-utopia. Next, these reforms must be comprehensive in the improvement of society; it should come in the form of an overarching scheme rather than detached enhancements that only benefit a few members of society. Finally the improvements must be a genuine attempt at improving reality, rather than escaping it. (Segal, 2012: 6).

10

These criteria illustrate the improvement of a society with the ultimate goal of a perfect world with perfect physical, social, economic and psychological conditions. In such a perfect world all our needs would be met and every member of the population would lead a blissful life. Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs (Fig.2) sets out a progression of desires ranging from survival through to meeting ones potential (Zastrow and Kirst-Ashman, 2009: 448-449). The lower levels signify necessity and must be met before a person can progress towards happiness.

Figure 2: Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs.

All of these needs are self serving but also serve humanity. For a species to evolve it needs pioneers and problem solvers. Baudrillard agrees that after needs are met, desires become the driving force behind man and that accepting them is the only way of achieving a “revolutionary alternative” (Baudrillard, 2006: 42).Buckminster Fuller sees social stability as only being possible once the physiological needs of man are met, accrediting all war to there being “not enough for both of us” (1972: 327). He argues that if design science were given the priority that it deserves, then we would have an abundance of resources and that realistic progress towards Utopia would be possible. However, he also calculates that the World’s resources at present usage can “serve only forty-four per cent of living humanity” (1972: 309). Before all of humanity can be served, a technical revolution is required where we do “more-with-less”. Without this revolution, Segal’s second rule would be broken with only part of society progressing.

The issue of progress is an important one to investigate. When Maslow’s needs are met, society moves forwards via pioneering individuals and organisations. Hence society is improved. Superstudio argued that Utopia was unachievable (Riley, 2002: 32).They saw the history of utopian aspiration as identical to the history of man, undergoing constant evolution in an attempt to improve lifestyles. Neither had found an ideal resting place and they believed neither ever would.

11

However, Superstudio’s argument sees Utopia only as a final resting place and not a journey. If Utopia was met and the possibility for self-actualisation was removed, then the population would again become restless, and leave the society that they had sought for so long. Baudrillard confronts this issue with his idea of Dialectical Utopia (Fig.3). He interprets Utopia as a constant revolution from one unsatisfactory society to another, yet newer, conservative order (Baudrillard, 2006: 31-32). Thus, Utopia becomes a process of conversation between reality and how people want it to become.

Figure 3: Dialectic Utopia. A continuous oscillation between two imperfect societies.

There is not yet a civilisation that fully meets the needs of all its members, it is an aspiration for the future. In this, it is a simulation, a representation of the aspiration of the populous. In Baudrillard’s Simulacra and Simulation he sets out four orders ofsimulation. First there is the faithful image, a true likeness of reality. Next is the perversion of reality, when a proliferation of images removes the authenticity of what we see and fiction can mingle with fact. Third comes the image with no original, when representation precedes reality. Finally there is pure simulation which makes no attempt to relate to reality. (Baudrillard, 1994: 6).Baudrillard has claimed that Utopia is “the void that passes between the signifier and the signified” (2006: 62). This has been read as the intention that leads from the faithful image to the perversion of reality. In adjusting the representation of reality, we are introducing a desire to adjust reality itself. This act of playing God introduces a “personal responsibility” into Utopia (Bishop and Phillips, 2009: 36). As an attempt at Utopia is a man-made construct, it is those behind it who are responsible for its effects.

Note that Segal’s three rules are in the present tense, they are not tasks to be completed but ongoing processes to engage with. Taking all into account; Segal’s three rules, Baudrillard’s Dialectical Utopia, his void between honest and dishonest representa-tion and Superstudio’s non-utopia, we can derive a definition of Utopia that meets the context of this essay. That the most utopian points in human history are the points of fastest progress and greatest revolution, when idealism is at its strongest.

12

As will be explored, modernity was a period of rapid progress, with new technologies and ideologies being developed. Modernism celebrated conformity, order and processes of rationalisation, which is to be expected from a society that prioritises efficiency (Woodward, 2009: 19). Through these processes, the identity of the individual was annihilated. As such, the modernist Utopia is clearly cut, without any irregularities caused by individual personalities. Modernism continued the enlightenment project which replaced God with Reason, creating a void in the place of Heaven and eternal life. In pre-modern society the purpose of life had been to lead a pure life and reach Heaven. With the rejection of religion in favour of science and technology a new goal was put in place; progress. This progress to a distant Utopian future became the purpose of all development and research (Ibid: 16 & 243). While seen as never-ending progress, the modernist Utopia seems beneficial to mankind. However, when considered as an absolute truth that all must conform to, a single Utopia for all people seems unreasonable and suffocating. Within Postmodernthought, individuality is celebrated and it is identified that one solution cannot suiteverybody (Ibid: 19). The postmodernist sensitivity towards individualism stems from an interest in semiotics; everything must be communicated (Best and Kellner, 1997: 154).Personal identity should be expressed and buildings should communicate purpose; when combined, a building should convey the aspirations of those who use it. This individu-alism challenges rationality. Modernism may have been a revolution with the speed that it altered society, but Postmodernism rebels again against this; it celebrates that which disrupts order and resists definition (Malpas, 2005: 4). Within Postmodernism, the rejection of the modernist dogma of absolutes results in an epistemological view of the future. With no clear answers, and no final solutions, the idea of Utopia comes under doubt. From the modernist view that history equals progress, specifically progress towards Utopia, we can see that when Utopia as a goal is questioned so too is progress and history. This issue is referred to as the end of history, where if Utopia is no longer a feasible goal then there can be no more progress, and no more history is created (Woodward, 2009: 18). The challenge faced by utopian theory is to find relevance in a postmodern world that seems intent on challenging all semiotics. By researching the impact of the modernist utopian vision, it can be seen that Utopia is still a valid concept.

13

1. The Last Trends of the Modernist Utopia

With Modernism came industrialisation and the machine age. Mass production caused the commoditisation of luxuries with this time of plenty allowing people to dispose of goods far more sophisticated than they would previously have even been able toafford (Banham, 1972: 10). This marked a shift from the “’good’ life to the ‘goods’ life” (Schmidt, 2001: 19), as society became more materialistic. This free access to goods seems ideal but Mumford raises the point that an environment devoted to the production of goods cannot support a good community. He goes on to say that mass production, division of labour and rapid transportation are all good things, but not good in themselves, only good in that they facilitate other actions and have the potential to support a utopian society (Mumford, 1922: 219).These trends peaked in architecture during the International Style with the widespread use of lightweight, synthetic, standardised and modular parts (Frampton, 2007: 248). As the International Style went out of fashion, some practices continued these themes but took them to new extremes.

Figure 4: The Prefabricated Modules of Archigram’s Plug-In City.

While the work of Archigram (Fig.4) is aesthetically opposed to the international style, their use of new technologies perfectly matches the zeitgeist of the machine age (Sadler, 2005: 4). It has been criticised that since the 1960s the architectural profession has failed to act in the best interests of the public, instead pursuing thefurtherance of the discipline as an art-form, isolated from reality, or by pursuing a “domain of optimized technology” where technological industry benefits more than the building user does (Frampton, 2007: 280).Archigram were certainly guilty of these failings. Their revolutionary approach to domestic design promised the equivalent of the American Dream and turned housing into a consumer product (Sadler, 2005: 37).

14

Frampton has argued that they neglected to consider the “social and ecological consequences” of their designs (2007: 281). Yet it has been countered that the early work of Archigram shows similar priorities to those held by the Situationists. They believed that “the happenings within spaces in the city” were more important than the built work that created the space (Archigram, 1994: 88).The Situationists saw current urban fabric as stale, made of “frigid architecture” that led to “boring leisure” (Chtcheglov, 1953). Instead they proposed a dynamic city based on intervention into the human environment using psycho-geography, drift andsituations in the hope that the ordinary citizen would be exposed to a life of “experiment, anarchy and play” (Sadler, 1998: 11 & 69) (Fig.5).Despite their similarities Archigram and the Situationists did not always see eye to eye, such as the time when pro-Situ Utopie held Archigram, Superstudio and Yona Friedman among others hostage during a conference in 1969 (Sadler, 2005: 187).

Figure 5: The Psychogeographic Drift of the Situationists Reinterpreting the Urban Fabric of Paris

15

While the work of Archigram paid great attention to structure and the detail of individual components, some of their contemporaries did not. Constant Nieuwenhuys worked alongside the Situationists as he envisioned his magnum opus: New Babylon. It follows a similar mega-structural theme to much of Archigram’s work with comparable emphasis on mobility (Alison et al., 2007: 37) but remains idealistic and vague. Constant made it clear that New Babylon was just a “projected framework”, hinting at future development but not setting it in stone (Sadler, 1998: 122). Rather than modelling actual architectural forms, it has been argued that Constant’s models represent the facilitation of the forces behind urbanism within a built environment (McDonough, 2008: 93) (Fig.6).

Figure 6: Constant’s New Babylon. A framework to allow the forces of urbanism to take effect.

Also active during this period, and with links to the Situationists, were the Italian practice; Superstudio. Their Continuous Monument project of 1971 takes shape as a single huge and monolithic structure, allowing free movement over the whole planet (Alison et al., 2007: 321). Again this enables mobility within the population and allows interaction between them without interruption of infrastructure from geography (Kaminer, 2011: 36).

These projects all bear reference to quality of life, either promising the completion of the modernist utopia or critiquing contemporary societal trends. They also blur the line between architecture and urbanism due to their scale.

16

2. Grounds For Utopia

The domination of landscape shown by Superstudio and Constant is a common theme within modernist megaprojects. The rapid development of technology allowed new challenges to be overcome, and prompted new ways of thinking about architecture. Technology, combined with the social and political revolutions of the 1960s, provoked a number of utopian projects.

The proliferation of new technology began during the Industrial Revolution, as populations began to urbanise. Between 1800 and 1900 the populations of Manchester, London and Paris increased six-fold (Frampton, 2007: 21). While this urbanisation was caused by technological advances, it called for new advances to sustain itself, thus perpetuating progress. Such a jump forward was repeated in the 20th century under the modern movement. This first machine age saw the appropriation of technology into the home (Whiteley, 2002: 53). From this we see that the city is a product of technology, urbanisation only occurred due to the industrial revolution.For Buckminster Fuller the “impact of technology on society” constituted a revolution (1972: 304); the dialectic of man’s dissatisfaction with man’s aspirationsand ingenuity. This technological revolution represented a great amount of utopian progress. Modernism was a spirit of change, the default mentality of the age was oneof social progress, productivity and innovation (Baudrillard, 2006: 48). These aspirational urges continued and were perpetuated by the achievements of the age. Achild born in 1936 would have grown up watching mankind reach the top of Everest and the bottom of the Pacific, they saw space travel go from theory to practice (Buckminster Fuller, 1972: 308). In short, growing up during the modern movement gave an impression that anything was possible.

It is Baudrillard’s second order of simulacra that is associated with the modern period, with the propagation of imagery allowed by mass production. Their accuracy of representation means that the difference between reality and representation cannot be determined. This cornucopia of images results in the original being lost. Through this, images are stripped of their meaning and they can no longer be trusted as honest representations of reality. This is why the second order can only be temporary, as the lost original can no longer inform a simulation. Instead the simulation informs a new reality, which becomes the third order. (Pawlett, 2007: 75-76). In our third order postmodern era, it has been observed that “the primary mode of production in ‘advanced’ societies is no longer industrial, but informational” (Woodward, 2009: 14-15). The post-industrial world is as much concerned with the creation of the abstract, with data and information, as it is with machinery. Under Modernism, mechanical devices allowed our physical surroundings to be manipulated. Whereas the Postmodern information age allows them to be simulated.

“The Last Question” is a short story by scientist and author Isaac Asimov. It takes the ideas of manipulation and simulation to extremes. At first man is able to dominate the material universe as the power of the sun is directly utilised. While the human race becomes increasingly prolific, there is still no certain future for them.

17

Just as the notion of heaven was displaced by the idea of a distant and ideal future, that future is then called into question by a human race that has become far-sighted due to its longevity. The issue of entropy, leading to the death of stars and therefore the universe, troubles mankind to the point of feeding data into a computer asking for a solution; can entropy be reversed? The data fed into the computer eventually includes human consciousness and the universe dies, but the computer keeps on processing. It runs a simulation of the universe to investigate entropy, creating galaxies and planets and populating them with life. Entropy is reversed through the simulation of a time with low net entropy. (Asimov, 1956: 415).The wide scale manipulation of environment, seen by Asimov as the colonisation of other galaxies, is sympathetic to modernist ideals. Whereas the conclusion is postmodernist in the computers solution to simulate, and to all intensive purposesactually create, a new reality.

Simulation, and the proliferation of imagery, represents for some a new type of oppression. Rather than technology liberating, it deceives and feeds imagery that does not represent the truth. Superstudio believed that technology was threatening human nature, creating homogenous cities full of homogenous images. Their architecture was utopian but negative, warning against using “scientific methods for perpetuating standard models worldwide” (Glancey, 2003). In their Continuous Monument project (Fig.7), loaded with the remnants of fascist monumentality, a huge grid expands and covers the Earth in a single structure. This unites the world’s population in communication and movement and acts as a “model for total urbanization” (Alison et al., 2007: 321), while also being a criticism on the abandonment of culture in favour of progress.

Figure 7: Superstudio’s Continuous Monument uniting the world’s population.

18

They claimed that all changes in society in the previous 50 years had been generated by “elimination of formal structures [creating] a state of nature free fromwork.” (Superstudio, 2007: 189). For them, objects should be removed ofmeaning, instead being “neutral and disposable” (Ibid) and cities should be freed from social expectations. They also championed an end to work, with man able to do as he pleased, rather than repeating a task that he was told to do. From this we see that they were not necessarily against technology, for it allowed the liberation of the workforce and it was responsible for the mass production that ushered in consumerism, but they prioritised human nature over efficiency. The flipside of this however, is that for many people work is a fulfilling activity; it is essential for Maslow’s Self-Actualisation. With liberation from work can come a lack of direction and purpose to life. These nihilistic possibilities are endemic of postmodern society as a whole. With the removal of Utopia as an ultimate goal, existence has meaning stripped from it (Woodward, 2009: 8). Hoping to negate this nihilism, Superstudio utilised the acts of “Life, Education, Ceremony, Love [and] Death”, returning meaning to their work and redeemingarchitecture from potential subservience to technology (Superstudio, 2007: 186). Superstudio’s libertarian attitude, and their concern towards meaning within the builtenvironment, relates them to the Situationists. This also highlights the relationshipbetween politics, architecture and philosophy. A relationship illustrated by the PompidouCentre in Paris. In 1968, rioting students reclaimed the city; spurred on bysituationist teachings (McDonough, 2004: 13). The remnants of this tension provoked the commission of the Pompidou Centre a year later, itself inspired by the freemovement and social interaction promoted by situationism (Moore, 2012: 79).

Figure 8: The Rationalist designed Casa del Fascio by Giuseppe Terragni (1936),symbolic of the rigid conformity of fascism.

19

Seeing that architecture is heavily influenced by politics, either through conformity or resistance, we cannot stress enough the impact of political turmoil during the 20th century on utopian architecture. The fascist administrations of the 20th century used architecture as a symbol of power; classical architecture has connotations of purity and permanence, ideals that the Nazi party hoped to embody (Blamires, 2006: 52). Italian Fascism under Mussolini also patronised classical forms, but fused with Modernism as practised by the Rationalists (Watkin, 1996: 546-548) (Fig.8). As investigated by Sargent, the more extreme one regime is, the more acrimony it produces and inevitably there was a revolution against fascist oppression (Sargent, 2006: 1). From this we can read that the deeply flawed political systems in the first half of the century are partly responsible for the radical architecture that later emerged.

Italian architects within universities, such as Superstudio and Archizoom, were resistantto fascist ideals but were undoubtedly influenced by the built forms created underMussolini. This monumental architecture was now defunct in symbolism. In the event of a collapse of social order, the restoration and perpetuation of these buildings only serves to continue the ideals they represent (Woods, 1997: 15). So the revolutiongoes against all this. Political ideologies become left-wing, buildings have theirsymbolism taken away and cities are dispersed.

Figure 9: Superstudio’s Continuous Monument as a landscape with no influence on those within it.

In Superstudio’s Continuous Monument, and in the work of contemporary practice Archizoom, the built environment is shown as a blank grid, empty of meaning (Fig.9). It is symbolic only in its lack of meaning, it has no agenda of its own. (Kaminer, 2011: 36). This can be read as a disillusionment with architecture as a form of communication, having only been exposed to oppressive and negative communication before then.

20

Left-wing politics are evident in the architecture of the period of late Modernism. The uniting of populations is a theme throughout the work of Situationist inspired Superstudioand Constant’s New Babylon. While Archigram was concerned with the impact andaccess to technology (Cook, 1970: 179). The combination of unification and free access is representative of egalitarian ideals. It became such that for a period, the survivors of the old guard that represented the past, conservatism and the right, were discriminated against by an emerging left-wing intelligentsia who saw everyone but themselves as “not fit for socialism” (Baudrillard, 2006: 231).

This political shift was part of a wider cultural revolution in the 1960s, as dress, media output, the arts and the academy, and social statuses were transformed(Moore-Gilbert, 1992: 8). In Britain this brought apparent liberation, whereas in France the same liberation was suppressed by the rigidity of General de Gaulle’s governance until cultural tension erupted in 1968 (Wolin, 2010: 39). The rate at which these changes pervaded society can be partially attributed to journals and magazines which influenced the key cultural players. The new printing technologies provided by modernist development spurred on the journal as it acted as a “globalnetwork of exchange” and an “incubator” for revolutionary ideas (Colomina andBuckley, 2010: 11). The utopian projects explored here are all politically charged with their own social agendas. Through the use of technology they hoped to revolutionise ways of living. Technology was seen as either something to be embraced and perpetuated, or as a background player that simply facilitates other socio-political change. But whichever approach was taken, revolution was still called for by the spirit of change of Modernism.

21

3. Utopia for Everyone

One of the key features of Utopia is that it must be “for all or none” (BuckminsterFuller, 1972: 333). If only one group within society improves their standard ofliving then society becomes even more hierarchical. For everyone to experience Utopia, their perfect world, then everyone must be equal. But this must be achieved withoutconformity. The Situationists took a postmodernist standpoint, believing that socialprogress didn’t take priority over individuals, that instead it should maximise “freedom and potential” (Sadler, 1998: 7).This places them on the political left and makes them libertarian, rather thanauthoritarian (Political Compass, 2012). Libertarianism is a common element in Utopian thought, but under functionalist Modernism the strictness of design subsumed the role of the individual. Jacob’s criticises the utopian city plans of Corbusier, stating that the liberty they promised was “not liberty to do anything much, but liberty from ordinary responsibility” (Jacobs, 1961: 22). For the Situationists, Modernism had removed freedom of expression from the city (Sadler, 1998: 11).True liberty gives complete freedom of expression and freedom of finance. Access to Utopia should not be limited by fiscal or geographic constraints.

Archigram addressed geographical limitations in a number of ways. Initially they envisioned projects such as the Walking City and the Instant City (Fig.10). These were able to reach any location, bringing Utopia to any person who wanted it, the latter used lightweight skins and membranes which were deployed via airship (Sadler, 2005: 38). This follows the modernist dogma that we can use technology to manipulate our environment and change it to suit our desires.

Figure 10: The Instant City of Archigram being deployed via airship.

22

Later in their careers, Archigram shifted their attention from cities to the individual. The membranes of the Instant City became single occupant houses, containing an artificial and modulated environment (Sadler, 2005: 114). First their individual skins formed the Cushicle project, and then they were refined for Suitaloon (Fig.11). Critics of this architecture complained that it left no built environment to frame human interaction, but Archigram embraced this as an opportunity to “reinvent culture from scratch” (Ibid: 129). In doing so, reversing the homogenisation of cities under Modernism that the Situationists objected to (Chtcheglov, 1953).

Figure 11: The single occupant Cushicle of Archigram.

After Suitaloon, Peter Cook of Archigram designed the Info-Gonks, a personal education and entertainment centre built in to a pair of glasses (Fig.12). This is the ultimate in the manipulation of environment in its detachment from reality and immersion into simulation (Sadler, 2005: 111).

Figure 12: Peter Cook wearing his personal entertainment and education Info-Gonks.

23

Whereas Archigram’s later work created individual habitats, Superstudio and Constantworked to unite human populations with the use of megastructures. These were independent of existing cities, instead being suspended above the landscape (Ots, 2011: 147). Wigley gives an account of the predicted growth of New Babylon. Once mechanised manufacturing processes replace non-creative labour, man is free in hiscreativity. Socio-cultural sectors act as centres of creative development. As thenumber of these sectors multiply, due to the actions of an increasingly restlessliberated workforce, links between them are built (Fig.13). This infrastructure separates the new typology from the existing urban fabric (Wigley, 1998: 161). We can see, that as socio-cultural sectors pop up in every inhabited area, the New Babylon will expand to link together every pocket of humanity on Earth.

Figure 13: New Babylon expanding and linking together separate pockets of population.

This domination of the environment is not limited to theoretical projects. The challenge of climate change has been met with several heavily engineered solutions such as the Thames Barrier which protects London from tidal surges. While not providing any great advancements in the human condition, the Barrier protects the livelihoods of millions. It represents the late modernist mindset that technology can overcome any problem, but the inflexibility of the solution means that it is already becoming obsolete against rising sea levels (Wilkes and Lavery, 2005: 288). A different approach is shown by the Seawater Greenhouse, a building which claims to actually reverse desertification. The light touch of the design enables it to be easily adapted, rather than aggressively fighting environmental conditions, it utilises them and is able to go “beyond sustainable design to achieve restorative design” (Pawlyn, 2010). Eventually this process may make arid areas easily habitable, changing the climate for ideal living conditions. The success of the design is that it approaches the unique nature of desert coastline and implements an individual solution.

24

Superstudio’s Continuous Monument spans the globe creating a single urbanenvironment, liberating the rest of the earth’s surface for nature. This growth assumed the extrapolation of building technology to combat the engineering challenges of such a huge structure, yet it also challenged manufacturing technology in that such a large object could not be commoditised or comprehended by consumerist culture (Canniffe, 2006: 53). Ultimately, the repetition of the Continuous Monument across the Earth was facilitated by its graphical representation; the Cartesian grid could be expanded to any scale, even that of the interplanetary (María Asunción Salgado de la Rosa, 2012: 241).

The notion of the Grid leads to Koolhaas’s Manhattanism. The Manhattan grid was laid out long before the size of the city required it. The island was split into 2028 blocks as theory dominated landscape. Then, with the introduction of the 1916 zoning laws, the maximum height of the city was also proscribed. This created a “ghost town of the future”; the image of which acted as a utopian template for future development (Koolhaas, 1994: 108)(Fig14). The multiplication of image here is Baudrillardian, as it takes the true image of a realised skyscraper, and perverts it into an abstraction to be adopted by every future architect of New York.

Figure 14: Hugh Ferriss’ Ghost Town of the Future, showing the ultimate limits of Manhattan’s development.

25

Koolhaas’ idea of a culture of congestion refers to the density achieved in Manhattan and the surprising efficiency that this results in (1994: 10). Owen writes of his time living in the “utopian community” of Manhattan, which due to its compactness appears as the greenest community in the USA (Owen, 2004: 45). The average Manhattanite consumes gasoline in line with the national average of 1920, as most travel to work via public transport or on foot. Car ownership is low because congestion means that driving is an inefficient use of time. The congestion of New York City has led to the mixed zoning and modification of behaviour that results in a more sustainable lifestyle (Ibid). If you were to expand the Manhattan grid across the rest of the USA, the same density and efficiency of people would allow the land area of the USA to hold 200 billion people.

The possible repetition of New Babylon, the Continuous Monument and the New York grid allows the utopianism of each of these projects to reach out to new communities; whereas in the work of Archigram, the city itself travels to liberate those that need it. The Seawater Greenhouse manipulates conditions such that new communities can grow in otherwise uninhabitable areas.

Concerning the work of Archigram and Constant, there is a transience to it. Archigram’s modularisation is disassembled as easily as it is first built. This shows the philosophy that technology has rendered everything consumable, such that there is no difference between a city and a microwave meal (Whiteley, 2003: 170). Constant’s New Babylon allowed the constant transformation of interiors to suit changing needs and desires. The assumed technology allowed New Babylon’s inhabitants, homo ludens, to destroy and recreate space to provide the sensations that they desired, at once being destructive and creative (Wigley, 1998: 162). This control over their environment meant that homo ludens still had a purpose in their lives. While their liberation from work could result in nihilism, in Constant’s mind it resulted in a change of priorities, with them able “continually rearrange their sensory environment... according to their latest desires” (Wark, 2008: 22). This chasing of desire was a way of seeking fulfilment, and became the purpose of their lives. The nature of the structure facilitated this, the adaptability and flexibility of megastructures promote change, with change being the potential for progress (Alison et al. 2007: 298).

This impermanence is characteristic of Modernism. It has been claimed that mobile, variable and retractable structures are the only way to meet the demands of modernity (Baudrillard, 2006: 33).

Till groups all objects, including buildings since they have become consumables, into one of three categories. They can either be perceived as durable, transient or rubbish. The durable objects are permanent and will permanently hold their value. The transient objects decline in value until they eventually become rubbish. This valuation is not a property held by the object, but one projected onto it by society. Till illustrates this with the example of housing stock in London, which declines in value as it becomesoutdated, until it is either cleared away as rubbish, or perceived as durable andrenovated through gentrification. (Till, 2009: 71).

26

Unfortunately for architects, buildings are not always seen as durable. As the needs of society change, so does building use; this may even change the building fabric (Brand, 1994: 90)(Fig.15). Ultimately the building is no longer suitable and will be demolished, hence the reason why Till describes architecture as “waste waiting to happen” (2009: 67).

Figure 15: Pace layering showing the rates at which design influences change. The Bourgeois can af-ford to invest in objects that rapidly become obsolete, whereas the proletariat cannot waste their money

in such a way.

When seeing objects, including buildings, as durable or transient, we can also see them as necessities or luxuries. Returning to Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, the necessities include the physiological needs of shelter and warmth (Zastrow and Kirst-Ashman, 2009: 448-449). The architectural embodiment of this is the Primitive Hut, the origin of Western architecture with all its tradition and adherence to ideals (Mitias, 1999: 71). In contrast to this, the transient represents the luxurious, the higher level desires which we do not need to survive, but that we want regardless. Architecturally speaking, this is the ephemeral architecture that Baudrillard deems necessary to satisfy the demands of modernity.

But this presents an economic issue. The new technologies embraced by Modernism are of the ephemeral. The pneumatic skins and space-frames of Archigram are in starkcontrast to the load bearing construction of the past. As much as these are arevolution in structure, they are even more of a revolution aesthetically. Hence they are not seen in terms of function but in terms of consumption, with only the privileged able to afford them (Baudrillard, 2006: 59).The proletariat are not able to invest in the luxurious, instead investing when they can in the durable, knowing that they have bought something that will last and benefit their family for generations. They aspire to the model set out by the bourgeoisie decades before with the ownership of land and property (Ibid: 34).

27

This is paralleled with the early Utopias theorised by the Greeks. Where property was treated communistically it was to prevent the desire to hoard wealth to pass on to descendants, preventing the creation of a capitalist aristocracy and a dynastic flow of power. One solution to this was the complete dissolution of the family unit through complete sexual liberation such as practised in New Babylon; with no families there could be no nepotism (Schmidt, 2001: 11-13).

There is a contradiction here between the communism required to give utopian and equal access to ephemeral architecture, and the capitalist view of architecture being a material good for consumption. When Corbusier famously declared “Architecture or Revolution. Revolution can be avoided” (2008: 289), the implication was that a right-wing to left-wing revolution could be avoided through the use of the durable yet mass produced New Architecture that he wrote about. The modernist revolution had already introduced new technologies into architecture and these would supposedly pacifythe proletariat without usurping the capitalist system. The Dymaxion House ofBuckminster Fuller was intended to liberate families from the high land costs andbureaucratic planning processes of residual feudalism, but its attempts at low cost housing have been criticised as merely a speculation upon a new market by capitalist manufacturers (Scott, 2007: 18-21).

Figure 16: The Voluntary Prisoners of Architecture willing to endure harsh treatment foradmittance into a perceived Utopia.

In the speculative project Exodus or the Voluntary Prisoners of Architecture (Fig.16), Koolhaas splits London in half, at first economically as he imagines a socio-economic division between two sides of the city and then physically as a wall is erected between the two.

28

The wall is intended to prevent migration from one side of the schism to the other, but exacerbates the desire to move. Within the walled off city is seen as desirablewith the population of the declining city queuing up to enter. Once inside thepopulation willingly subject themselves to what is effectively enslavement, as theiractions and emotions are carefully controlled and stimulated. (Dehaene and de Cauter, 2008: 66). In an attempt at reaching a state of equality, each individual tries to gain access into an apparent Utopia, and in doing so they entrench themselves into a more authoritarian system and heighten the difference between inside the wall, and outside.

When a society is seen as better than the one you belong to there is naturally an urge to become part of it, what prevents you are geographical and economic constraints. Utopian society must include everyone and provide them with their needs, which meansthat it must be accessible anywhere on Earth. Modernist paper architecture saw technology as the solution to this but then a communist economy is required for all to be able to afford the new, revolutionary architecture. Without economic changes, architecture becomes another capitalist system of subjugation.

29

Conclusion: Utopia Now

It was Constant who declared “we are all nomads now” (Alison et al., 2007: 37). With the development of transient architecture, man was not tied down to a single location; home could be wherever you wanted. For Superstudio this nomadism resulted in a greater choice in inter-personal relationships, as humanity grouped and dispersed at will. While the population is unified, it does not consume the individual; each person is free to seek out a personal Utopia. For this, a personal architecture is required, single serving and portable. At first the caravan, then the tent is proposed and as the barrier between inside and out is lessened the process continues until the single membrane divides inside and out (Superstudio, 1972: 188-189).The Cushicle and Suitaloon of Archigram followed this trend until the dematerialisation of architecture was completed with Michael Webb’s Magic Carpet, where the user floats on jets of air. The Info-Gonks of Peter Cook matched the advent of Postmodernism. As the shift in production from objects to information took place, the Info-Gonks provided free dispersion of knowledge, but they also isolated the user from reality and prevented human interaction (Sadler, 2005: 111).

Similarly, the internet grants this access to information, but it introduces a new opportunity for contact (Flichy, 2007: 92). Unrestricted interaction via the internet allows instant communication between people regardless of location, with the Situationist Situation ever possible. (Hartmann, 2004: 95). Specific websites such as ChatRoulette and Omegle have the sole purpose of creating random encounters between strangers. Of Superstudio’s five acts life, love, education and ceremony can all be carried out online, potentially removing the need for any physical interaction between people. This is a concept explored in the short story The Intensive Care Unit by Ballard, where telecommunications have removed the need for family members to ever have to meeteach other in person (Ballard, 1977: 176-184). In this fictional example,communication solely through media is successful with problems only occurring when a family decides to forgo the rules and meet each other, but in realitytelecommunications have been blamed for driving apart families (Segal, 2012: 239). While the internet and communications technology can bring people together, they can also isolate. It is necessary to find a balance between the two, just as it is necessary to find a balance of the appropriate use of technology within architecture.

Technology can improve the quality of life provided by a building, but it can also infringe upon the enjoyment of the user. Mumford dismissed the “salvation bytechnology” advocated by Buckminster Fuller due to a disillusionment with science and technology’s ability to solve large scale problems (Mumford, 1975: 373). This removal of faith in technology is endemic to Postmodernism (Grenz, 1996: 83).

The high-tech approach of Archigram is not always better than a low-tech embrace of salvaged and improvised materials illustrated by Drop City, a “hippy commune” in Colorado (Fig.17). Development and progress is best served through the use of appropriate technology (Braunstein and Doyle, 2002: 365).

30

This way the best possible solution can be used for each problem, rather than trying to fix all imperfections with a single homogenous and global solution (Segal, 2012: 253).

Figure 17: The low-tech utopian community of Drop City.

The technological development that prompted modernist utopian thought fifty years ago has not slowed down, so in that sense at least we are making progress, but not necessarily utopian progress. Segal suggests a “plateau”, a point where research into new technology is only carried out when it will benefit society. Technology is only ever a means to an end, it is a tool that is only relevant while it is useful. (Segal, 2012: 234-235).

Now technologies both active and passive, high-tech and low-tech, are seen as a solution to the challenges of sustainable development. That we must “meet the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs “is the driving force behind much contemporary design (Mitlin and Satterthwaite, 1996: 31). With the rejection of the modernist utopia as an ultimate goal, it may be that humanity can only sustain itself; an eco-utopia with sustainability at the cost of progress.

But the needs of present generations include self-actualisation, which means themeeting of their potential and the evolution of societies. The pervading sense ofnihilism caused by a lack of direction requires countering. Woodward explains that we can negotiate meaninglessness by promoting thought and action that “affirm the value of life” (Woodward, 2009: 246). The goal of Utopia gives meaning back to life.

Likewise it has been claimed that architecture is stuck in a backwards lookingrecursive void of meaning (Martin, 2010: xviii). It needs to become proactive increating progressive design if it is going to perpetuate itself and make a contribution to the advancement of wider society.

31

While Modernism was secure within its arrogance, the weltanschauung ofPostmodernism is pessimistic in its view of the future (Sardar, 1997: 46). Utopia may not be achievable, but as an idea it is still relevant. Lyotard described the postmodern as “futile” but still saw the ultimate questions of how and why to live as important (Lyotard, 1997: vii).

Whether we ever make any significant progress from this point on or not, trying to progress at least returns meaning to life. The concept of Utopia is the most effective tool we have in motivating these attempts at progress, as it shows by comparison how our societies are flawed (Saage, 2010). For this reason, Utopia will always be relevant.

For he whose strivings never ceaseIs ours of his redeeming.

Faust - by Goethe

32

Bibliography

Books

Alison, J., Brayer, M.A., Migayrou, F., Spiller, N. (eds.) (2007). Future City: Experiment in Utopia and Architecture. London: Thames and Hudson.

Archigram (1994). A Guide to Archigram: 1961-74. London: Academy Editions.

Asimov, I. (1956). The Last Question. In: Asimov, I. (1997). The Complete Short Stories: Volume 1. London: Harper Collins. pp. 415-429.

Baker-Smith, D. (2000). More’s Utopia. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Ballard, J.G. (1977). The Intensive Care Unit. In: Ballard, J.G. (2006). High Rise. London: Harper Perennial.

Banham, R. (1972). Theory and Design in the First Machine Age. 2nd ed.London: Butterworth Architecture.

Baudrillard, J. (1994). Simulacra and Simulation. Michigan: University of Michigan Press.

Baudrillard, J. (2006). Utopia Deferred: Writings for Utopie (1967-1978). New York: Semiotext(e)

Best, S. and Kellner, D. (1997). The Postmodern Turn. New York: The Guilford Press.

Bishop, R. and Phillips, J. (2009). Baudrillard and the Evil Genius. In: Bishop, R.(ed.) (2009). Baudrillard Now: Current Perspectives in Baudrillard Studies. Cambridge, Polity Press. pp.28-46.

Blamires, C.P. (2006). World Fascism: A Historical Encyclopedia. Santa Barbara: ABC-Clio.

Bose, M. (1997). In: More, T. (1997) Utopia. Ware: Wordsworth Editions.pp.vii-xiv.

Brand, S. (1994). How Buildings Learn: What Happens After They’re Built. New York: Viking

Braunstein, P. and Doyle, M.W. (2002). Imagine Nation: The AmericanCounterculture of the 1960s and 1970s. New York: Routledge.

Buckminster Fuller, R. (1972). Utopia or Oblivion: The Prospects for Humanity. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.

Canniffe, E. (2006). Urban Ethic: Design in the Contemporary City. Oxon:Routledge.

Colomina, B. and Buckley, C (eds.)(2010). Clip, Stamp, Fold: The RadicalArchitecture of Little Magazines 1960 to 1970. Barcelona: ACTAR Publishing.

Corbusier (2008). Towards a New Architecture. Thousand Oaks CA: BN Publishing

33

Cook, P. (1970). Experiment is Inevitable. In: Braham, W.W., and Hale, J.A. (eds.) (2007). Rethinking Technology: A Reader in Architectural Theory. London: Routledge.

Dehaene, M. and de Cauter, L (eds.)(2008). Heterotopia and the City: Public Space in a Postcivil Society. Oxon: Routledge.

Flichy, P. (2007). The Internet Imaginaire. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Frampton, K. (2007). Modern Architecture: A Critical History. 4th Edition. London: Thames and Hudson.

Gann, D. (2000). Building Innovation: Complex Constructs in a Changing World. London: Thomas Telford Publishing.

Gold, J.R. (1997). The Experience of Modernism: Modern Architects and Future City 1928-1953. London: Thomson Science and Professional.

Grenz, S.J. (1996). A Primer on Postmodernism. Cambridge: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing.

Hartmann, M. (2004). Technologies and Utopias: The Cyberflaneur and theExperience of “Being Online”. Munich: Verlag Reinhard Fischer.

Jacobs, Jane (1961). The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York: Vintage.

Kaminer, T. (2011). Architecture, Crisis and Resuscitation: The Reproduction of Post-Fordism in Late-Twentieth-Century Architecture. Oxon: Routledge.

Koolhaas, R. (1994). Delirious New York. New York: Monacelli Press.

Lane, M. (2007) In: Plato (2007). The Republic. London: Penguin Books.

Lyotard, J.F. (1997). Postmodern Fables. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Malpas, S. (2005). The Postmodern. Oxon: Routledge.

Martin, R. (2010). Utopia’s Ghost: Architecture and Postmodernism, Again.Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

McDonough, T (ed.)(2004). Guy Debord and the Situationist International: Texts and Documents. Cambridge: MIT Press.

McDonough, T. (2008). Metastructure: Experimental Utopia and Traumatic Memory in Constant’s New Babylon. Grey Room. 33: pp.84-95.

Mitias, M.H. (1999). Architecture and Civilization. New York: Rodopi.

Mitlin, D. and Satterthwaite, D. (1996). A Framework for Considering Sustainable Development and Cities. In: Pugh, C. (ed.)(1996). Sustainability: The Environment and Urbanization. London: Earthscan Publications.

Moore, R. (2012). Why We Build. Oxford: Pan Macmillan.

Moore-Gilbert, B.J. (1992). Cultural Revolution?: The Challenge of the Arts in the 1960s. Oxon: Routledge.

Mumford, L. (1922). The Story of Utopias. New York: Boni and Liveright.

34

Mumford, L. (1975). Findings and Keepings: Analects for an Autobiography. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich

Ots, E. (2011). Decoding Theoryspeak: An Illustrated Guide to Architectural Theory. Oxon: Routledge.

Owen, D. (2004). Green Manhattan: Why New York is the Greenest City in the U.S. In: Kelbaugh, D. and McCullough, K.K. (eds.)(2008). Writing Urbanism. New York: Routledge.

Pawlett, W. (2007). Jean Baudrillard: Against Banality. Oxon: Routledge

Riley, T. (2002). The Changing of the Avant-Garde: Visionary ArchitecturalDrawings from the Howard Gilman Collection. New York: MOMA

Sadler, S. (1998). The Situationist City. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Sadler, S. (2005). Archigram: Architecture Without Architecture. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Salgado de la Rosa, M.A. (2012). Complexity and Contradiction: Superstudio’s Graphic Legacy. Revista De EGA. 20: pp.236-245.

Sardar, Z. (1998). Postmodernism and The Other: New Imperialism of Western Culture. London: Pluto Press.

Sargent, LT. (2006). The Necessity of Utopian Thinking: A Cross-NationalPerspective. In: Rüsen, J. Fehr, M. and Rieger, TW. (eds.)(2006). Thinking Utopia: Steps into other Worlds. Oxford: Berghahn Books. pp. 1-14.

Schmidt, O.H. (2001). Utopia: Heaven or Hell? Lincoln: Writers Club Press.

Scott, F.D. (2007). Architecture or Techno-Utopia: Politics after Modernism.Cambridge: MIT Press.

Segal, H.P. (2012). Utopias: A Brief History from Ancient Writings to VirtualCommunities. Chichester: Wiley Blackwell.

Superstudio (1972). Microevent/Microenvironment. In: Braham, W.W., and Hale, J.A. (eds.) (2007). Rethinking Technology: A Reader in Architectural Theory. London: Routledge.

Till, J. (2009). Architecture Depends. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Wark, M. (2008). 50 Years of Recuperation of the Situationist International. New York: Princeton University Press.

Watkin, D. (1996). A History of Western Architecture. London: Laurence King.

Whiteley, N. (2002). Reyner Banham: Historian of the Immediate Future.Cambridge: MIT Press.

Wigley, M. (1998). Constant’s New Babylon: The Hyper-Architecture of Desire. Rotterdam: 010 Publications.

Wilkes, D. and Lavery, S. (2005). The Thames Barrier: Now and in the Future. In: Fletcher, C.A. and Spencer, T. (eds.)(2005). Flooding and Environmental Challenges for Venice and its Lagoon: State of Knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp.287-294.

35

Wolin, R. (2010). The Wind from the East: French Intellectuals, the CulturalRevolution, and the Legacy of the 1960s. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Woods, L. (1997). Radical Reconstruction. New York: Princeton Architectural Press. Woodward, A. (2009). Nihilism in Postmodernism: Lyotard, Baudrillard and Vattimo. Aurora, Colorado: Davies Group Publishers.

Zastrow, C., Kirst-Ashman, KK. (2009). Understanding Human Behaviour and the Social Environment. Belmont CA: Brooks/Cole Journal Articles

Chtcheglov, I.V. (1953). Formulary for a New Urbanism. Situationist International Anthology. [Online]. Available from: http://www.bopsecrets.org/SI/Chtcheglov.htm [Accessed 17th December 2012].

Russano, M. (2012). Ideal-City Paintings Express Renaissance Concepts:Fifteenth-Century Art Strives for Divine Harmony. The Epoch Times. [Online].Available from: http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/arts-entertainment/ideal-city-paint-ings-express-renaissance-concepts-247129.html [Accessed 17th December 2012].

Saage, R. (2010). Is the Age of Political Utopias Past? – Three Questions for Richard Saage. Goethe Institut. [Online]. Available from: http://www.goethe.de/ges/prj/map/mag/ute/en5657176.htm [Accessed 25th January 2013].

Newspapers

Glancey, J. (2003). Anti-Matter: Italy’s Superstudio Hated both the Bland Future and the Twee Past. The Guardian. 31st March. [Online]. Available from: http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2003/mar/31/architecture.artsfeatures?INTCMP=SRCH [Accessed 17th December 2012].

Websites

Political Compass (2012). Political Compass [Online]. Available from: http://www.politicalcompass.org/analysis2 [Accessed 17th December 2012].

Video

Pawlyn, M. (2010). Using Nature’s Genius in Architecture. [Online Video] Ted Talks. Available from: http://www.ted.com/talks/michael_pawlyn_using_nature_s_ge-nius_in_architecture.html [Accessed 25th January 2013].

36