Hiding in Triangle is a Diploma project by Philip Modest Schambelan and Anton Fromm for their last year in the Technische Universität Dresden (Germany). It introduces a mountain bike hotel hanging on a cliff over the Lake Garda (Italy). Its structure and its bike paths compose a very interesting three dimensional maze between the earth and the rooms.
Here is Philip and Anton's introduction text:
The new mountain bike hotel on the edge of Pregasina in Italy offers sports enthusiasts a unique place to stay, an unforgettable view and a fast connection to an impressive variety of routes, trails and single tracks. Pregasina is located on a plateau 500 meters above the northern tip of Lake Garda. A hill is a line-of-sight obstruction to an extensive view of the Alps. To totally exploit the panoramic view the new hotel is situated on a steep mountain ridge on the southeastern edge of the small town. This on the one hand dissociates the new building of the traditional architecture, on the other hand the unconventional construction can be guessed by a small protrusion. The following principles determine the draft: complete access by mountain bike at all levels, maximum use of the panoramic view of Lake Garda and the mountain slopes of the Alps, no impairment of the view from Pregasina and a full and individual accommodation of riders and sports equipment in each residential unit. To ensure the trafficability each access element has a tilt angle of 12 °. The angle of the access routes to each other changes both by the natural curve of the mountain, as well as by the decreasing distance between the building and the mountain in the vertical direction. These two factors generate the fixed points in the front supporting framework, as well as spaces in the metal braiding. In these spaces, the residential units will be established. The structure is stabilized by three cores, which provide access to the rooms. Thus, way and construction form a unit that defines the form. The access routes form two different paths, which are connected on the top and bottom floor. This system of a contiguous band provides an optimal pathways in terms of trafficability and the access to each residential unit. The main facade is oriented towards the north-east, which guarantees each unit a view of the northern tip of the lake. At the same time it allows shading of the living areas by the hill. The communal areas such as coffee shops, snack bar, the sun deck and a media room are located on the top floor, Level 0, which looks out over the mountain easily. Here, the sunlight is desired and used. The mountain bike hotel is an attractive residential experience, which captivates guests with its impressive design, access system and aesthetics, and will become the newest magnet for extreme sports enthusiasts in the Alps.
Project Name: Hiding in Triangles / Diploma Architect: Philip Modest Schambelan (www.scham.be) + Anton Fromm (www.copypasters.com) Location: Pregasina, Lago di Garda, Italy Use: Mountain Bike Hotel Structure: steel / polycarbonate (residential units) Constructed Area: 1500 m2 Design Period: 15.10.2009 - 30.1.2010 Construction Period: hopefully the future Hiding in Triangles
I very recently wrote a short essay about the three notions of space conceptualized by Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari in their Treatise of Nomadology (in A Thousand Plateaus): the Striated, the Smooth and the Holey. The following text is only a part of this essay. It tries to articulate three historical examples already approached on boiteaoutils: Blanqui and his manual of urban modifications for the XIXth century French revolutions, the Casbah's guerrilla for the Algerian Independence in the 50's and the capture of the War Machine by the Israeli State.
The act of striating space is fundamentally inherent to the birth of agriculture and therefore to property. Indeed, agriculture is the first act that brings value to the land and by this very fact is asking for a parcelization of it. Agriculture is also what brings a population to become sedentary and therefore to aggregate knowledge in the research of new tools. This process of innovation is called progress and is the base of the construction of a civilization. Architecture embodies the striation and thus defines the limits of the land. Property is thus claimed and history of war can begin. This narrative is perfectly expressed by the myth of the creation of Rome. Romulus established the limits of the city by digging a trench (or building a wall depending on the version) and when his brother Remus leaped across it, Romulus killed him.
Architecture thus creates an inside extracted from an outside and whose property is being claimed by people or institutions. Lines of property are being virtually traced and architecture materializes them into violent devices actively controlling the bodies. The wall is quintessential and paradigmatic in this regard and is operating at every scale, from the domestic wall of an apartment to the United States’ border with Mexico via various scales of gated communities. The original city limit from Romulus however disappeared during the XIXth century to let the city diffuse and spread into a quasi total ambient milieu.
The following paragraph will try to elaborate about how the urban Warfield became a territory submitted to processes of striation and smoothing since the XIXth century. The first one implies Paris’ situation between the first and the end of the second Empire. In fact, this fifty six years period of time of French history would have seen three revolutions occurring starting from the Parisian urban fabric. As both theoretician and practician of urban insurrection, Auguste Blanqui makes the link between the two revolutions of 1830 and 1848, the Paris’ Commune in 1871 and urban modification in a conflict situation. In fact, he was fully part of the two revolutions and without being actually present during the Paris Commune –he was imprisoned- he was then considered as an icon of the resistance against the governmental forces. In 1866, he writes a small manual entitled: Esquisse de la marche a suivre dans une prise d’armes a Paris which establishes an extremely precise protocol of modification of the Warfield in order to optimize it for the weak –yet victorious- camp of asymmetrical urban conflict:
”This labor done, one put the two lateral barricades in communication by piercing the thick walls that separate houses situated on the defense’s front. The same operation is being executed simultaneously, in the houses on the two sides of the barricaded street until its extremity, then backwards, on the right and on the left, along the parallel street, on the defense’s front and on the back. Openings have to be practiced on the first [ndt: first floor in Europe is second floor in US] and last floor in order to obtain two ways; work is being achieved in the same way in the four directions. All the houses’ blocks belonging to the barricaded streets should be pierced in their perimeter, in a way that fighters are able to enter or exit by the backward parallel street, out of sight and out of reach from the enemy.” ”The interior of the blocks generally consists in courtyards and gardens. One could open communications between those spaces, usually separated by weak walls. It should be even compulsory on the bridges whose importance and specific situations expose them to the most serious attacks. It would be therefore useful to organize companies of non-fighters workers, masons, carpenters, etc. in order to jointly achieve work with the infantry. When, on the defense’s front, a house is more particularly being threatened, one demolished the ground floor’s staircase and one achieves opening in the various rooms’ floor of the first [second] floor in order to shoot the potential soldiers who would invade the ground floor to apply some bombs. Boiling water can also play an important role in this circumstance. If the attack embraces an important extent of the front, one cuts the staircases and pierces the floors in all the exposed houses. As a general rule, when the time and the other defense works more urgent allow it, one should destroy the ground floor’ staircase in every block’s houses except in the one the less exposed. ”
Those urban modifications that Blanqui advocates for are precisely applying processes of striating and smoothing the space . In fact, the construction of barricades with the paving stones of the street –Blanqui establishes very precise calculations about the necessary amount of them- adds another layer of striation of the city which encounters the normal function of it. On the other hand, the piercing of holes through the walls associated with the destruction of staircases tends to deny the physicality of architecture and thus smooth the urban space. With those processes, the city is assimilated to a giant assemblage of mono-matter mass that can be acted on and reconfigured according to the needs of the insurrection army. On the contrary it is interesting to observe that the additional layer of striation the State’s police applies on the city is not at all part of this scheme since its own barricades are pre-fabricated and owns no vernacular dimension whatsoever. The ability of the insurgents to act on this matter evoked above, and therefore to manipulate the Warfield in favor of their strategies probably has a lot to do with their victories in 1830 and 1848. On the other hand, the Paris Commune’s ultimate defeat against the Versaillais, was very likely influenced by the State’s modifications of this same Warfield for the last two decades by Napoleon III and his Baron Engineer Haussmann. In fact, the “renovation” of Paris between 1852 and 1870 into an urban apparatus both hygienic and militarized, helped Thiers’ cavalry and artillery to move very efficiently within Paris when the ultimate suppression of the Communards was effected.
A second example still concerns French history and the French State strategies of counter-insurrection. It occurs between 1954 and 1960 in Algier’s Casbah from where the first operations of the FLN were being organized. In this regard, Gille Pontecorvo’s 1966 film entitled The Battle of Algiers depicts in a pseudo-documentary way the guerrilla opposing the French paratroopers with the Algerian anti-colonialists within the labyrinthine Casbah. The chronology is important here. The typology of the Warfield is in a first period perfectly used by the Algerians who applies Deleuze and Guattari’s definition of speed as the absolute character of a body whose irreducible parts (atoms) occupy or fill a smooth space in the manner of a vortex, with the possibility of springing up at any point . Whoever accomplishes a mission for the FLN, strikes intensively then immediately disappear in the maze of the Casbah. However, some years later, by following the officer in charge of the counter insurrection Lieutenant-Colonel Mathieu’s strategies, the French paratroopers manages little by little to capture the War Machine’s principle by acting directly on the Casbah’s materiality and infiltrating the organization of the FLN. The final result is the absolute suppression of resistive forces in Algiers in 1960. Nevertheless, the resistance would have had last long enough to provoke a national mobilization that leads eventually to the Algerian independence in 1962.
A final example of urban striation and smoothing in a conflict situation would be the one studied by Israeli architect Eyal Weizman who daily attempts to establish a forensic analysis of the hyper militarized use of architecture by the Israeli State to oppress and control the Palestinian lives. In 2006, in an article entitled Lethal Theory , Weizman analyzes the Israeli General Aviv Kokhavi’s strategy during the siege of Nablus in 2002 in the West Bank. In fact, Kokhavi developed a theory of inverted geometry that consists for his division in avoiding to operate in Nablus’ refugee camp’s streets but rather to move through the wall of the dense urban fabric in order to surprise the Palestinian fighters. “Rather than submit to the authority of conventional spatial boundaries and logic, movement became constitutive of space. The three-dimensional progression through walls, ceilings, and floors across the urban balk reinterpreted, short-circuited, and recomposed both architectural and urban syntax .” From Auguste Blanqui to Aviv Kokhavi via Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari, a capture of the War Machine has been operating by the State. It is not innocent that the State that succeeded this capture is a state who established war as its main contingency and its population as entirely composed of soldiers. The elaboration of the oppression towards the Palestinian led the Israeli Army to associate a striation of the space both by its walls, colonies and roads and to adopt a nomadic behavior, springing up from its border, infesting Palestinian land and folding itself back in its own territory. This coexistence of State and War Machine is probably achieved by to the status of the Jewish People who was involved in what Deleuze calls a common becoming due to a long persecution through ages and who eventually become a State. Thus was established a normatizing benchmark that internalizes some of its subjects and oppress the others.
notes: - Blanqui, Auguste. Esquisse de la marche a suivre dans une prise d’armes a Paris. in MAINTENANT IL FAUT DES ARMES. Paris: La Fabrique, 2006. (unofficial English translation by Leopold Lambert) - FLN: Front de Libération Nationale. Algerian organization leading the fight for independence - Weizman, Eyal. HOLLOW LAND: Israel’s Architecture of Occupation. New York: Verso, 2007.
Here is the last poster campaign of, the french charity SAMU social. The headline is "the longer you live on the street, the harder it is to get off it" Artistic direction by Alexandra Offe, pictures by Marc Paeps.
American photographer Taryn Simon has exhibited in 2007 an incredible series of pictures entitled An American Index of the Hidden and Unfamiliar. This work gathers photographs taken in extremely restrictive American sites such as the contraband room of JFK Airport or the Avian Quarantine facilities in the New York Animal Import Center. It is interesting to observe that some of those sites belong to what Zizek calls (after Donald Rumsfeld !) the known unknown (what we know we don't know) but also the unknown unknown (what we did not even know that we did not know). The secret is revealed here in an absolute non spectacular form which makes the photograph quasi-neutral without the indication of its territory of extraction.
I also include in this post (at the end of it), a video of her giving a short speech about our work at TED and presenting this series as well as another one called The Innocents which introduce victims of the American Judiciary System in a fantastical environment that relates to the crime they did not commit.
picture above: Research Marijuana Crop Grow Room / National Center for Natural Products Research / Oxford, Mississippi
The Central Intelligence Agency, Art / CIA Original Headquarters Building / Langley, Virginia
Nuclear Waste Encapsulation and Storage Facility Cherenkov Radiation / Hanford Site, U.S. Department of Energy / Southeastern Washington State
Cryopreservation Unit / Cryonics Institute / Clinton Township, Michigan
White Tiger (Kenny), Selective Inbreeding / Turpentine Creek Wildlife Refuge and Foundation /Eureka Springs, Arkansas
Another dance macabre is the project designed by Martin Byrne's (see previous post) project for Thomas Leeser's Final Graduate Studio at Pratt. This project investigates a way to reveal a program that has been kept out of sight for few decades now: slaughterhouses. In the same way that some Muslim countries develops in order to perpetuate the tradition's rules, Martin is proposing to set a local self-slaughter program linked to each subway station in Manhattan (!). His designed, both influenced by Sigfried Giedeon's Mechanization takes Commands and Temple Grandin's diagrams, use an architectural vocabulary voluntarily provocative in its dirtiness which strikes in Midtown Manhattan's seamless. The condition of the "do it yourself" is also fundamental to this project which tries to confront people's habits with their responsibilities and consequences.
Pratt's architecture students' journal TARP is going to have a release party this Friday in Brooklyn. I was lucky enough to participate to this version with a text advocating for a labyrinthine Borgesian architecture... Here is a digest of this edition:
This year's issue focuses on the engagement of digital processes which are currently at the forefront of architectural discourse and practice. Various computational methodologies, such as parametric systems, generative processes, and scripting, all pose questions on organizational strategies, formal qualities, and branding, just to name a few. The work presented in this issue speculates on the significance of these techniques through a critical, if at times tentative lens of theoretical inquiry and practical application.
Essays written by: Manuel DeLanda, Erik Ghenoiu, Leopold Lambert, Peter Macapia, Hannibal Newsom, Sarah Ruel-Bergeron, David Ruy, suckerPUNCH, Kazys Varnelis, James Williams
Projects featured from: Annie Boccella, Bureau V, Tania Branquinho, Freeland Buck, maxi spina Architects, Mitchell Joachim, kokkugia, Scott Savage, SOFTlab, Erik Thorson, Eleftheria Xanthouli Editors: Alpna Gupta, Sarah Le Clerc, Marinelle Luna, Hannibal Newsom, Sarah Ruel-Bergeron, James Williams
SUPERFRONT Gallery 1432 Atlantic Avenue (btwn New York and Brooklyn Avenues) Bedstuy, Brooklyn A/C to Nostrand stop; walk south on Nostrand; east on Atlantic Friday May, 7th 7-10pm
This call for paper has been sent to us by the two organisers of this event : Andri Gerber, Brent Patterson both teachers at Ecole Spéciale d'Architecture in Paris.
(version française à la suite du texte anglais)
Utopia today?
22/23/24 October 2010, Saline Royale (Royal Salt Works), Arc-et-Senans
After the utopian movements of the 1960s and 70s – Archigram, Architecture Principe, Utopie, Superstudio, Archizoom, the Metabolists, Yona Friedman, Paolo Soleri, Buckminster Fuller, Haus Rucker Co. or Coop Himmelb(l)au – utopian discourse and projects have disappeared from architecture and urban design. Utopia no longer appears to be a useful tool for architectural discourse or practice.
If we consider our current condition, in part determined by a condition of atopia (Gregotti, 1991) – the non-places in large urban developments and individual housing (“The non-place is the contrary of utopia: it exists and doesn’t allow a single organic society” Marc Augé, 1992) – and on the other hand by a dystopian vision of imminent ecological disasters, it is surprising that there hasn’t been a reemergence of utopia as a means of imagining better places, other conditions, changes. Certainly there have been some utopias, but of a regressive nature – to quote Manfredo Tafuri – they attempt to stop time instead of advancing, they hide from reality as is the case with numerous gated communities where surveillance systems monitor the fragile borders of their utopias. But there is an absence of progressive utopias.
What is a utopia ? The term has many significations, to the point that it appears to mean anything and nothing, both positive and negative. Certainly utopia is a mirror by which we see and judge reality (“Utopia isn’t pure illusion but an updating of a positive system of norms that, independently of any reference to their possible realization, gives the sole/true measure of what is happening” Lucien Sebag, 1964), but it is also a place that remains better than we wish to create and/or think capable of creating.
That brings us to the hypothesis that under the weight of capitalist and neo-liberalist logic – the Empire referred to by Hardt and Negri (2000) – and the absence of place that it provokes (atopia), that any changing of the current condition and therefore any revival of utopias, appears impossible. In fact the only urban practices that seem to escape this logic today result in social mapping that is purely descriptive or else in interventions at the micro-level without global impact. At the same time, the dystopic visions of a future full of ecological disasters has not produced utopias like those of the 70s, on the contrary architecture and urban planning have become subjected to this logic, so too have the schools which are now focusing on producing “eco-designers” or “bio-architects”. Zizek refers to ecology as a new opium for the masses (2007).
Karl Mannheim (1929), considers utopia in relation to ideology and defines the two as symptoms of malaise in relation to the human condition, but only utopia is capable of changing this condition. Even if this definition is somewhat limited, it appears useful to discuss utopia in relation to ideology. We could argue that the social and ecological concerns produced ideologies to which architecture and urban planning have been subjected, without creating a utopia or an ‘ecotopia’. If all utopias come from an ideal, it is the opposite of ideal – ideology – that seems to haunt current discourse and practice in its submission to capitalist logic.
In addition to the difficulty of explaining utopia, the question of its absence today raises the need for new approaches and definitions. These approaches could look at scale – does utopia present itself more locally today? It could also consider the difference between utopia as form or process (David Harvey, 1996) or the difference between utopian and utopist (Henri Lefebvre, 1974) and the difference between a spatial and temporal utopia. It calls also for the question of the relationship between architecture/urbanism and actual or future forms of energy and their influence on the former. And what is the role of new technologies? Is the virtual creating a new outlet for utopias?
These are some initial thoughts resulting from an analysis of the contemporary condition as seen through the lens of utopias and their absence. This conference proposes the use of the concept of utopia as an indicator of the current condition of architecture and urbanism and these disciplines subjection to a neo-liberal logic, but also as a means of escaping this logic. It will raise ethical and aesthetic questions. It will furthermore investigate the role of energy and thus of sustainability not only as ideology.
The conference will take place at the Saline Royale by Ledoux, as a “partial” incarnation of an 18th century utopia it provides an “ideal” reference and site for this subject, not least of all for Ledoux’s ambiguous motives. The site hosted an exhibition of ‘utopian’ architecture in 1965 including projects/propositions by Architecture principe, Archigram, the Metabolists, and Paolo Soleri.
The conferencewill have a contemporary focus, but that does not exclude historical investigations that address the current context, nor does it exclude interventions that do not focus exclusively on architecture or urbanism. The conference intends to question current practice, the role of utopia in the work of architects and urban planners today. It will provide a platform for interdisciplinary discourse: researchers and practitioners from all disciplines are invited to submit propositions of a maximum of 2000 words with a CV to the e-mail address utopie@esa-paris.fr before July 16, 2010. Presentations can be made in English or French. Information on accommodation will be communicated.
There is no conference registration fee, but participants must cover their accommodation and meals at the Saline. Information on the options available will be communicated to the participants after confirmation.
The conference is organized by the Ecole Spéciale d’architecture together with the Saline Royale and the Hochschule Luzern, Technik und Architektur
Keynote speakers will include David Harvey (New York) and Christian Hönger (Hochschule Luzern), others will be announced.
Scientific Committee: Johannes Binotto (Universität Zürich) Andri Gerber (Ecole Spéciale d’Architecture), Johannes Käferstein (Hochschule Luzern), Brent Patterson (Ecole Spéciale d’Architecture), Michel Pierre (Saline Royale)
Organization and conception:
Andri Gerber, Brent Patterson (Ecole Spéciale)
Utopie aujourd’hui ?
22/23/24 Octobre 2010, Saline Royale, Arc-et-Senans
Depuis les grands courants d’utopies architecturales et urbaines des années 1960-70 – Archigram, Architecture Principe, Utopie, Superstudio, Archizoom, le Mouvement métaboliste, Yona Friedman, Paolo Soleri, Buckminster Fuller, Haus Rucker Co.
où Coop Himmelb(l)au – l’utopie comme discours et comme projet a disparu
de l’architecture et de l’urbanisme. L’utopie ne paraît plus un instrument valable
pour une pratique et un discours dont l’architecture et l’urbanisme sont les porteurs.
Si on considère « notre » condition actuelle, déterminée d’un côté par une condition d’atopie (Gregotti, 1991) – c’est à dire de non-lieux dans les sites pavillonnaires
ou les grands ensembles (« Le non-lieu est le contraire de l'utopie: il existe et il n'abrite aucune société organique. » Marc Augé 1992) – de l’autre par des vision dystopiques d’imminentes catastrophes écologiques, il est surprenant qu’il n’y ait pas
un ressort à l’utopie pour imaginer des lieux meilleurs, des conditions autres,
des changements. Il y a certes des utopies, mais d’un genre régressif – pour citer Manfredo Tafuri – qui essayent d’arrêter le temps plutôt que le faire avancer, qui donc fuient la réalité comme c’est le cas des innombrables gated communities dont
les systèmes de surveillance sanctionnent les faibles bords de leurs utopies. Mais il y a absence d’utopie progressive.
Mais qu’est-ce que c’est une utopie ? Le terme, comme beaucoup d’autres, a été étendu pour incorporer de nombreuses significations, au point qu’il paraît être tout et rien, à la fois quelque chose de positif comme négatif. Certainement, l’utopie est une miroir, par le quel on regarde et on juge la réalité (« L’Utopie en effet n’est pas pure illusion mais mise à jour d’un système positif de normes qui, indépendamment de toute référence à leur possibles réalisation, donne seul la mesure de ce qui se passe. » Lucien Sebag 1964), mais il est aussi un autre endroit meilleur qu’on souhaiterait et/ou on pense pouvoir réaliser.
Cela amène à l’hypothèse selon laquelle sous le poids de la logique capitaliste et néo-liberaliste – l’Empire dont parlent Hardt et Negri (2000) – des atopies (non-lieux) et de la condition de Heimatlosigkeit, d’absence de lieux qu’elle provoque, tout changement de la condition, et donc tout ressort à l’Utopie paraît impossible. En fait, la seule pratique d’urbanisme qui semble échapper à cette logique, se résolut aujourd’hui soit dans une cartographie sociale qui ne veut que décrire, soit dans des interventions à une micro-échelle, sans influence globale. En même temps, les visions dystopiques d’une future catastrophe écologiques récentes n’ont pas produit des utopies comme celles des années 1970, mais au contraire, un assujettissement de l’architecture et de l’urbanisme à cette logique – Zizek parle de l’écologie comme nouvel opium des masses (2007) –tout comme des écoles, dont le seul souci paraît de produire des « eco-designers » ou des « bio-architects ».
Karl Mannheim, dans son ouvrage sur l’utopie (1929), la considère en relation
à l’idéologie et définit les deux comme symptômes du malaise envers la condition humaine, mais donne seule l’utopie comme capable de changer cette condition.
Même si cette définition est restreinte, il paraît utile de discuter de l’utopie en relation à l’idéologie. On pourrait formuler d’une façon pointue, que les soucis sociaux et écologiques ont produit des idéologies auxquelles l’architecture et l’urbanisme se sont soumis, mais aucune utopie ou ‘écotopie’.
Au-delà de la difficulté de cerner l’utopie, se poser la question de son absence aujourd’hui appelle à des approches, des définitions. Ces approches pourraient tourner autour de la question de l’échelle – est-ce que l’utopie aujourd’hui ne peut plus se penser à une échelle globale ? – de la différence entre l’utopie comme forme et l’utopie comme procès (David Harvey, 1996) – est-ce que l’utopie aujourd’hui ne peut plus prendre forme, mais seulement se manifester dans un procès ? – de la différence entre Utopie et Utopiste (Henri Lefebvre, 1974) et de la relation entre l’aspect spatial et l’aspect temporel de l’utopie. Mais elle pose aussi la question de la relation entre architecture/urbanisme et l’énergie, sa forme, son influence et sa disponibilité future. Et finalement, quel est le rôle des nouvelles technologies des simulations numériques ?
Telle est une première réflexion, qu’une analyse de la condition contemporaine à travers le miroir de l’utopie et de son absence semble suggérer. Ce colloque veut utiliser le concept d’utopie comme indicateur de la condition de l’architecture et de l’urbanisme,
de son assujettissement à la logique néo-libérale, de la question de l’éthique et
de l’esthétique, de l’énergie ou de ses possibilités d’évader ces logiques et ses rhétoriques, si possible, par l’utopie.
Le colloque se tiendra à la Saline Royale de Ledoux, incarnation « partielle » d’une Utopie du 18ème siècle, référence et site « idéal » pour ce sujet, aussi en raison de l’ambiguïté des motivations de Ledoux. Et déjà lieu d’une exposition d’architecture ‘utopique’ en 1965 avec des projets/propositions d’Architecture principe, Archigram, Metabolistes et Paolo Soleri.
Le colloque approche une question contemporaine, mais cela n’exclue pas des investigations historiques qui ouvrent le questionnement sur aujourd’hui, tout comme des intervention non strictement liées à l’architecture ou à l’urbanisme. Le colloque veut aussi questionner la pratique, le rôle de l’utopie dans le travail d’architectes et urbanistes aujourd’hui. Il donnera lieux à une plateforme pour un discours interdisciplinaire : chercheurs de toutes disciplines, tout comme des praticiens sont donc invités a soumettre des propositions de max. 2000 mots avec un CV à l’adresse mail utopie@esa-paris.fr, jusqu’au 16.07.2010. Les présentations pourront se faire en français ou en anglais. Infos sur le logement à venir.
Le colloque est organisé par l’Ecole Spéciale d’Architecture avec la Saline Royale et la Hochschule Luzern, Technik und Architektur
Keynote speakers serontDavid Harvey (New York), Christian Hönger (Hochschule Luzern), d’autres intervenants sont invités.
Comité scientifique: Johannes Binotto (Universität Zürich) Andri Gerber (Ecole Spéciale d’Architecture), Johannes Käferstein (Hochschule Luzern), Brent Patterson (Ecole Spéciale d’Architecture), Michel Pierre (Saline Royale)
