Sunday, December 15, 2013

Everlasting Wren Churches

Sai Prateek Narayan
ARC561: Survey of British Architecture | Fall 2013
Professors Richard Tames | David Thompson
Survey Tour

5 December 2013

Everlasting Wren Churches

The 1600s in London was a clear example of a historic city having the best of times as well as the worst of times.  As King James I was to be crowned in 1603, a horrendous plague broke out, taking at least thirty thousand victims into its grasp. The theatre, which London is now renowned for, gained massive popularity, leading to the post-theatre celebrations among the higher society and aristocracy.  Towards the end of the first quarter of the century, with the accession of Charles I, the “London Season” came into existence. With the building of Lincoln’s Inn Fields and Covent Garden by the famed Inigo Jones under way. However, dark clouds lay ahead in London’s blue-skied progression. Without wholesome forms of sanitation, the overpopulated city of London was hit by a copious number of plagues, the most infamous of them being the Great Plague, which took the lives of over a fifth of London’s then population. But, the worst was still yet to come.

In 1666, a small fire broke out at a bakery on Pudding Mill Lane that briskly spread westwards across the City of London. Unfortunately, the then methods of firefighting involved tearing down the buildings to prevent the spreading of the fire. However, due to the decisiveness of the Lord Mayor of London at the time, these fire prevention methods were extremely delayed. As a result of this indecisiveness, the bakery fire had swollen into a firestorm, making the demolishing technique obsolete.  After three whole days of the fire engulfing buildings and people in its path, the loss of eastern winds and use of gunpowder to create firebreaks led to the dying out and further spreading of the fire. Needless to say, there were innumerable casualties and victims of this great conflagration. It is recorded that over thirteen thousand homes, eighty churches, 40 company halls and several landmark buildings perished in this regrettable event. It is fortunate, however, to mention that the people of London were able to get back on their feet and rebuild their city anew. The rebuilding of the great cathedral of St Paul’s, as well as fifty other churches was left to a man who could probably be considered as England’s most renowned architect, Sir Christopher Wren.

It goes without saying that Sir Christopher Wren could be considered as one of England’s most acclaimed architects in history. Apart from being an esteemed architect, Wren was a disciplinary in various fields, such as physics, astronomy and mathematics. Highly influenced by Vitruvius and Bernini, Wren’s rise to fame occurred in the mid-17th century, when he was captivated to redesign St Paul’s Cathedral, which at the time was close to crumbling down. Stimulated by his trip to Paris in 1665, Wren examined the drawings of Bernini, thereby resulting in his ideas for a first design of St Paul’s Cathedral. However, the Great Fire that terrorized London the year after hindered his submittal for the design. Appointed as the King’s Surveyor of Works in the late 1660s, Wren played a significant role in the rebuilding of the city, despite the fact that his city plans were never adopted. It was at this time that his acclamation for rebuilding over fifty churches in London came into existence. The six churches that this tour would be surveying would be St. Clement Danes, St. Brides, St. Paul’s, St. Mary-le-Bow, St. Mary Aldermary, and St. Stephen Walbrook.

It may sound like these churches, as beautiful as they seem, stand in London to this day untouched. However, in 1941, in the midst of the Second World War, the United Kingdom was severely bombed by Germany. Attacked 71 times in a span of 37 weeks, there were over forty thousand civilians considered dead, and over one hundred thousand injured and wounded. Needless to say, the bombs destroyed several buildings, including multiple Wren churches. What is surprising to note, however, is the fact that St Paul’s cathedral was left unscathed. This was because, apart from The St Paul’s Watch, an organization started by Winston Churchill, installed sources of water around the roof, preventing the cathedral from catching fire on a daily basis. It is also startling to note that the Germans who bombed London chose to not bomb the dome of St. Paul’s, it being a convenient navigational aid in both daytime and nighttime.

St Clement Danes was one of the later churches built by Wren after the Great Fire of 1666. A church has been situated on this site for over a thousand years. Although the Danes built the original church in the 9th century, Wren rebuilt this church after the Great Fire, despite it being one of the lesser-damaged churches, in 1681. The baroque church, albeit built in the late 17th century, also constituted of a steeple erected by James Gibbs in 1720. After being destroyed in the London Blitz in 1941, it was rebuilt in the late 1950s, to be named as the central church for the Royal Air Force. This church, which is signature of all Wren churches, has a wide tunnel-vaulted nave, with narrow groin-vaulted aisle bays with galleries. However, what is unique to this church is the fact that the aisles of this church extend towards the sides of the chancel, creating ambulatories.

Walking down the Strand, onto Fleet Street, we come across another of Wren’s post-Fire and Blitz churches, the church of St. Brides. Located on the outskirts of the City of London, this church is one of the few London churches that can easily be marked on the London skyline, the spire being the tallest from all of Wren’s churches. Being that the Romans constructed a church in this spot, much before the name of St. Brides was brought into the light, it is of considerable significance to the city of London. Rebuilt in 1701 by Wren, this spire is currently under intensive care, as the spire is said to be losing its structural integrity. Like the several other buildings in London at the time, this church was severely damaged in both The Great Fire of 1666 and the London Blitz of 1940. Godfrey Allen, an architect extremely well versed on his predecessor, reconstructed the church post-Blitz, as per Wren’s drawings. Amazingly, when the restoration of the St. Brides was underway, a discovery of Roman crypts were made on site, uncovering thousands of human remains, some dating to the time of the Great Plague of 1665. Similar to the church of St Clement Danes on The Strand, this church has a wide tunnel-vaulted nave along with groin-vaulted aisle bays. What is unique about this church, apart from its octagonal tiered spire, are its oval-shaped clerestory windows. These windows pierce through the tunnel-vaulted roof, which is held up by Tuscan double columns. The eastern end of the church ends in an outward projecting chancel, as well as a tripartite window, which seems to reminisce the motif of the renowned Triumphal Arch.

Walking towards the City of London, past St. Paul’s, we arrive at the third stop on the tour, the church of St Mary-le-Bow. Yet again another baroque church by Wren, this was rebuilt by Wren after The Great Fire in 1680. After the London Blitz in 1941, this church was rebuilt fifteen years later under the direction of Laurence King. This church, similar to both St. Clement Danes and St. Brides also has a wide tunnel-vaulted nave, and similar to St. Brides, also holds pierced clerestory windows. The narrow aisles, which are unique to this church, have transverse tunnel vaults. This church is considered to be one of the most important churches of London, St. Paul’s being the first. Like the other churches we have seen on the tour, this church was decimated by the German bombing London during The London Blitz. The bells of this church are what make it unique, as they have been threaded into London’s history for several years. It is an urban form of superstition that says a true resident of London is born within the ringing of the Bow bells. These bells have been used in several forms of order and symbolism over the past centuries. One of the first recorded references is dated to the mid-15th century, where the bow bells were used as an indicator of a curfew, which ceased to exist in the late 19th century. The church bells were also used to signify the end of a working day and also in honor of a noted figure’s death. The bells, originally starting from one, grew to a startling dozen in 1881. It is surprising to note that when the bells were declared a matter of national concern when they were considered too damaged to be rung. It truly depicts that this church is so deeply entwined within the tradition and history of London that it cannot be let go of easily.

The next church on this tour is located on Bow Lane, St. Mary Aldermary. Unlike all of the churches so far surveyed on this tour, this is one of the few of the Wren churches that is designed in a Gothic Style. Assumed to be of medieval origin, this church was first rebuilt in 1510. However, during The Great Fire, the church was burned down to a major extent, barely leaving parts of the wall and tower standing. Unlike the churches of St. Clement Danes, St. Brides and St. Mary-le-Bow, this church has a six-bay long nave, holding up gothic arches and undeniably impressive fan vaults with central circular elements., quite similar to those of King’s College Chapel in Cambridge or the Bath Abbey. Unlike the past churches on the tour, the church of St. Mary Aldermary has a flat chancel at the end of the nave, with immaculate ornamentation and a stained glass finish. What is incredibly unique about this is that due to the church being built in the midst of existing buildings, the chancel is slightly angled to accommodate for the context.

Finally, the last church is St. Stephen Walbrook. This church was burnt completely to the ground during the Great Fire, and with its stone façade, due to the fire, was scorched into lime. The need to rebuild this church was so dire, that King Charles II appointed the commission as fast as he could, lest the church is built somewhere else, which was when Sir Christopher Wren built this baroque church. The old street plan was retained and timber buildings were banned, for obvious reasons. Unlike the regular church plans of the past churches visited, this is rectangular in plan. Originally, Wren had designed the church to include an entrance on the northern end of the church. Unfortunately, due to the presence of a market and slaughterhouse, the entrance had to be barred in order to prevent the rancid odor from the exposed meat. The portico for the imagined entrance was intended to have colonnades on either side, very similar to the style of a forum from ancient Rome. A statue of King Charles II, in honor of his prompt attempt to commission the building of this church was erected at the time as well. It is interesting to note that the present dome is based off of the dome for St. Paul’s, which consisted of a dome centered on a dozen Corinthian columns. The fascination for this sort of dome came to Wren upon his visit to France. When comparing the domes of St. Paul’s and St. Stephen Walbrook, it is easily discernable that the dome of St. Stephen Walbrook was more of a preparatory attempt for the same of St. Paul’s. The dome of St. Paul’s was made with masonry techniques, whereas St. Stephen Walbrook, being several times smaller was made with similar construction materials to parish churches – lath and plaster, over highly precise carpentry frames. In contrast to the dome, the walls of this church are majorly made of stone, similar to the churches mentioned so far.

It is absolutely remarkable how Sir Christopher Wren attempted to carry out his project of reconstructing over fifty of London’s churches after the Great Fire, despite his constant focus on St. Paul’s Cathedral. This cathedral, albeit considered one of the many buildings that required maintenance after the Great Fire, was the center of focus in Wren’s mind, even after completion. It goes without saying that each of the churches mentioned above have been of vital importance to London’s history, whether to instigate order and instill regulations, or as an outlet to reach for a higher power than humanly possible in trying times. These churches were brought down to ashes as a result of the severe conflagration of the Great Fire of 1666, and were reconstructed with the aid of Sir Christopher Wren’s undying perseverance to seeing it done. However, despite these churches, as well as several more being demolished in The London Blitz during the Second World War, these churches were considered of such dire need that they were reconstructed as quickly as possible, reinforcing the fact that the residents of London aim to stay true and respect their history and heritage to help them get through the struggles of everyday life.


Works Cited:





Saturday, February 16, 2013

Furniture Design: An Artist Station


In what ways did London years transform Gandhi’s ideas and activities?

-->
15 February 2013
Sai Prateek Narayan
HST300: Gandhi and Gandhism
Professor Subho Basu
Essay 1

The then premier and developed city of London was undeniably a great influence in Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi’s perspective and attitude on life and living as a whole. But what is often overlooked is the magnitude of change that the influence of two historic societies inculcated in Gandhi, which consequentially transformed Gandhi into a personality that believed the congregation of all of India would lead to one of the most life-changing events in India’s history.
            Even as a young child, being the son of a Diwan of a princely state in British-ruled India, Gandhi was very well exposed to various political intrigues. Coming from a very conservative family with an amalgamation of Vaishnav and Jain traditions and beliefs, he was introduced to the process of British rule being injected into Gujarati life. He was swiftly taken in awe of the British civilization, which according to him was “the largest city on Earth, the capital of the greatest empire, and the center of power that was transforming India”[1], a small country in comparision to India, but nevertheless extended its rule to various parts of the world. It was the time when the British civilization was one of the most technologically advanced empires at the time, with the introduction of the telegraph and the up and coming economic boom, and it’s rapid growth during the Industrial Revolution. He had gone as far as to identify London as “the land of philosophers and poets, the very center of civilization”[2]. It was at this young age that Gandhi attempted to convince his family to place him within an English medium school, much to his orthodox mother’s dissent. A few years down the line, once again he beseeched his family to let him travel across the Arabian Sea to Great Britain and London, where he aimed to take up law as a career and study for The Bar.
            Out of the several instances that impacted Gandhi’s life, two such occasions were comparatively crucial – his introduction to The Vegetarian Society, as well as the Theosophists of London. Coming from a closely-knit community, where traditions concerning all aspects of life were of the utmost importance, Gandhi’s mother and several of the other elders in his caste had placed food at the top of their priorities. Upon hearing that people could not live in the frigid climates of London without indulging in meat and alcohol[3], Gandhi’s mother requested that he refrain from those nonessentials. Through the travel to London and the first weeks there, Gandhi was satisfying his hunger only the sweets and fruits he brought along. When Gandhi was made aware of the presence of vegetarian restaurants in the city, he came across Henry Salt’s “A Plea for Vegetarianism”, it was at that moment that he decided to be a vegetarian by choice, rather than only to fulfill his mother’s wish.
            During one of his visits to The Central Restaurant, he had heard about the Vegetarian movement that expressed the vigor and zeal that middle-class Victorians admired. Led by the London Vegetarian Society, which not only believed in the precept and practice of vegetarianism, but also attempted to make the public more aware of the concept and philosophy of vegetarianism through lectures, discussions and publishing writings in the newspapers, namely one called “The Vegetarian”[4].  His inclinations to vegetarianism coerced him to read various writings about the topic, such as those of many then contemporary figures, such as Tolstoy, Theoreau and Edward Carpenter. Other renowned individuals such as Morris and Ruskin obligated Gandhi to move towards simplicity. The Vegetarian provided an appropriate coverage of Gandhi’s activities in London. It is clear how much the concept and attitude of vegetarianism was valued by Gandhi, by the endeavors he made later on in South Africa. He considered the notion of vegetarianism to be favorable for India, as it provided a more spiritual focus, one where there existed “people who never depend for their existence on the blood of their fellow creatures”[5]. Perhaps this opinion convinced Gandhi that the idea of vegetarians being “pure” would be an advantageous method to congregate the varied Indian communities in their struggle for independence.
            The other society that inculcated in Gandhi the sense of camaraderie that was fundamental to India’s needs was Theosophical Society of London, more specifically the words of Annie Besant. The Theosophical Society in London was deeply indebted to Hinduism and Buddhism, as well as promoted the understanding of Sanskrit readings as well as Madame Blavatsky’s writings[6]. Madame Blavatstky was a Russian scholar who was contributory to the restoration of Theravada Buddhism in western societies[7]. It was due to this interest in Hinduism and Sanskrit texts that Gandhi was compelled to learn about his history and traditions.
            It was in the late 1880s that Annie Besant announced her conversion to theosophy. She was known for being quite instrumental in several publicized areas of interest, one of them being a fighter for birth control[8]. It was thus understood that she was well recognized and regarded by the Indian society in London. Gandhi’s attendance to one of her lectures, entitled “Why I Became a Theosophist”, she put forward her concept of man, which very clearly was drawn from Hinduism. She claimed that man was composed of three levels of spiritual constituents, which was in turn implanted in a body of four levels of material components, the former three levels being separable from the latter until the moment the soul departs the human form. She then began to defend various Hindu beliefs, such as karma and reincarnation. But what caught Gandhi’s attention the most, was her affirmation that truth was of extreme importance compared to all else. It was through Annie Besant that Gandhi came to discern that “while the West was the world’s specialist in material welfare, the East was to provide the spiritual foundation that the modern science of the West lacked”[9]. This in turn led Gandhi to understand that India, more than the rest of the East, was to be the world’s resource in spirituality. Through theosophy, Gandhi came to understand that a need for a brotherhood that resurfaced from the recovery of one of the world’s most ancient religious traditions was imminent.
            It is thus critical to understand that of the several instances that changed Gandhi’s initial way of thinking were meager in comparision to the impact made by the London Vegetarian Society and Theosophical Society. It was in the presence of these societies that he realized in the power of congregating a group of like-minded people to promote a sense of awareness and through such a cause, create an equally powerful effect on society at large. I believe that it was through the understandings inculcated in him by these societies that Gandhi was able to bring together a vast group of compatible Indians and create an immense effect of the British Empire’s understanding of the Indians.


Endnotes

1.    Arnold, David. Gandhi. Harlow, England: Longman, 2001. Print.

2.    Hunt, James D, Gandhi in London. New Delhi: Promilla, 1978. Print.

3.    Besant, Annie. Why I Became a Theosophist. London: Freethought, 1889. Print.

4.    Jacobs, Alan. Gandhi: Radical Wisdom for a Changing World. London: Watkins Pub., 2012. Print.



[1] Arnold, David. "A Diwan's Son." Gandhi. Harlow, England: Longman, 2001. 35. Print.
[2] Arnold, David. "A Diwan's Son." Gandhi. Harlow, England: Longman, 2001. 35. Print.
[3] Hunt, James D.. "1888-1891: The Student Years." Gandhi in London. New Delhi: Promilla, 1978. 20. Print.
[4] Hunt, James D.. "1888-1891: The Student Years." Gandhi in London. New Delhi: Promilla, 1978. 22. Print.
[5] Hunt, James D.. "1888-1891: The Student Years." Gandhi in London. New Delhi: Promilla, 1978. 30. Print.
[6] Hunt, James D.. "1888-1891: The Student Years." Gandhi in London. New Delhi: Promilla, 1978. 31. Print.
[7] Volume I, The Theosophist, page 89
[8] Hunt, James D.. "1888-1891: The Student Years." Gandhi in London. New Delhi: Promilla, 1978. 32. Print.
[9] Hunt, James D.. "1888-1891: The Student Years." Gandhi in London. New Delhi: Promilla, 1978. 34. Print.

Monday, February 27, 2012

The Two-Faced Company that is Coca-Cola

According to Rhea Borja’s article in “Education Week”, entitled “Coca-Cola Plays Both Sides of School Marketing Game”, Borja has accused the massively renowned soft drink brand of indirectly going against its policies. It put an end to the various commercials and advertisements focused on their younger audiences, but instead created Swerve, an artificially flavored milk-based drink, available in most schools.

Borja also claims that these seemingly conflicting actions of Coca-Cola are nothing but acts to stay on the good side of the parents and educators of the younger generations. By participating in this “corporate philanthropy”, the pioneer of the soft drink industry has been successful in marketing their drinks under different subsidiaries, Minute Maid being the most popular among them. Professor Deron Boyles, a professor at Georgia State University, stated the charades to be “the most egregious form of doublespeak you’ve ever heard in your life”. Coca-Cola, by performing several double entendres to the masses, convince the customers into purchasing their various chemically filtered beverages, thereby filling their systems with unwanted chemicals and other such harmful ingredients.

Fortunately, some states, such as California and Arkansas have seen the reasons behind Coca-Cola’s constantly increasing profits, and have passed statutes to regulate foods and drinks in high school vending machines. Ever since 2003, over 20 states have followed in their footsteps and banned soda and candy sales in schools. Coca-Cola spokeswoman Kari Bjorhus, in retaliation, claims that the one and only intention of the company is to let parents know about the other beverages they have to offer, and not just the excessively sweet and carbonated soda they are known for. In fact, Swerve was introduced to schools to give students a healthier choice to Coca-Cola. Authorities against the company argue that these claims are “PR hogwash”.

No matter which side actually is considered the right one, Borja is upset that the public schools that once accepted the famously infamous soda in their domain, are now transformed into battle grounds where corporations fight for private profits, which lead to the endangerment of the future of this country.

Wednesday, December 7, 2011

Building Systems: Final Wall Section Project

So, for the final of our Building Systems class, we were asked to do a detailed wall section of our final project, indicating the different cladding systems, finishes, insulation, load bearing systems, etc. that would, in simple words, make our building stand up. That's mine down there.




The Postwar House: Aesthetics or Affordability?

Subsequent to the end of the saga that was the Second World War, two important figures, John Entenza and Siegfried Giedion produced their unique epilogues regarding the birth of postwar residential architecture. While both Entenza and Giedion claim that creativity and imagination are of utmost concern when it comes to the conception of postwar architecture, Entenza diverts to the economical and affordability factors of postwar residential architecture, whereas Giedion focuses more on the aesthetic qualities of postwar housing and the abolishment of the term “International Style”.

John Entenza, in an ability to provide developers with an understanding as to how modernism is affected by modest means[1], created the “Case Study House Program”[2], which turned out to be one of the most innovative experiments in American residential design. The Case Study House Program involved the designing and building of a series of economically efficient houses by several prominent architects, such as Charles Eames, Eero Saarinen and Richard Neutra. These houses would then be open to the public for educational purposes before being sold. This project was brought up to make use of the best materials to arrive at an economically efficient solution, thereby providing the average American with a house he can afford to live in. Entenza believed that man would express himself in the way he wants to be housed in the future. The one thing that would stop man from achieving this goal would be his resoluteness to stand by the old norms, as he would have not understood the new yet.

Siegfried Giedion on the other hand, claimed that the western world has once again realized that human experience plays an important role throughout one’s day-to-day life. He goes ahead and further declares that the term “International Style” is a complete misnomer, as is the term for any other architectural style[3]. Instead, he generated a new term for postwar housing – The “New Regional Approach”[4], which could be the architecture that suits the environmental factors of the region it is built in. By giving the examples of some apartments and row houses built in Brazil and Cuba, respectively, Giedion tries to imply that the modern architect should not strive to produce an exterior façade that adheres to the traditional buildings in that region. The transformation of postwar housing at that specific time often depended on the development of new production methods and materials, but according to Giedion what was most important was the development of what he claims to be “the new aesthetic”[5]. Being an admirer and greatly inspired by Frank Lloyd Wright’s work, where the architecture adapts itself to the site or the client or even portrays Wright’s innermost ideas, Giedion declares the main focus of his article – “What we need today is Imagination more than anything else”[6].

Although John Entenza and Siegfried Giedion both emphasized that imagination and creativity is what the postwar architect should adhere to the most, their primary concerns took a slightly alternate paths. While Entenza’s main consideration is that postwar housing be economical and affordable for the average American, Giedion believed that the appearance each postwar residence be unique in its own way, and not abide by old traditional customs. Even though Entenza and Gideon’s concerns on the designs of residential architecture greatly differed, they managed to influence numerous upcoming architects in the postwar era.


[1] John Entenza: "The Case Study House Program"." Architectural Theory Volume II. Mallgrave Edition 270-272.

[2] John Entenza: "The Case Study House Program"." Architectural Theory Volume II. Mallgrave Edition 270-272.

[3] Siegfried Giedion: "The State of Contemporary Architecture"." Architectural Theory Volume II. Mallgrave Edition, 304-306.

[4] Siegfried Giedion: "The State of Contemporary Architecture"." Architectural Theory Volume II. Mallgrave Edition, 304-306.

[5] Siegfried Giedion: "The State of Contemporary Architecture"." Architectural Theory Volume II. Mallgrave Edition, 304-306.

[6] Siegfried Giedion: "The State of Contemporary Architecture"." Architectural Theory Volume II. Mallgrave Edition, 304-306.

The Architect of the Future: Battling Real and Virtual Worlds

As the architect finds his way through the 21st century, he should have the ability do combine the thinking and execution of both real and imaginary realms. While Ben Van Berkel, Caroline Bos and Rem Koolhaas all agree on the fact that the “new architect” should have the unique ability of accomplishing several tasks, from both the real and the imaginary, Van Berkel and Bos claim that the future architect should have an unbiased view while playing with ideas in the real and imaginary realms, whereas Koolhaas asserts that the architect should focus on the abstract realm over the physical realm (see Fig. 1).

Ben Van Berkel and Caroline Bos, in an attempt to indicate the responsibilities of the architect as they enter into the 21st century, describe what they believe “the new architect” should do. By “dressing the future, anticipating coming events and holding up a mirror to the world”[1], they demonstrate how the architect should be both a designer and a scientist. While a scientist performs experiments based on facts in the physical world, a designer has to focus on the abstract idea that then blends in with the physical, creating what they claim is the architect’s practice: “a limitless virtual studio”[2]. By blending the imaginary with the real, the architect would be potentially fusing the two worlds providing the administration in “an endless seamless system”[3].

Rem Koolhaas, on the other hand, was impressed by the fact that modernists, like Frank Lloyd Wright, had the aptitude to pull off a sense of perfection, simplicity and completeness in their work. However, he believed in the fact that the architect of the future should focus on contemporary forms, rather than being a modernist. According to Koolhaas, in the past 15 years, the cities that have been created or pictured have “been conceived in a sort of unconscious utopia”[4]that concealed the full abilities of the contemporary architect. Koolhaas remarks that it is impossible to focus on the ideal in the contemporary world of the 21st century, as the incongruity shown by both the architect’s ideas and the complexities of daily life. Rather than portraying the physical and abstract realms, Koolhaas symbolically uses the idea of the form as the real and the void as the imaginary. He states that by voids are “the principle lines of combat”[5] and should be focused on more, over the real and actual, simply because it would be easier to control void rather than controlling form. More so, there are numerous opportunities one can seek and achieve when interacting and designing abstractly using the void. By being a contemporary architect, as Koolhaas says, one must have the ability to work in both physical and virtual domains, but must focus on the virtual more than the physical. Koolhaas himself divulges the fact that he, as time goes by, tries “more and more not to be modern, but to be contemporary”[6].

Although the three visionaries – Van Berkel, Bos and Koolhaas – all emphasized the idea that the “new architect” should balance the dexterity of adapting to both the substantial and intangible, their opinions compelled them to take alternate paths. While Van Berkel and Bos considered that the architect should have an unbiased view of both the real and imaginary, in order to cause a seamless blend of the two, Koolhaas believed that the imaginary would lead the architect into the future, compared to the real. Even though their concerns on the dexterity of the “architect of the future” greatly differed, they managed to pave the way for the up and coming contemporary architects in the future.


[1] Ben Van Berkel and Caroline Bos, “The new concept of the architect”, Architectural Theory V.2., Mallgrave ed., p.581

[2] Berkel and Bos, “concept”, Architectural Theory, 581.

[3] Berkel and Bos, “concept”, Architectural Theory, 581.

[4] Rem Koolhaas,”Toward the Contemporary City”, Design Book Review 17 (Winter 1989): 15

[5] Koolhaas, “City”, Design Book Review, 16

[6] Koolhaas, “City”, Design Book Review, 16