dipoli - wordpress.com...1 c. norberg-schulz, “the phenomenon of place”, in kate nesbitt, ed....

Dipoli students union building

Helsinki University of Technology, Finland Reima and Raili Pietila

Frazer Van Roekel EVDA 621 Dec. 7, 2009

Dipoli is an interpretation of this materialistic idea: the relationship between building and nature. Reima Pietila

Reima and Raili Pietila are known for producing unique architecture that is very conscious of its site. This husband and wife couple worked as a team throughout their careers and one of their successes was Dipoli, a students union building for the Helsinki University of Technology. This analysis of space, form, body and technique investigates Dipoli as the product of architectural intention and analyzes the architects’ processes as a manifestation of that intention.

SPACEDipoli’s close relationship to the site clearly reveals that one of Reima and Raili Pietila’s main goals was to emphasize a strong connection between nature and the built environment. The Pietilas use a number of strategies to accomplish their goals. A very distinct plan (fig.2) echoes the topography of the landscape through its complex form. It springs out wildly in multiple directions but is grounded on an ordered structure which emphasizes the idea of morphing two contrasting idea. The irregular sections clearly represent a “smooth” space as defined by Deleuze and Guattari in their chapter “1440: The Smooth and the Striated”. There are general directions similar to vectors and space seems to occupy that direction rather than having points and lines delineate its edges. Striation occurs where the fig. 2 shows how perpendicular, intersecting lines immediately signal an imposed order.

Part of the Pietila’s explorations were a reaction to the inability of simple Euclidean geometry to be “ and adequate instrument of analysis”.1 Micol Carlone claims that Dipoli “basically assumed the shape of a sort of “non-building”…It is not characterized by any element which is generally identified with traditional architecture: eneither an impressive façade nor a conventional internal space”.2 More tech-niques, as seen in figures 1 and 3, are the use of the site’s excavated rocks as an exterior base for the building, a monolithic roof, large accents on envelope openings, as well as opening up of the exterior walls through the extensive use of glazing and unique views.

1 Micol Carlone, “The Development of Morphology: Concept in Raili and Remia Pietila’s Cuture and Works”, ptah. http://www.alvaraalto.fi/ptah/issue/9912/carlone.htm, accessed Sept. 22, 2009. 2 Ibid.

Fig. 1

Fig. 3

Fig. 2

Dipoli’s integrated relationship with the environment intentionally creates a spatial relationship to the one inhabiting it. The Pietilas bring together those key elements of the genius loci of place and the Finnish sensibility to create both a building that echoes its environment and one which testifies of the Finnish re-lationship with nature. They share with Norberg-Schultz that the existential purpose of a building is owed to its environment and thus creates and reinforces a pronounced sense of place.1 Being a phenomenolo-gist, Pietila sought a plastic architecture using nature, the perfect example of plasticity, as his model.2 The quest for a plastic architecture echoes Theo Van Doesburg’s theories. In “Towards a Plastic Architecture” he outlines some of the techniques the Pietilas used such as the resultant architecture having no specific style, merging inside and outside, employing moving intermediate surfaces and the “balanced relationship of unequal parts”.3

To achieve the morphology of inside and outside, the Pietilas apply a technique involving varied horizon-tal divisions which Quantrill describes as “attempting to dissolve the wall so that it becomes an apathetic membrane or skin between internal and external space”.4 With the breaking down of the exterior wall and creation of a “skin” which adapts to its environment, a sense of place is created throughout the space. This phenomenon is emphasized by using wider beams to break up the large panels of glazing which would otherwise be unnatural but now echoes the forest around it.5 In fact, the forest seems to penetrate the building and in doing so the building disappears as a separate entity and morphs with its environment(See Fig. 4). The presence of moveamble walls inside the structure also influences the existing spatial relation-ships and adds to the plasticity of the structure.

1 C. Norberg-Schulz, “the Phenomenon of Place”, in Kate Nesbitt, ed. Theorizing a New Agenda for Architecture, 1996, 4232 Micol Carlone, “The Development of Morphology: Concept in Raili and Remia Pietila’s Cuture and Works”, ptah.

http://www.alvaraalto.fi/ptah/issue/9912/carlone.htm, accessed Sept. 22, 2009. 3 Theo van Doesburg, “Towards a Plastic Architecture”, in U. Conrads, ed., Programs and Manifestos on 20th-century

Architecture, 1970, 78 4 Malcolm Quantrill, Reima Pietila: Architecture, Context and Modernism. Rizzoli International Publications Inc. New

York, 1985, 55 5 Ibid.

building skin

Fig. 4

Reima Pietila describes his vision for Dipoli as a monolithic symbol where large pieces of granite form the shape of the roof as a “geomorphic force” to emphasize Dipoli’s “landform sculpture”.1 The unique and irregular shape of the roof echoes the large boulders placed around the building. During the winter the snow makes the entire place invisible and the roog becomes one continuous surface with the landscape. Similarly the experience of being inside is reminiscent of a grotto or cave-like space. As a model of the roof suggests (fig. 5), the structure of the roof consists of cave-like forms cast in concrete. The sides of the building open up into the forest bringing the exterior inside while accents such as the furniture provide many more instances of biophillic design to emphasize the omnipresence of nature throughout the build-ing (see fig.6).

1 Malcolm Quantrill, Reima Pietila: Architecture, Context and Modernism. Rizzoli International Publications Inc. New York, 1985, 56

Fig.5

Fig. 6

Beyond the outward experiences that the spaces inside and outside of Dipoli facilitate is a spatial quality embodied by the building which Reima Pietila framed best with the quote he used in the competition for the building: “Dipoli is a dinosaur of the Mesozoic era”.1 Emerging from the cave-like dimensions and from the skins created by the moveable walls is the phenomenon of being within the bowls of a monstrous beast.2 When seen in section the building’s reptilian attributes become much more apparent as it inhabits its forested site (see fig. 15).3

One might refer to the Banham article which refers to the creation of space and its relation to time using a sense of movement between or of spaces.4 The building’s formal structure remains static but it gains a quality of movement through its design which in instilled in the observer of the space. Movement can be appreciated on two levels, seeing the building in section with reptil-ian qualities or by experiencing the space directly and witnessing the flux of inside and outside – the natural breathing of a living organism through its skin.

No doubt the spatial relationships created in and around Dipoli create an experience so unique that it is difficult to categorize the Pietilas into a particular style and category. Their experiments of plasticity and phenomenology challenge the viewer to ground their experience yet Dipoli retains a definite sense of place which expresses the genius loci of the site as a context of Finnish architecture.

1 Micol Carlone, “The Development of Morphology: Concept in Raili and Remia Pietila’s Cuture and Works”, ptah. http://www.alvaraalto.fi/ptah/issue/9912/carlone.htm, accessed Sept. 22, 2009.2 Malcolm Quantrill, Reima Pietila: Architecture, Context and Modernism. Rizzoli International Publications Inc. New York, 1985, 553 Ibid4 Reyner Banham, “Space and Power”, in Age of Masters, 1975, 52 Fig. 7

FORMThe students centre, Dipoli, has a very unusually shaped, unique form. It slithers over the rocky hillside, arching its undulating back, dissolving in and out of the landscape. The roof, a landscape in itself, pierces the air at multiple points satisfying Pietilo’s intended imagery of “basalt taps which are the result of volcanic activity”.1 From a sectional perspective Dipoli’s form resembles the rocky hilltop that it replaced. Figure 9 is a sketch not of the actual building but of a type of diagram which illustrates this point. Every angle seems to produce organic shapes which blend harmoniously into the forest environment around them. This quality, along with the architects’ honest and considerate use of materials, supports the classification of this building as organic architecture. Nature produces many unique forms and Dipoli is the obvious result of a process which has used models from nature in its attempt to create organic forms.

From the perspective of a form analysis, Dipoli is a hybrid of organic and linear components. The plan reveals a very defined, rectilinear side of the building being engulfed and overcome by a wild, grotesque beast. Depending on one’s take on it, Dipoli could also be seen as having a strong base housing its core functions while its edges leap away into the landscape, groping at trees and rocks in an effort to gain more ground. Either way the opposing forms bring the building to life allowing it to transcend its program to relay much more.

1 Malcolm Quantrill, Reima Pietila: Architecture, Context and Modernism. Rizzoli International Publications Inc. New

York, 1985, 56

Fig. 8

Fig. 9

While the exterior of the building is reminiscent of volcanic activity and outcropping stone, the in-terior is designed to produce a cave-like experience. Some proof of this intent is part of a model study of the ceiling as shown in fig. 5. This ceiling treatment is combined with forms of hollowed out caverns and bulging overhangs in the interior to create a series of cave or grotto spaces.

The forest motif is continued throughout the building resulting in a holistic integration of form into the concept of an organic building. A large balcony inside the foyer contributes to the feel-ing of being inside a cavern. Its use of wooden slats as a finishing material allows the balcony’s form to support the impression of the forest being part of the interior space. Extensive glazing is present in the exterior envelope however large vertical and horizontal beams break up the façade and camouflage it within the forest landscape. Even the form of the furniture follows a forest mo-tif through a branch-like structure. Rocks from the immediate site lines parts of the front of the building, connecting the roof and ground plane through their common form.

One critique of this organic architecture is that it never produces a realistic view nature. It can remind someone of nature that is idealized and manipulated but one cannot be sure of the real type of nature are they being reminded of. The fact that the building is sited in a relatively unde-veloped area helps the idea but also entertains certain perspectives of nature. Another critique of this building as organic architecture is its blasting of the hillside to create its site. Organic ar-chitecture should serve to make a minimal footprint on the land and there are other ways nesting the building which could equally integrate it into the landscape.

Fig 11

Fig 10

The Pietilas use form in a number of ways to create meaning and express intention. Already mentioned is the use of a forest motif which evokes a sense of place and is considerate of the existing landforms. Expressing a sensibility for and seeking a respectable representation of the Finnish style of architecture, known for its integrated approaches and consideration for land-scape, was a goal Dipoli sought to achieve.1 Multi-use spaces inside Dipoli take on the form of open, non-rectilinear areas separated by moveable walls. This flexibility and its resulting form are another example of a design process which emulates natural systems and their ability to adapt to specific conditions within the environment. With each successive layer the depth of the cave analogy achieves a more potent experience.

A parallel might be made with Lebbeus Woods’ “free spaces” which have no “preconceived way of inhabitation” but are open to an individual’s attempts to manipulate it for their own use.2 Today people defining sustainable design are arguing for more such spaces which can lengthen a building’s use and allow its program to change over time to adapt to new modes of production and demands in society.


2 Lebbeus Woods, “Anarchitecture: Architecture is a Political Act”, Anarchitecture, AD Monograph 22, 1992, 15

Fig. 12

Fig. 13

Beyond the literal interpretations of form a phenomenological experience emerges through the Pietilas’ style and process. Figures 13 and 14 imply the emergence of organic forms from Dipoli which transcend the physical structure and allow it to move, breathe and interact with its natural habitat. This reptilian analogy is part of the architects’ intention and epitomizes the success of this building on a phenomenological level as organic architecture.1 Dipoli is inspired by nature and grows out of the site; it emerges as a living organism which brings an entirely new experience to the inhabitant.


Fig. 14

The distinctive style and unique forms produced by the Pietilas’ are the result of their departure from the Modernist style. Quantrill considers them to be revolutionary in their approach and for this reason finds them difficult to understand and thus to categorize.1 Post moderns valued form over structure since they responded to the Modernist principle that form follows function. They are reactions to the idea that structure must be manifested otherwise the function is overridden by form.

Dipoli replicates natural forms or is at least reminiscent of such through its form due to a process which studies the landscape and incorporates natural processes. Its success however is in the fact that it transcends simple imitation and provides a phenomenological experience that emulates a natural organism. Form is not the result of function but of this approach which has merged phenomenology and organic architecture.

This student centre reaches beyond the fulfillment of its primary function. It seeks not only to provide students with an adaptable, multi-use building but also to evoke an experience through its organic forms which speak to nature, the essence of the Finnish landscape and the occupation of those very spaces. This irregular building, this landscape, this beast evokes an experience very different from the previous Modernist movement and results in a new conception of form not dependent on function but completely influenced by a unique approach to architecture.

1 Malcolm Quantrill, Reima Pietila: Architecture, Context and Modernism. Rizzoli International Publications Inc. New

York, 1985, 22

Fig. 15

BODYDescribing the relationship of the body with a building is difficult since there are intended interactions combined with the diversity of peoples’ individual interpretations. Dipoli includes this challenge especially since it is designed from a phenomenological perspective. This challenge exists because phenomenology addresses the idea of an observer, the observed object and a reciprocating relationship between them. Reima and Raili Pietila chose to take a different perspective by choosing to explore morphology and experience contrary to the rationalization of some of their con-temporaries. As a result Dipoli’s produces organic shapes which bring to mind both natural references and anthropomorphic qualities in the build-ing. For example Fig. 1 emphasizes the constrasts in the buildilng form where a structured area morphs into an organic mass which seems to crawl into the landscape using an number of references.

Fig. 16

Dipoli evokes a powerful sense of connection to the body through a number of different ways. One of the reasons Dipoli has such a connection to the body is because it embodies questions and experiences of existence on several different scales. Being within Dipoli’s envelope becomes more than the simple occupying of that particular space. Through an experienced intimacy with materials and vaulting of space the viewer becomes engulfed in the essence of the building. An acknowledgement of this experience leads to a realization that this type of being is not possible without the presence of that particular building. Vidler speaks of a relationship between body and structure so close that one cannot live without the other.1 Many elements exist to make this experience possible. On a large scale level the structure’s spaces form several connected cave-like rooms which accentuate the idea of being inside something more than what it seems to be from the exterior. It seems as if the inhabitants are drawn into the belly of the hillside—into the heart of a monolithic structure(see Fig. 17).

1 A. Vidler, “The Building in Pain: The Body and Architecture in Post-Modern Culture,” in AA Fies 19, 289

granite outcropping

belly of animal

granite outcropping

phenomenological elements Fig. 17

On a deeper level Dipoli is seen by the Pietilas as having its own body as part of a process of becoming something more than itself. The building’s façade is seen as having a skin to which the forest is permeable. Rather than using walls as barriers, Dipoli uses this skin to adapt itself to the context of the natural environment and evokes a sense of place.1 When one is within these spaces they are made aware of the forests’ influence and are brought closer to its special quali-ties. One might say that Dipoli is being used as a instrument to see these qualities which include the richness of materials, filtering of light and breadth of space. The phenomenological experi-ence however occurs at a level where the building and viewer become one through their rela-tionship. One cannot survive without the other therefore through the creation of that experience they are one. A simpler example of this is the blind man who depends on the walking stick as a means of information, without the stick there is simply no experience thus the stick through its users’ dependence is an extension of the user.2

1 Malcolm Quantrill, Reima Pietila: Architecture, Context and Modernism. Rizzoli International Publications Inc. New York, 1985, 562 M. Merleau-Ponty, “The Synthesis of One’s Own Body”, in Phenomenology of Perception, 1962, 152.

Fig. 18

It is interesting to point out that Raili Pietila is almost completely left out of works describing the work done by herself and her husband. They are both accomplished architects yet her contributions are accredited to her mostly through her husband as the primary figure in the relationship. Agrest argues that this exclusion is very demeaning and detrimental to the woman’s role. She states that in the past “that which is excluded, left out, is not really excluded but rather repressed”.1 It is interesting to hear Raili’s perspective on this issue since it may be a matter of perception which depends on the people involved rather than the judgment of an outsider who makes conclusions based on their assumptions of the relationship. During an interview done by Metropolismag.com Raili is asked about this relationship and how she felt about it.2

Her response is quite logical and seems to accept that given the context and time period this type of relationship worked well for the pair. However depending on one’s own perspective this scen-erio could be either a sign that the it worked for them or that this is female suppression and it has had impacts.

1 Diana I. Agrest, “Architecture from Without: Body, Logic, and Sex”, in Architecture from Without, 1993, 173.2 David Sokol, “Breaking the Modernist Mold”. Metropolismag.com. Posted April 24, 2008. http://www.metropolis-mag.com/story/20080424/breaking-the-modernist-mold. Accessed Nov. 20, 2009.

Fig. 19

[Sokol] In many texts I’ve read about your practice, authors focus almost entirely on Reima. I’m reminded of Denise Scott Brown and Bob Venturi. Was there a gender imbalance for you, and how would you describe the benefits and potential challenges of combining marriage and practice?

[Raili] It was quite natural that, because of his public role as a teacher and an active and often pro-vocative debater, Reima was the public figure of our team. As far as teamwork is concerned, we found out that two is the perfect number for a functioning design team.

Dipoli is designed to elicit certain types of experiences but leaves room for peoples’ own interprations. For example the Reima explains how the building emulates reptilean qualities through its relationship with the landscape.1 Dipoli ‘crawls’ over the landscape and people are housed within its ‘belly’. Messy sketches trying to imagine the interior spaces as they design, the architects compose a number of possible lines and contemplate which one looks best depending on how they compare to each other. They situate their own bodies within the space to imagine how it should be. Their’s is only two possible experiences and the goal of their approach is to to cultivate an environment where many different types of experiences can grow. Dipoli takes a user’s experience and rein-terprets it, showing the user something of their existence and of being human through sensory experience. However the amount of experi-ences possible is limitless since they employ the viewers’ own experience. Dipoli attempts to provide this type of phenomenological experience through its deep connection to the landscape and sensitivity of materials.

1 Malcolm Quantrill, Reima Pietila: Architecture, Context and Modernism. Rizzoli International Publications Inc. New York, 1985, 50.

Fig.20

TECHNIQUE

Technique is the product of a methodology guided by a theoretical position of architecture. The Pietilas were very aware of their non-conforming style and although they worked in the shadow of Alvar Aalto, they managed to find a unique methodology. The roots of the techniques they employed are in an affinity for the Finnish landscape through site specific works but some for-mal strategies can be traced back to ideas from Theo von Doesburg.1 These ideas of plasticity and modularity were transformed by the Pietilas into flexible membranes and a liberation of the functionalist grid.2 The sketch Figure 21 reveals some of that plasticity in the archtiect’s render-ing particularily through the usage of shading and densities within the sketch. When studies in the context of the time period, it becomes evident that the Pietilas developed a unique approach which was very different than their Modernist contemporaries.

1 Malcolm Quantrill, Reima Pietila: Architecture, Context and Modernism. Rizzoli International Publications Inc. New York, 1985, 112 Malcolm Quantrill, Reima Pietila: Architecture, Context and Modernism. Rizzoli International Publications Inc. New York, 1985, 30

Fig. 21

The Pietilas’ technique is a morphological process which employs phenomenological strategies resulting in a place-making and site-integrating approach to Dipoli. Many sketches reveal a very loose and open process which is more about finding the right interpretation than applying specific rules to a box or grid system. One thing to note is that the landscape is not usually drawn in. This was perhaps not necessary since the building embodied qualities of the landscape and as a result most of the sketches look more like a landscape rendering than a building. Likely the architects spent a lot of time on site familiarizing themselves with the environment so that when they drew sketches of their building, those observed qualities could find themselves into the sketches. Fig-ure 22 hows how loose and organic their sketches could get but also reveals areas of density and contrast within the form.

Fig. 22

Much of an architect’s time is spent resolving how different materials join up. So much time is spent resolving these details because here lies the key to the legibility and thus the success of a work of architecture.1 A cohesive detailing of joints, interaction of materials, and their composi-tion is defined by a particular technique which defines a logic and intention behind their outcomes. Rather than having clear story windows and uninterrupted datum lines in the façade of the building, the Pietilas employ a technique what Quantrill refers to as “the persistence of irregularity”.2 These diagrams illustrate how the façade is broken up with structured lines which slowly shift irregularly resulting in interrupted views such as one finds in a forest setting. Portraying this technique through a diagram such as this reveals how different view are also framed which gives the designers an op-portunity to comment on how it is to “be” in the forest. This intentional misaligning and vertical staggering of façade openings is part of the holistic technique the Pietilas have towards design as an integrated component of the landscape. As a result the building envelope camouflages and situates its interiors within the forest.

1 Kenneth Frampton, “Appel a L’ordre, the Case for the Tectonic”, in Kate Nesbitt, ed. Theorizing a New Agenda for Archi-tecture, 1996, 523


Fig. 23

Part of the Pietila’s technique in response to creating a sense of place is storytelling. The prefix Di from the name Dipoli can be translated as “second” while Poli is the name of the building which Dipoli replaced. Quantrill quotes Reima Pietila’s comments on his appreciation of a story which accompanied the old Poli and was a part of the place he has attempted to make the building a part of: “there are imaginary ways of approaching this imagery..the Stubble-Bearded Engineer whose dwelling was assumed to be in the…old Poli”.1 The Pietilas’ attempt to symbolically include this story resulted in the incorporation of a false door from the old Poli into the new building.

One of the biggest factors influencing the Pietilas’ technique was their phenomenological empha-sis on the intended experience of the building’s occupants. Many sketches including figure 24 include human figures to help envision scale but also to relate the design of the building directly to the experience of the user. It can also be evidence that the architects were envisioning them-selves in the space and considering how the scale, materiality, and tectonics of the building would affect the body. Many of the techniques which have been discussed are a result of this phenom-enological direction since they include sensitivity of place, awareness of the body’s relation to the building, and an experiential pproach to the inhabitation of the building.


Fig. 24

The Pietilas’ technique which has produced Dipoli is a process very sympathetic to the environment and the exterior blends very well into the environ-ment. It is the cave-like atmosphere within the building which raises some questions concerning the experience of the user. The apparent contrast of forms in seen the plan of the building (Fig. 25) where a structured building anchors an organic, reaching form, is less evident and perhaps not fully addressed by an experience of the interior. The transition between the two different types of building is a crucial moment within the build-ing where there is an opportunity to bring to the attention of the viewer the contrast and cor-responding notions of time and space between the two. It is not by accident that the Pietilas grounded their building on such a linear form. One intention could be to emphasize the freedom of the one half of the building through the re-strictions of the other. There is also opportunity to emphasize the architects’ critical viewpoints toward the production of architecture in the con-text of a waning Modernist movement. Whether or not this opportunity is fully utilized is hard to judge without actually observing the spaces first hand, especially since the architects have based their technique on phenomemology.

Fig. 25

This experiential approach is not only a phenomenological relationship for the body but also a technique used to give the building qualities beyond its physical form. Reima Pietila references many natural things when speaking about Dipoli. Some of these include granite outcropping, copper sculpture, cave, geomorphic-metamorphic forms, grotto, animal, skin ,membrane and others.1 These references explain the thought processes behind the techniques employed. For example the envelope of the building is referred to as the skin which gives the building a plastic and flexible relationship with its surroundings. It becomes a skin by allowing its wood structure to disappear into the forest and by grounding itself on a visible foundation of rock taken from the same hillside.


Through a very sensitive and integrated approach to landscape, Reima and Raili Pietila have com-bined phenomenology and Doesbergian plasti-cism to assemble a collection of spaces which communicate new ideas while maintaining the integrity and place-ness of its Finnish site. Di-poli’s form remains a contradictory arrangement however it follows a holistic approach which has maintained a persistent irregularity. Several levels of phenomenological experiences allow the building to camouflage its self, give a sensation of “grotto-ness” and even morph into a creature which has a crawling relationship to the hillside. It is the tectonics which finally show how the techniques of the architects have cumulated into a cohesive and integrated design. Together these elements have provided a design which has lasted its time period, its century and continues to serve its users as a university building.

Fig.26

Works Cited

Agrest, Diana I. “Architecture from Without: Body, Logic, and Sex”, in Architecture from Without, 1993, 173-175.

Banham, Reyner. “Space and Power”, in Age of Masters, 1975, 49-62.

Carlone, Micol. “The Development of Morphology: Concept in Raili and Remia Pietila’s Cuture and Works”, ptah. http://www.alvaraalto.fi/ptah/issue/9912/carlone.htm, accessed Sept. 22, 2009.

Frampton, Kenneth, “Appel a L’ordre, the Case for the Tectonic”, in Kate Nesbitt, ed. Theorizing a New Agenda for Architecture, 1996, 518-528.

Merleau-Ponty, M. “The Synthesis of One’s Own Body”, in Phenomenology of Perception, 1962, 148-53.

Norberg-Schulz, C. “the Phenomenon of Place”, in Kate Nesbitt, ed. Theorizing a New Agenda for Architecture, 1996.

Quantrill, Malcolm. Reima Pietila: Architecture, Context and Modernism. Rizzoli International Publications Inc. New York, 1985.

Sokol, David. “Breaking the Modernist Mold”. Metropolismag.com. Posted April 24, 2008. http://www.metropolismag.com/story/20080424/breaking-the-modernist-mold. Accessed Nov. 20, 2009.

van Doesburg, Theo. “Towards a Plastic Architecture”, in U. Conrads, ed., Programs and Manifes-tos on 20th-century Architecture, 1970, 78-80.

Vidler, A. “The Building in Pain: The Body and Architecture in Post-Modern Culture,” in AA Files 19, 284-89.

Woods, Lebbeus. “Anarchitecture: Architecture is a Political Act”, Anarchitecture, AD Monograph 22, 1992, 8-18.

All images used are from Quantrill, Malcolm. Reima Pietila: Architecture, Context and Modernism. Rizzoli International Publications Inc. New York, 1985.

dipoli - wordpress.com...1 c. norberg-schulz, “the phenomenon of place”, in kate nesbitt, ed....

Documents