Content uploaded by Vilius Balčiūnas
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Vilius Balčiūnas on Aug 28, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
RETHINKING
NORTH QUARTER
AS A
SOCIO-SPATIAL
EXPERIMENT
ON TRANSITIONING
TOWARDS
POST-CAPITALIST
FUTURE
< Radical imagination of the future >
Vilius Balčiūnas
< MASTERS DISSERTATION >
RETHINKING NORTH QUARTER AS A
SOCIO-SPATIAL EXPERIMENT ON TRANSITIONING
TOWARDS POST-CAPITALIST FUTURE
Radical imagination of the future
Vilius Balčiūnas
REFLECTION PAPER
KU Leuven, Brussels
2019-2020
MAIB42 “ENVISIONING THE ARCHITECTURE(S) OF THE URBAN COMMONS” STUDIO 2020
Coordinators: Burak Pak and Hulya Ertas
This thesis is licensed under the Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0
International Creative Commons license (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0).
< PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK >
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to give special thanks to the
supervisors of this project - Burak Pak and
Hulya Ertas, for their continued support in
this endeavour. They continued to motivate
and advise even given the circumstances of
2020.
< PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK >
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION 9
Motivations 12
Aims 19
Research Questions 19
Methods 19
< THEORY STUDY > STUDY OF FUTURE THOUGHT 21
Structures / Systems / Networks 22
Commons 25
Radical Imagination 28
Alternative Practices 29
Humans and Other Users 30
Post-Capitalism 32
Convergence of Theories 36
< CASE STUDY > REMEMBERING THE FUTURE 39
New Babylon 40
Archigram 44
Spatial City 48
No-Stop City 52
TAKEAWAYS 57
< SITE ANALYSIS > NORTH QUARTER 59
< URBAN STRATEGY > SOCIO-SPATIAL IMAGINATION STRATEGY 75
Future History 76
Companion Species 78
Conception of Spaces 80
Socio-spatial Units 82
Ministries 84
Feedback Loops 86
Autopoiesis 88
< THE VISION > 6 Explorations 91
< Exploration #1 > MASTERPLAN 92
< Exploration #2 > CREATION MINISTRY 94
< Exploration #3 > CARE MINISTRY 96
< Exploration #4 > TECH MINISTRY 98
< Exploration #5 > KNOWLEDGE MINISTRY 100
< Exploration #6 > META-COMMONALITY INFRASTRUCTURE 102
CONCLUSION 109
APPENDIX 113
REFERENCES 114
LIST OF EXTERNAL FIGURES 116
< PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK > INTRODUCTION
<11>
< PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK >
We are living in a time of a rising potential
for radical political, social and economic
shifts. Natural and man-made catastrophes
are inciting eruptions of protests, strikes,
resistances. Deterioration of Earth’s
climate is taking youth to the streets.
Political climate seems to be lingering
in a territory of the radical right and
kakistocracy, while the left is stagnating
in bureaucratic apparatuses or falling back
to “folk-political”1 (Srnicek, N., Williams,
A., 2015) actions. Meanwhile, technological
advancements and rapid speeds of capitalism
are creating such complexities that the
systems that are being put in place and into
action are becoming ungraspable. Accidental
megastructures, that are beyond current
society’s capabilities to comprehend, are
emerging. All these developments in our
current situation are creating conditions
for a reaction from the population and might
be indicating a certain swing towards a
potential change in political, technological,
social, economic and ecological climates.
What does the future hold for us? Or from
a more visual speculative perspective, what
could the future look like?
Popular media, for the past decades, has
been riddled with dystopian imaginaries of
the future. Apocalyptic scenarios, the rise
of inequalities, severe class separations
have become a leitmotif of fiction. And to
no surprise. Current narratives of reality
are plagued by inequality, uncertainty, and
fear of what is to come. The wage gap is on the
rise, more and more people are living salary
to salary without any fallback structure for
unexpected circumstances. In the meanwhile,
the one-percenters are continuing to break
the records of accumulated wealth seemingly
every year. Capitalism has enabled this
disproportionate distribution of wealth.
And no matter how loud the voices of the
majority are crying for help and shouting
for change, the disparity continues. As Nick
Srnicek and Alex Williams have written:
< 1 > Folk-political actions are generally
reactionary in nature, possessing qualities
of temporal immediacy, preferring small-scale
over structured approaches, usually incapable
of achieving significant change. (Srnicek, N.,
Williams, A., 2015)
“Neoliberalism has held sway for decades,
and social democracy exists largely as an
object of nostalgia. As crises gather force
and speed, politics withers and retreats.
In this paralysis of the political imaginary,
the future has been cancelled.” (Srnicek,
N., Williams, A., 2015)
Furthermore, capitalism has alienated those
voices and reduced their ability to find
common grounds. So it really is not surprising
that the imaginations of alternatives
and better futures have been forgotten.
Complexity has made the picture of today
and even more the future foggy and unclear,
capitalism and neoliberalism have disabled
the collective imagination of the many, and
urgency narratives, such as anthropocene and
capitalocene, have populated our thoughts.
Could we tackle these issues and resume the
radical imaginations of the future? I would
argue that we have to because otherwise, the
other option is to remain in the dystopian
imaginaries of uncertain futures. And thus,
the three aforementioned issues are the
core motivations for this project.
< INTRODUCTION >
<12> <13>< INTRODUCTION >
Motivations
(How) do we address the complexity
and the future?
It is important to start with the question of
complexity. Technological advancements and
rapid speeds of capitalism have created, and
are continuing to create, such complexities
that the systems that are being put in place
and into action are becoming ungraspable.
Accidental megastructures, that are
beyond current society’s capabilities to
comprehend, are emerging. In the face of
these exponential complexities, we have to
take a stance. As written by Nick Srnicek
and Alex Williams in their book “Inventing
the future. Postcapitalism and a world
without work”:
“If complexity presently outstrips
humanity’s capacities to think and control,
there are two options: one is to reduce
complexity down to a human scale; the
other is to expand humanity’s capacities.
We endorse the latter position” (Srnicek,
N., Williams, A., 2015).
To take a stance of expanding humanity’s
capacities to tackle complexities requires
some form of clarity. Benjamin H. Bratton
takes on a systematic method adapted from
computer sciences, which tackles systems,
automation and interactions.
Automation, the autonomy of systems, cloud
infrastructure, internet of things, 4th
industrial revolution. All of this innovation
is and will be by design intertwined with
our daily lives and needs, however, the
totality of all the systems that surround
us is proving to be too intricate to grasp.
We are creating vast infrastructural and
industrial landscapes that are becoming
human exclusion zones, softwares and
systems that are becoming tools of governing
(intentional or unintentional). It might
seem that this complexity is a mish-mash
of different software and hardware systems
acting independently, however, Benjamin
H. Bratton (2015) proposes that we should
see these systems as a coherent whole -
“The Stack”, which is a multilayered
“diagrammatic image” that is, as he calls
it, an “accidental megastructure” (Bratton,
B. H., 2015). It is “a way that we might map
political geography, but also for how we
understand the technologies that are making
that geography. <...> These technologies
align, layer by layer, into something like a
vast, if also incomplete, pervasive if also
irregular, software and hardware Stack.”
(Bratton, B. H., 2015). “The Stack” is a
model which is intended to allow us to see the
multiplicity of different planetary-scale
computing systems as a coherent whole. “The
Stack” considers and separates the coherent
whole into six layers: Earth, Cloud, City,
Address, Interface, and User. This complex
structure, according to Bratton is an
accidental megastructure, which was created
by separately developing technologies which
managed to form a complex network, a network
within the stack and between the stacks.
The details of the stack theory and its
layers are expansive in their own right,
this project does not address the stack
and its components directly, but adapts its
systemic approach to design. This systemic
approach helps to distil the complex reality
into tangible entities and allows us to
better understand the interactions between
them.
To add to the question of complexity I
have to now acknowledge one of the core
subjects of the project, which is commons.
As a topic, commons will be investigated
in more detail further on, however, the
question “what are commons?” entails an
important complexity of its own. Commons
ordinarily refer to resources (or goods)
which are held in common. However, there
is no clear answer to the question “what
actually are commons?”. Multiple taxonomies
are devised to categorise different types of
Stack theory diagram.
From “The Stack. On Software and Sovereignty.“ by
Bejamin H. Bratton. 2015
< INTRODUCTION >
commons, ranging from material (for example
water) to immaterial goods (wor example
knowledge). Massimo de Angelis argues that
“physical versus immaterial (knowledge)
split offers the first base for designing
open-ended lists.” (De Angelis, M., 2017).
And this proves to be inherently true. Using
taxonomies and categories to classify what
is common is impossible as those categories
and taxonomies can become infinitely complex
and eclectic producing infinite lists of
common goods (De Angelis, M., 2017). To
approach this complex nature of commons a
different perspective is needed. Massimo de
Angelis (2017) proposes to see commons not
only as goods or resources but primarily as
systems. This approach will be investigated
and adapted further on.
<14> <15>
(How) do we rise from the collapse
of collective imagination?
The second core motivation for the project is
stemming from the collapse of the collective
imagination. This topic has been directly or
indirectly investigated by such theorists
as Nick Srnicek, Alex Williams, Massimo de
Angelis, Alex Hasnabish and Max Haiven. All
of them, at least to some extent, attribute
this collapse to capitalism. Furthermore,
radical imaginations are often dismissed as
the utopian impulse is seen as naive and
futile, especially in the academic world
(Srnicek, N., Williams, A., 2015). And
thus, due to decades of dismissal, grand
imaginations of the future have been put on the
back burner and forgotten. This abandonment
of radical imagination coincides with two
important factors, the capitalist mantra
stating that “there is no alternative” and
reduction of the political left to minor
folk political actions “tinkering at the
edges of society.” (Srnicek, N., Williams,
A., 2015). However, a systemic critique of
capitalism perseveres.
The critical narrative towards capitalist
ideology has been carried out through several
past decades. In the ‘50s an economic concept
of capitalism as creative destruction was
popularised by Austrian political economist
Joseph Schumpeter, it originated from
a Marxist ideology where capitalism’s
creativity and its self-destructiveness are
emphasized. Creative destruction refers to
capitalism’s tendency to break and eradicate
existing systems, economic structures or
ways of doing things from within in favour
of creating new “innovative” systems,
economic structures and ways of doing
things. This process is highly relevant to
this day when actions driven by capitalist
incentives are destroying the biosphere,
e.g. deforestation for higher agricultural
production capacity which is negatively
affecting natural habitats and ecosystems,
while promising and attempting to create
innovations under the guise of progress,
essentially “capital is in the business of
destroying life with a plan of creating
new life in the lab, artificial life more
compatible with the needs of accumulation.”
(De Angelis, M., 2017). This creative
destruction that capitalism produces applies
to the collective imagination as well,
replacing imaginations of alternatives with
empty promises of prosperity and financial
wealth if one just follows the mechanisms
of the capitalist machine.
Max Haiven wrote extensively about the
relation of the capitalist financial system
and the imagination. He attributes the
financial crisis of 2008-09 to the crisis
of imagination. According to Haiven (2010)
“(f)inance is a means by which capital
develops an imagination of the future”,
enforcing the assumption that capitalism
through creative destruction of the radical
and collective imagination of alternative
futures replaces it with its own imagination
of the future, which is compatible with the
accumulation of surplus profits. Haiven goes
as far as connecting to Karl Marx’s theory
of “commodity fetishism” which he describes
as: “an aspect of capital’s reliance on
and colonization of imagination: the
accumulation cycle survives when workers
are unable to imagine their material reality
as the product of their own labour, as a
solidification of their social cooperative
potential, and instead ascribe agency to the
commodified objects themselves.” (Haiven,
M., 2010). Therefore, capitalism seizes
the future and the collective imagination,
rendering the society incapable of imagining
different futures and repeating that “there
is no alternative”.
As a result of this seizure, the political
left is left without the radical ambitions
for the future and more often than not,
falls back to folk political actions.
Nick Srnicek and Alex Williams (2015)
describe folk politics as a “collective and
historically constructed political common
sense that has become out of joint with the
actual mechanisms of power”. Illustrated
with such examples as the Occupy movement,
inner workings of folk political action,
show that a great deal of effort and energy
is being used for very limited outcomes.
Inherently, folk politics is a reactionary
force, which emphasizes temporality over
strategic processes and goals. To evade
this stagnation it is imperative to regain
agency in collective radical imagination.
In this context, it is also important to
mention capitalist tendencies to alienate.
Given that the nature of collective
imagination is not a solitary action,
capitalism has played a significant role
with its alienation processes. Faced with
capitalist class separations, modes of
production, communities and individuals
enter an oppressed state of alienation.
Karl Marx developed the theory of
alienation, which explains how capitalism
estranges people from their “species-
essence” (“Gattungswesen”), which is, to
put it roughly, a fundamental human need
to form connections with others and with
society. The basis of the explanation is how
capitalist modes of production distance the
worker from the results of his/hers labour.
Furthermore, capitalism also alienates
the worker from other workers through the
institution of a competitive labour-market,
which inhibits collective socio-economic
activity. And so the concept of collectivity
is derogated through class separations and
labour frameworks, by depriving individuals
of their “species-essence”.
The latter point is also relevant in
evermore increasing entanglement of human
psychology and politics in the contemporary
world. The illusion of the two realms
of psychology, which is/was considered
private and individual, and politics,
which is/was public, is disappearing. This
condition, according to philosopher Eik
Hermann, results in increasing apathy of
today’s societies, and therefore directly
connects this entanglement to the collapse
of the collective imagination. He claims
that there is an immense problem if we are
having trouble imagining an alternative to
the current system in which we are becoming
more and more disabled.
Following this reasoning, it is fair to say,
that in order to challenge the capitalist
system, the concept of collective imagination
is essential and radical imagination is what
might bring us over the breaking point.
< INTRODUCTION > < INTRODUCTION >
< PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK >
<16> < INTRODUCTION >
(How) do we address the rise of
temporalities of urgencies, the
“anthropomeme” and posthuman
condition?
The last, but not the least, motivation is
stemming from a question of “through what
narrative do we address the present - future
relation?” Recently the academic field and
even popular media hve become saturated with
neologisms addressing the present condition.
Anthropocene, Capitalocene, Chthulucene,
Plasticene etc. All of them are implying
that we are living in a new era. In the case
of anthropocene, it is a proposed geological
epoch in which humans have a significant
impact on earth’s geology and ecosystems,
where “humans are the dominant force shaping
the planet” (Young, L. 2019). Plasticine,
for example, implies that we live in a
Plastic Era, where all earth’s ecosystems
are saturated with plastic particles. It is
easy to see the tendency, take a current
urgent issue, apply the ending -cene and
you get a new name for a theoretical
narrative to describe the present condition.
Contemporary philosopher Rosi Braidotti
collectively called these narratives the
“anthropomeme”. Not to diminish the issues
that they are addressing, but to stress
that these are temporal urgencies, and a
more radical perspective is needed:
“Einstein taught us long ago that we cannot
solve our problems with the same thinking
we used when we created them. New
notions and terms are needed to address
the constituencies and configurations of
the present and to map future directions.”
(Braidotti, R., 2017).
Hence, Braidotti advocates for exploration of
posthuman predicament, which does not exclude
anthropocene, but surpasses it. Posthuman
condition is at the convergence of both
post-humanism and post-anthropocentrism. It
entails a critique of human exceptionalism
and human as a ‘universal measure of all
things’ (Braidotti, R., 2017). It is an
important narrative for radical imaginations
of the future if we consider the emergence
of new non-biological species and new forms
of interspecies relations. The posthuman
subject is not limited to biology, it also
assumes technology into its totality in
an equal manner. Thus posthuman condition
recognises, that processes of thought and
formation of knowledge are not limited to
the human subject, but to a multitude of
living and technological species. This
radical approach in investigating the
subject of the future is pivotal in sparking
imaginations of the future. As Braidotti
herself puts it:
“We need more conceptual creativity
– a renewed trust in the cognitive and
political importance of the imagination.”
(Braidotti, R., 2017)
The motivations described before positions
this research in a speculative realm.
Refraining from attempting to predict the
future, the goal is to speculate and imagine.
With core motivations to imagine a radically
different future set out, objectives of
this dissertation can be outlined in a form
of aims, research questions and methods.
<19>
< PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK >
< INTRODUCTION >
Motivations
(How) do we address the complexity and the
future?
(How) do we rise from the collapse of
collective imagination?
(How) do we address the rise of temporalities
of urgencies, the “anthropomeme” and
posthuman condition?
Aims
Imagine spaces of the post-capitalist
future.
Explore potentialities of the commons in a
post-capitalist world.
Imagine appropriations of existing
architectures with posthuman and commons
systems based approach.
Imagine new forms of architecture that could
emerge in commons systems based society.
Investigate new forms of socio-spatial
relations.
Research questions
What is the role architecture in shaping
collective and radical forms of imagination?
How can commons systems approach be
integrated in spatial design?
How can a system theory based approach
be implemented in the imagination of an
alternative future?
What socio-spatial impacts will posthuman
condition have?
How can emergent commoning practices impact
the future of socio-spatial arrangements?
What potential strategies can be implemented
to rethink North District as post-capitalist
commons?
Methods
Analysis of theoretical studies dealing with
the emergence of post-capitalist futures.
Formation of theoretical framework for
radical imagination of an alternative
future.
Case study of radical imagination projects.
Analysis of current site condition of North
Quarter.
Analysis of Manhattan project.
Adaptation of design methodologies
consistent with theoretical narrative to
imagine an alternative future.
I will be focusing on Brussels North Quarter
as a site for the project, due to the
relevance of the history of the Manhattan
project, geopolitical background and its
urban positioning as one of the core nodes
of connectivity in Brussels. I see the site
as a vessel for spatial experimentation in
imagining the alternative future, rather
than a site with its inherent problems which
need a solution, accordingly I will not be
focusing on site-specific problem solution,
however, certain qualities (positive and
negative) will be taken into account albeit
not as a core subject.
< PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK > STUDY OF FUTURE THOUGHT
< THEORY STUDY >
/// The theoretical framework is the
substance of this dissertation. With the
topics and objectives outlined in the
introduction, I split the theoretical study
into 6 distinct directions. In response to
the first motivation - “(How) do we address
the complexity and the future?” I look into
Social structures, Systems, and Networks,
and Commons. With regards to the second
motivation - “(How) do we rise from the
collapse of collective imagination?” I
study Radical imagination and Alternative
practices. Finally, in response to the
last motivation - “(How) do we address the
rise of temporalities of urgencies, the
“anthropomeme” and posthuman condition?” I
look into Humans and other users, and Post-
capitalism.
<22> <23>< THEORY STUDY > < THEORY STUDY >
Structures / Systems /
Networks
Social structures
Social structures and hierarchies are an
important part of this discussion. Many
folk political actions are often conducted
by groups which fly under the flag of
structurelessness, advertising rejection of
hierarchies in decision-making processes.
However, the idea of structurelessness has
been completely discredited by American
political scientist Jo Freeman (1972) in
“The Tyranny of Structurelessness”. Freeman
argues that a formation of structures within
any group is inevitable and consequently a
truly structureless group does not exist.
In other words, any form of relations and
interactions lead to the formation of
certain structures, they might be flexible,
able to adapt, equally empowering, but they
are still structures. These structures can
be formal, openly disclosed, or informal,
hidden by the true power that resides
within the group. According to Freeman, the
informal structure is what enables elitism,
where a small portion of the group takes
absolute control of the whole. If we want
to eradicate concentrations of power and
undisclosed mechanisms of rule, we have to
strive for systems that promote or even
impose the acknowledgement of structures
within any groups, and not fall under the
false pretence of structurelessness as
liberation or emancipation from oppressive
powers.
Systems theory
Understanding of systems can bring forth
clarity in an otherwise complex reality.
However, the system within itself is a
very broad concept, commonly described as
a certain set of interacting elements that
work together and form a unified network.
A general understanding of systems was put
forth by Austrian biologist Ludwig von
Bertalanffy (“System theory,” 2020). In the
mid 20th century he introduced the general
systems theory in which he outlined universal
principles and concepts that apply to all
systems. This universal applicability is
what allowed systems theory to lodge itself
in many other theories. Subsequently, this
broad application led to a discipline of
system inquiry, in which the whole world is
seen as a system, not only that, but numerous
concepts were developed in many different
fields. Thus I will try to outline several
general key concepts, most applicable for
this research focusing on the spatiality of
systems, internal mechanisms and external
relations.
Boundaries. An integral part of any system.
Bertalanffy distinguishes two types of
boundaries - spatial and dynamic, however,
he implies that all boundaries are dynamic.
That means that even if a system possesses
spatial qualities, they cannot be understood
as permanently fixed. These boundaries
are what separates the system from its
environment, signifying the limitations of
its internal processes.
Microsystem, mesosystem, exosystem,
macrosystem. This classification of systems
was developed by American psychologist
Urie Bronfenbrenner (2009) as part of his
ecological systems theory, which focuses
on the interactions between environments
and development of children. Although
the classification focuses primarily on
psychology, it gives a valuable understanding
of the fractal nature of systems and their
spatiality. Microsystem refers to the
immediate environment, mesosystem is a
system of microsystems, exosystem - the
indirect environment, macrosystem is the
broadest system (e.g. value system).
Stocks and Flows. Stocks and flows are at
the basis of system dynamics. Stocks are the
goods accumulated over time. Flows indicate
how stocks are changing over time.
Feedback loop. In general terms, it is the
ability of a system to respond to a reaction
towards its output. It is a process through
which the system is able to self-correct
and self-regulate its internal processes.
Homeostasis. It is the ability of the
system to maintain relative stability,
an equilibrium, between its elements, as
well as the ability to resist external
disruptions.
Autopoiesis. It is the system’s ability
to regenerate and maintain itself through
a reproduction of its own elements and
interactions. Essentially it is a self-
sufficiency quality of a system that is
able to respond to contingencies through
producing the necessary features (Žižek,
S., 2012). The term originates in biology
where it refers to the ability of cells to
maintain its structure through components
which are produced through reaction to
external elements (“Autopoiesis”, 2020).
BOUNDARIES
AUTOPOIESIS
HOMEAOSTASIS
FEEDBACK LOOP
STOCKS AND FLOWS
SYSTEM SCALES
E
x
o
s
y
s
t
e
m
M
a
c
r
o
s
y
s
t
e
m
M
e
s
o
s
y
s
t
e
m
M
i
c
r
o
s
y
s
t
e
m
Action
Feedback
<24> <25>< THEORY STUDY > < THEORY STUDY >
Networks
In this dissertation two perspectives
on networks are important. Firstly,
the perspective of the increasing
interconnectivity of today’s’ society,
secondly, a fundamental nature of
interconnectivity between all existing
elements. These two perspectives present
different consequences which have to be
taken into account.
Today we are seeing an ever-increasing
emergence of connectivity networks.
Digital connectivity is abundant in the
form of social networks, like Facebook,
Twitter, Reddit, and spatial networks,
like different map platforms (e.g. Google
maps) and geographic information systems
(GIS), all of which connect a vast array
of individual elements, data points,
information inputs. This plethora of
connectivity platforms is changing both
the number of interactions that one element
has, but also their nature, shifting the
understanding of space as a purely physical
concept to a combination of physical and
digital. Conventional understandings of
distance in three-dimensional space are
getting warped and transformed to the
point where a subject at the other end
of the world is closer than someone or
something few meters away. Accordingly, it
seems that it should be possible to be/
feel, willingly or unwillingly, distant
from your immediate surroundings. If not
for the pervasiveness of the networks in
most basic daily activities. Kazys Varnelis
and Anne Friedberg (2008) conceptualize
the network as a “socio-spatial model”,
in consideration of tendencies mentioned
above. They conclude that the future will
see an emergence of new modes of disconnect
from the abundant networks as loneliness
will be more longed for than connections.
I argue that it is important to take into
account this tendency of disconnect and not
to discard it to the fringes of society.
The second perspective is one of Actor-
Network Theory (ANT). Developed in the
late 20th century by french sociologists
Bruno Latour (2005) and Michel Callon
(among others), ANT explores an
alternative framework for understanding
interrelations between different actors
without establishing an asymmetry between
human and non-human actors (“Actor-Network
Theory”, 2020). It considers the constantly
shifting networks of interactions between
a heterogeneous multitude of actors. The
notion that entities that are human and non-
human should be considered in equal terms
is called generalized symmetry. Thus, ANT
is an appropriate perspective in posthuman
condition, legitimizing interactions and
relations of the posthuman condition.
Commons
Broad perspective upon commons and their
complex nature was outlined in the
introduction. Further investigation will
be focused in two directions. Firstly,
understanding the relation between commons
and urban environment and looking into
conceptualisations of the common city.
Secondly, fixating on commons as systems to
achieve an understanding of their complex
nature and mechanisms of such systems.
Common city
Cities are rapidly gaining importance
socially, economically and geopolitically.
According to a United Nations report from
2018 (“United Nations”, 2019), 68% of the
world’s population will be living in urban
areas by 2050. This trend is unlikely to
decrease. With concentrated populations,
cities might overtake the geopolitical
significance of their representative
states. If we consider this trend alongside
planetary-scale computing implications,
which are extensively investigated by
Benjamin H. Bratton, namely platforms which
transgress current state borders and imply
their own forms of sovereignty, the concept
of Westphalian (state) sovereignty loses its
significance and grounds. The city becomes
the focal point of geopolitical discussion.
With the importance of the city outlined
it is imperative to investigate it in the
context of commons. Can the Common City
exist? Belgian philosopher Lieven De Cauter
argues that in sedentary modern societies
the common is an illusion and a nonplace.
This is especially true in cities with
segregated neighbourhoods which turn into
safe comfort zones and allow individuals
to remain in their own “halted identity”,
“together with its own kind” (Gielen,
2015). An essential part of commons is the
actions of commoning, interactions between
individuals and/or collectivities. The
concept of the common, as being put forth here
(differently that understanding of common
as just a resource), is inherently active
in nature, requiring those interactions
and dialogues. Sociologist Pascal Gielen
brilliantly explains the essence of the
common city:
“The common city exists only by the grace
of the unpredictable performances in
which a dissonant space of a multitude
of voices and counter voices emerges.
<..> Because the common city is only
becoming common in ongoing, dissenting
singular performances of the common.”
(Gielen, 2015).
Furthermore, the civic agency of the common
is of significant importance within the
context of the city. It has to act in
response to state and market, both of which
actively engage in the enclosure of the
common. The state occupies what is common
through processes of nationalization,
and the market encloses commons through
privatization. The emergence of a robust
civic agency of the common, which would be
able to counteract the impacts of state and
market, could be facilitated through strong
commons systems networks, which empowers
the interactions and dialogues.
<26> <27>< THEORY STUDY > < THEORY STUDY >
Commons systems
Understanding of commons as systems could
be greatly attributed to Massimo De Angelis,
author of the book “Omnia Sunt Communia” in
which he explains in detail the approach
to commons as systems. Advocating for a
radical transformation of political and
social systems he proposes commons as
alternatives to capitalism in which new
forms of social cooperation emerge forming
networks and systemic patterns and “develop
multicultures of horizontality” (De Angelis,
M., 2017). Subjects of the commons systems,
the commoners, are viewed as systemic
entities - socialised communities. They are
one element of the core triad of commons
systems, the other two being common goods
and the act of commoning.
The first element of commons systems
commonwealth or commons (in a sense of
common goods). It refers to a broad range
of both material and immaterial resources,
for example, food, tools, houses, IT
networks, skills, knowledge and so on. So it
encompasses not only raw resources but also
a complex variety of produced matter and
accumulated knowledge. For those resources
to be considered as common goods, there has
to be a claim made over those resources by
a plurality of commoners. So, as De Angelis
(2017) claims, there is a “twofold character
of common goods”, first one (objective)
being the prerequisite that the good in
question is of “use value” to the plurality,
the second (subjective), the prerequisite
that the plurality claims ownership of the
good in question by forming “relational
values”, “values that select the ‘goods and
bads’ of social action”. According to De
Angelis, this twofold character is the key
to understanding commons as social systems.
The second element is the community. As
explained before, the plurality of commoners,
who claim and sustain ownership of common
goods and share a pool of commonwealth.
This element imposes a scale factor to
the system of commons, although does not
indicate a specific size. In the face of
communication technologies, a community
does not necessarily have to be tied down
to a singular location. A community is
based on a cluster of commoners and their
interrelations.
The third element is the act of commoning.
De Angelis describes it as a type of
“social doing (social labour)”. It is a
broad set of actions concerning production
and distribution of commons, their
governance, based on the values of their
reproduction, as well as the reproduction
of social relations in between commoners
or communities. Commoning can also traverse
several commons systems and in turn, create
a complex network and patterns of commons
systems of various scales, an action which
De Angelis calls “boundary commoning”.
The first element, commons, and the third
element, commoning, forms the dynamics
structure of the system which is not
unlike the concept of stocks and flows. In
the perspective of this concept, commons
represent the stocks, while commoning,
considered as a flow, enables the reproduction
and transformation of said commons and
social relations. This describes the inner
mechanics of the commons system, however,
there are other forms of relations, the
ones happening in between systems.
As mentioned before, boundary commoning
is a form of inter-system relation. It is
considered as a social force that produces
structural coupling between systems and
sustains commons ecologies. Meaning that
these interactions produced by boundary
commoning are able to form complex bonds in
between different systems forming operational
networks and not only distributing and
sharing commons, material or immaterial.
Referencing biology, De Angelis implies
two main directions of these inter-system
relations: symbiosis and meta-commonality.
Symbiosis manifests with what could be
described as a fusion of the borders of
two systems into one while retaining their
own forms of identity and autonomy. Meta-
commonality, on the other hand, retains
borders of individual systems, and forms
strong bonds through repeating structural
coupling, thus creating a system between
two or more individual commons systems.
The proposed structure of commons systems
implies their multitude. Since commoners
are held as an integral part of such a
system, it is important to understand the
relation between the subject and the system.
Clarification is needed as it might be
understood that a particular subject (e.g.
a person) belongs to one system exclusively.
This would be a wrong assumption. De Angelis
explains that a particular subject is able
to pass through several systems. This
movement of the subject in time through
different commons systems is essential in
understanding the permeability of such
systems. This movement enables the formation
of multiscalar networks out of such systems.
SYMBIOTIC SYSTEMS
COMMONS SYSTEM
PATH THROUGH THE COMMONS
META-COMMONALITY SYSTEMS
Community of
Commoners
Common
Goods
ACT OF
Commoning
<28> <29>< THEORY STUDY > < THEORY STUDY >
Radical imagination
In this section, I elaborate on the concept
of radical imagination as it has several
different interpretations in relation to
the collective and individual understanding
of the term. Greek-French philosopher
Cornelius Castoriadis theorised extensively
the concepts of imagination. Castoriadis
introduces a twofold understanding of
imagination stemming from Aristotelean
understandings of phantasia. Firstly, the
simple understanding of imagination as
imitative, reproductive, or combinatory
imagination, he terms “second imagination”,
which, according to Castoriadis, is what
now is broadly understood as imagination.
Secondly, the “prime imagination” is what has
been overlooked, the imagination which goes
ahead of any thought, without which thought
is impossible. This is what corresponds to
what Castoriadis calls radical imagination,
an imagination that “makes it possible for
any being-for-itself (including humans) to
create for itself an own [or proper] world
(eine Eigenwelt) ‘within’ which it also
posits itself.” (Castoriadis, C., 1994).
The point that is made here, that radical
imagination is a faculty possessed by “any
being-for-itself”, not only humans, is
important for the narrative of the posthuman
condition. However, in his writings, this
form of imagination is solely understood
as the quality of a singular individual.
The collective agency of imagination,
Castoriadis attributes to the “social
imaginary institution” which he describes
as a “socially sanctioned, symbolic network
in which a functional component and an
imaginary component are combined in variable
proportions and relations.” (Castoriadis,
C., 1975). Although the social imaginary
is considered a collective construct of
radical imagination, social imaginary is
bound by significations (symbols and myths)
which represent the present and the past of
any given society and define what is ‘real’
(Thompson, B., 1984). Therefore Castoriadis’
interpretations of the imagination do not
fully represent the intended narrative of
radical imagination for this dissertation.
Collective imagination in this dissertation
is understood in quite a literal sense,
implying that it is not only the individuals
who possess the ability to imagine but
collectivities as well. While radical
imagination is mostly seen as a subset of
the former. This interpretation is supported
by the writings of Canadian sociologist
Max Haiven where he argues that radical
imagination is not solely a personal act,
but more of an act of multiple individuals,
a collective action. Haiven explains that
radical imagination emerges from a conflict
between the values of an individual and the
values imposed upon it as well as from the
collective process of creating alternatives
and becomes their driving force. This
imagination of alternatives for Haiven
becomes the “surface level” definition of
radical imagination: “the ability to imagine
the world, life and social institutions not
as they are but as they might otherwise be”
(Haiven, M., Khasnabish, A., 2014). Yet, it
is not only an act of thinking differently
but also acting differently in a collective
fashion.
This investigation of imagination is
important because it outlines a significant
prerequisite of radical imagination.
Imagining an alternative is not where radical
imagination ends, it is where it begins.
Acting differently is just as important,
in other words, radical imagination is
what enables and drives social movements.
Thus, envisioning those processes of
acting differently towards alternatives
is just as important as envisioning the
goal. Furthermore, this can be seen as a
continuous and never-ending process in a
future which is in constant flux.
Alternative practices
In this section, I will look into the modus
operandi of building the alternative future.
First, from a societal change perspective
through counter-hegemonic approach, and then
from the actual design perspective through
meta-design approach and mass customization
implications.
Counter-hegemonic approach
Hegemony is related to the problem put
forth by Freeman (1970) which stems from
undisclosed structures in groups producing
elites, but it can also be openly disclosed
form of oppressive dominance of a small
group over the majority. In either case, it
creates a disparity between the interests
of the ones in power and the ones under
their control. As an answer, a counter-
hegemonic approach emanates from positions
of vulnerability of those that are oppressed,
in confrontation with the current situation.
According to Srnicek and Williams (2015)
“it is an attempt to install a new common
sense”. They further argue that it is
scalable, both spatially and time-wise,
as well as able to tackle complexity and
abstractions. Owen Worth in “Rethinking
Hegemony” (2015) suggests that a counter-
hegemonic approach can be instrumental in
constructing a variety of social alternatives
as opposition to neoliberalism. The ability
of a counter-hegemonic approach to forge
alternatives can be closely related to
radical imagination providing a tactical
approach to transformation.
Meta-design
In a counter-hegemonic context, meta-
design can be a viable approach towards the
creation of the alternative infrastructure
of the built and designed environment that
does not project hegemonic structures.
Meta-design as a conceptual framework
values collaborative methods over those
of enforcement. As a design approach, it
is focused on flexibility and evolution as
an answer to the problem that the future
cannot be completely predicted. From this
notion, three requirements for the design of
socio-technical environments are presented:
flexibility and ability to evolve; ability
to be transformed by the user; ability
to sustain such evolution (Fischer, G.,
Giaccardi, E., 2004). According to Gerard
Fischer and Elisa Giaccardi (2004), the
ability of the design to be transformed
by the user is a source for new knowledge
and insight. Meta-design enables bottom-up
approaches by providing required tools and
thus transferring the control to the user,
instead of designing solutions meta-design
offers spaces for those solutions. As for
larger systems, “Seeding, Evolutionary
Growth, and Reseeding” (SER) model (Fischer,
G., Giaccardi, E., 2004) can be applied. It
is a design model for evolving systems that
considers users as an essential part of the
process. Seeding is the initial process of
design which is a collaborative approach
between the developer (designer) and the
user. Evolutionary growth is the actual use
cycle during which the user is able to make
alterations to the system according to the
needs and problems that emerge. Reseeding
comes into play when the system is no longer
capable of sustaining evolutionary growth
processes, it is here where the developer
(designer) steps in again. These cycles are
able to produce knowledge which can be used
in the reseeding of the system or elsewhere.
Although Fischer and Giaccardi explain this
model in terms of software systems, the
abstract nature of the model allows its
application in other design fields. It also
closely relates to the already discussed
system theory and the production and
reproduction cycles.
<30> <31>< THEORY STUDY > < THEORY STUDY >
Humans and Other Users
In the post-anthropocentric approach,
it is imperative to navigate through
conceptualisations of the emergent multitude
of these users (actors). Technological
developments of the past decades have
already blurred the lines between the human
and the technological. Especially in the
recent developments in computer science,
in particular, machine learning, neural
networks and, consequently, artificial
intelligence. Algorithms are created that
develop themselves through machine learning
and by far surpass human capabilities in
specific tasks, especially in terms of
speed and computation abilities (e.g.
stock trading, facial recognition or
various predictions), not to mention the
algorithms that are able to compose music.
This boundary breakdown, as well as human-
animal and physical - non-physical boundary
breakdowns, were extensively explored by
Donna Haraway in her “Cyborg Manifesto” back
in 1991. Through the imagery of a Cyborg,
Haraway explains the already existing hybrid
reality of biological and technological
and proposes that such imagery could help
in liberation from dualisms that form
separatory rhetorics. This levelled playing
field of humans, animals and machines
alike, indicates formations of new kinds of
relationships without formations of unity
among all but renouncing domination which
creates vulnerable actor groups. These
relations can be explored through another
manifesto from Haraway titled “The Companion
Species Manifesto”.
Companion species
In “The Companion Species Manifesto”
introduces and explains concepts of
companion species and significant otherness
through the human and dog relationship.
Although it exclusively analyses the history
and nature of the dog-human relationship,
both concepts are undoubtedly broader. As
Haraway explains, companion species have no
preconceived notions of the subject of the
term. It does not singularly refer to a
specific species; it only indicates “bodies
that matter” (Haraway, D., 2003). Companion
species thus is a broad and heterogeneous
family of cyborgs, humans, animals, plants
and other bodies. As a concept it fits
perfectly in the posthuman condition of
post-anthropocentrism, it breaks down the
binary understanding of human and non-human.
The second concept - significant otherness,
is what constitutes the companion species.
Significant otherness implies a set of
relations that bond different species in
their history and future. It is significant
otherness that can define a tangled network
of non-oppressive relations of the posthuman
condition.
User in relation to the stack
Significant otherness explains interspecies
relations, however, it is also important
how these species relate to systems. This
insight can be seen in Bratton’s (2015)
approach to the posthuman user, where the
user is considered as an actor of the larger
system - the Stack. Arguably the most
important point made by Bratton is that the
relation is a two-way interaction. The user
is able to configure the system through
design intervention and in turn, the system
is able to configure User’s stance. This is
an important assertion because it signifies
the dynamic reciprocal nature of user-
system interaction.
<32> <33>
Post-capitalism
In this section, I will investigate the
paradigms of post-capitalism. Not so much
focusing on capitalism itself, but on
narratives concerning frameworks for what
is to come after an oppressive capitalist
system. I will begin with a broad view of
alternative future visions, from the early
20th century to today.
Alternative futures
The 20th century was a hotbed for imaginations
of the future. Most notably emergence of
the Futurism movement, proliferation of
Futures Studies, the golden age of science
fiction, and radical imaginations of the
’60s. Driven by technological advancements
and various geopolitical circumstances,
20th-century visionaries created a vast
amount of material depicting what the future
will look like, or what they would like the
future to look like.
The latter position, concerning ambitions
and aspirations, is extremely relevant for
the Futurist movement. A movement that
emerged in Italy at the beginning of the
20th century later on gaining popularity in
parallel movements in Russia, Portugal and
England. A variety of works were created in
visual arts, architecture and literature.
Futurists prized speed and technology
dismissing the focus on the past. Filippo
Tommaso Marinetti (1909) in the “Manifesto
of Futurism” wrote: “But we want no part
of it, the past, we the young and strong
Futurists!” By denying the agency of the
past, calling museums graveyards, futurists
embraced the “omnipresent speed” which
was beyond constraints of time and space.
This mindset produced works devoid of then
traditional notions of harmony and good taste,
transforming conventional forms of humans,
buildings and environments into barely
recognizable shapes distorting time and
space. However, these radical imaginations
were tainted by ethics (or lack thereof)
advocated by futurist manifesto glorifying
war and violence, nationalism and gender
inequality (“fight against <...> feminism”
(Marinetti, 1909)). Despite that, futurism
marked an important step in breaking the
restraints of the past and striving for the
imagination of radically different futures.
A more systematic approach to envisioning
the future came with the emergence of
Futures Studies in the mid-20th century.
Geopolitical struggles that were caused by
both World Wars induced an interest and
need for future predictions and strategic
foresight. Futures Studies (or futurology)
sought an analytical approach, one based
in pattern understanding and investigation
of trends. Balancing between art and
science, Future Studies in the post World
War 2 context, attracted numerous artists,
thinkers, philosophers and writers. Works
produced by them expressed an interest in
technological developments and social issues.
Future Studies as a collective discourse,
later on, enabled the emergence of various
research institutes and associations (World
Futures Studies Federation, Association of
Professional Futurists, Future of Humanity
Institute, etc.). These collectivities
can be seen as important incubators for
the formation of collective imagination,
however, it is arguably hard to attract
mainstream attention with systematic
academic narratives.
In mainstream media, the Science Fiction
genre experienced a rise in popularity
in the mid-20th century. This period is
referred to as the Golden Age of Science
Fiction. During this period, science fiction
magazines soared in popularity sparking
imaginations of a whole generation. Most
notably “Astounding Science Fiction”
magazine edited at the time by American
writer John Wood Campbell Jr. Which
contributed greatly to the development of
the science fiction genre.
Concerning spatial experimentation with
future vision, the ‘60s are of utmost
importance. This decade saw an emergence of
radical imaginations from collectives like
Archigram and Archizoom and individuals
like Constant Nieuwenhuys and Yona Friedman.
The projects produced by them envisioned
a variety of alternative futures. Inspired
by, at the time, emerging technologies,
developments in computer sciences, these
projects depicted hypothetical scenarios
four our cities, for the built environment
and for society. Projects by the
aforementioned groups and individuals will
be further investigated in the case study.
However, an important correlation between
most of these projects, worth mentioning
now, is the proposed narratives of full
automation, envisioning futures devoid of
current labour frameworks.
This focus on futures where the majority,
if not all, the work will be automated
continues till this day. Advancements in
robotics, machine learning and artificial
intelligence are fueling speculations about
the impacts that automation will have in
the future. Some thinkers are suggesting
that jobs, overtaken by automation, will be
replaced with other occupations, continuing
to rely on current labour frameworks, while
others are speculating about new activity
frameworks, beyond labour - leisure
dichotomy. The latter position I will
investigate further, looking into posthuman
labour.
< THEORY STUDY > < THEORY STUDY >
< PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK >
<34>
Post-labour condition
Automation is all the rage today. The
possibility that machines can replace labour
intensive, dangerous and repetitive work
and liberate humans from low reward jobs is
exciting. Another position is one of fear,
concerns that automation will eradicate
numerous jobs without presenting any
alternatives. Both of these positions are
justified, however, they stem from a position
of a binary understanding of human and
machine. This duality has to be challenged,
because automation is inevitable, whether
we like it or not. Production cycles and
technological developments have too much
momentum to be stopped abruptly, nor should
they be.
The process of automation, more often than
not, concerns technology (machines and code)
as a tool that replaces human labour. This
notion is dangerous, to consider technology
in a “labour-capital” (Kim, 2018) framework
is to continue with the capitalist system
which produces oppression and alienation.
Furthermore, as french philosopher Gilbert
Simondon stipulated (as referenced in
Kim, 2018), it furthers alienation in a
sense that the human becomes alienated
labour and machines replace the prior
human position. This narrative restrains
the human-technology relationship as it
only refers to the machine as a utility
- means of production of surplus capital
and subsequently inhibits the creative
potential of such a relationship. Another
narrative of automation is the assumption
that automation is means for creating free
time for the human subject for productive
activity in following individual interests
and aspirations. This notion was explored
by Marx in “Fragment on Machines” in
“Grundrisse”, where he described this free
time as “higher activity”. Although the
intention to strive for a more rewarding
activity of the human is relevant in the
dialogue of automation as means to reduce
labour intensive, dangerous and repetitive
work, it still fails to acknowledge the
technological subject. If we relegate
labour to technology and assume that humans
take the free time we do not truly escape
the labour-leisure framework (where leisure
is considered as free time) in a posthuman
sense, only in an anthropocentric sense.
Thus the accumulation of capital remains,
only the labour force is shifted and
alienation remains, if not increases.
To challenge the concept of technology as a
mere means of production and of automation
as improvement of production efficiency,
the posthuman condition comes into play. By
recognition of the technological subject as
an equal part of a larger posthuman family,
we can start considering the creative
potentials of mutual cooperation between
the human and technological subjects. In
this case, the post-labour condition in
which the “posthuman no longer labors, but
acts, technically” (Kim, J., 2018). This
technical activity implies possibilities
of inventing new forms of transindividual
relations, new collectivities.
< THEORY STUDY >
<36> <37>
COMMONS
SYSTEM
COMMONS
SYSTEM
COMMONS
SYSTEM
BOUNDARY
FEEDBACK LOOPS
RECIPROCAL INTERACTION
COUNTER HEGEMONIC APPROACH
META-DESIGN AUTOPOIESIS
RADICAL IMAGINATION
COMMONS
SYSTEM
Community of
Commoners
Common
Goods
Act of
COMMONING
Community of
Commoners
Common
Goods
Act of
COMMONING
Symbiotic
COmmons
system
COMMONS
SYSTEM
POSTHUMAN
CONDITION
POST-LABOUR
CONDITION
BOUNDARY
Meta-Commonality
SYSTEM
COMPANION SPECIES
SYSTEMS THEORY
STOCKS & FLOWS
HIGHER ACTIVITY
SIGNIFICANT OTHERNESS
OPEN ORGANIZATIONAL
STRUCTURE
HOMO-SAPIENS
TECHNOLOGY
USER
FLORA
FAUNA
FUNGI
...
PRODUCTION &
REPRODUCTION
< CONCLUSION >
// CONVERGENCE OF THEORIES
As a conclusion of theory study, I introduce a diagram that illustrates the converges of
concepts into a singular picture of radical imagination. Not as an attempt to create a
universal structure for imagining the future, but as a narrative based on tendencies and
aspirations.
The diagram outlines connections between different concepts under one radical imagination
umbrella. Here, companion species, through higher activity form communities of commoners,
which by the act of commoning form commons systems, that through boundary commoning are
able to form larger, symbiotic or meta-commonality systems. Different interactions are tied
to significant otherness, systems theory and meta-design. Formations of these systems are
bound by counter-hegemonic approach.
</ CONCLUSION >
< THEORY STUDY > < THEORY STUDY >
< PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK > REMEMBERING THE FUTURE
< CASE STUDY >
/// Under the subtitle “Remembering the
future” I will investigate the radical
imaginations of the ’60s as the case
study. I will attempt to identify crucial
correlations and differences from the
theoretical framework of this dissertation.
For the study, I selected three projects
by Constant Nieuwenhuys, Archizoom and Yona
Freedman as well as a group of projects by
Archigram.
<40> <41>< CASE STUDY > < CASE STUDY >
New Babylon
< by Constant Anton Nieuwenhuys >
New Babylon, a major inspiration for this
dissertation, is a project by Dutch arctic
Constant Nieuwenhuys consisting of a vast
collection of models, maps, drawings and
paintings created over a period of almost
two decades, culminating with an exhibition
in 1974 in The Hague, Netherlands. The
project itself is an illustration of an
alternative future reimagining the society
and its built environment as a whole.
The social praxis of New Babylon stems from
embracement of full automation and liberation
of humans from the labour-leisure framework.
The inhabitants of New Babylon are referred
to as “homo ludens” - humans at play,
who are leading creative nomadic lives that
are a complete contrast to the traditional
frameworks. This creative existence is not
imagined as solitary, but rather forming
global actions and interactions in joint
endeavours. This narrative is parallel to
one of Marx’s “higher activity”, however,
both of these assertions neglect the human-
machine relation. In the case of the New
Babylon project, it is imagined that the
automated factories would be underground,
furthering the separation of such creative
activity of a human and actual production
of the machine. Nevertheless, this creative
existence leads to a construction of the
whole new world, as imagined by Constant,
above the existing urban structures.
Constant imagines the new networked
megastructure cantilevering above existing
cities and landscapes. It forms something
akin to a vast labyrinth of different
creations. This megastructure is formed
of sectors that are linked together and
are infinitely expandable, constructed and
reconstructed by “homo ludens” in their
creative existence. Thus the structure
is a dynamic and ever-changing framework
of different creative aspirations,
spanning cities, countries and even the
entire world. Without any predetermined
functions, these sectors offer spaces of
multitude of surprises. This framework is
not unlike that of meta-design philosophy,
adaptable and evolving at the hands of
the users. Furthermore, it explores the
three-dimensional approach to urban design
creating multilayered landscapes of old and
new.
As Constant refers to the project himself
“New Babylon is not a town planning project,
but rather a way of thinking, of imagining,
of looking at things and at life.” (as cited
in Wigley, 1998) it is not supposed to be
taken literally, but more like an assemblage
of ideas and frameworks which guide to the
imagination of an alternative future.
New Babylon Nord (New Babylon North)
From “Constant’s New Babylon. The Hyper-Architecture of
Desire” by Mark Wigley 1998
Oriënt sector (Orient Sector)
From “Constant’s New Babylon. The Hyper-Architecture of
Desire” by Mark Wigley 1998
Homo Ludens 1966
From “Constant. New Babylon”
2015
<42> <43>
Grote gele sector (Large Yellow Sector)
From “Constnt’s New Babylon. The Hyper-Architecture of
Desire” by Mark Wigley 1998
New Babylon / Amsterdam
From “Constnt’s New Babylon. The Hyper-Architecture of
Desire” by Mark Wigley 1998
< CASE STUDY > < CASE STUDY >
<44> <45>< CASE STUDY > < CASE STUDY >
ARCHIGRAM
< Plug-In City / Computer City / Walking City >
This case study of the ’60s imaginations
would not suffice without mentioning the
work of Archigam. As an avant-garde group,
Archigram was radical in its designs of
future cities. Formed in the early ’60s,
Archigram criticized the failure of modernism
to enact its more radical aspects. As Simon
Sadler (2005) surmises, Archigram attempted
to imagine architecture as a device for
living and being, rather than a fixed
volume of space solely for inhabitation.
Through mixed-media drawings and collages,
Archigram depicted heterogeneous visions of
the future filled with activity and energy.
Three works of Archigram are of significance
for this dissertation: Plug-In City by Peter
Cook, linked to it, Computer City by Dennis
Crampton, and finally, Walking City by Ron
Herron.
As the name suggests, Plug-In City was
a project imagining modular elements
of various functions like living, work,
shopping, etc. being plugged in into the
main infrastructural framework. Similarly
to New Babylon, such a city was imagined
to be of constantly shifting form, creating
elaborate and dynamic spaces. There is no
final shape that the city could take, it
evolved through time. A rather systematic
approach with a very heterogeneous result.
It could be argued that this concept of
modular elements plugged into the main
infrastructure might have come from
developments in computer systems in the
’60s, notably the mainframe computers which
housed different elements such as central
processing units and memory. This argument
can be supported by the Computer City
Project which was a design of a network
that could support the Plug-In City. Taking
into account traffic, goods, people and
information it was the means by which the
city would operate. In fact, Simon Sadler
points out that this design was based on
the “system approach”. Furthermore, Plug-
In City also embraced automation, however,
not in an absolute way like in New Babylon
where it required reimagining of the whole
human existence framework. Here, automation
was considered as a means to replace the
repetitive, physically demanding, labour,
hence the labour-leisure framework was not
abolished, but made more dynamic.
The Walking City project is worth mentioning
because of its implausibility. It shows the
furthest points of radical imagination.
Half animalistic, half technological, a city
transgressing any traditional borders both
in a physical and figurative sense. A cyborg-
like convergence of biology and technology.
As Sadler (2005) speculates, one of its
intentions was to spark excitement for the
future. It is a significant responsibility
of radical imagination which brings people
together.
Dennis Crompton, Computer City, 1964
From “Archigram. Architecture without architecture” by
Simon Sadler 2005
Plug-In_City, Overhead View, Axonometric. Peter Cook,
1963
Retereived from: archigram.net/portfolio.html
Ron Herron. Walking City on the Ocean, project (Exterior
perspective), 1966
Retereived from: moma.org/collection/works/814
<46> <47>
Peter Cook, Plug-In City: Maximum Pressure Area, section, 1964
Retereived from: moma.org/collection/works/797
< CASE STUDY > < CASE STUDY >
<48> <49>< CASE STUDY > < CASE STUDY >
SPATIAL CITY
< by Yona Friedman >
Similar methodology to the one in Plug-
In City is expressed in the Spatial City
(Ville Spatiale) project by Yona Friedman.
Friedman proposes a flexible grid structure
that receives modules of various functions
(living, work, etc.). The structure can be
expanded according to the needs while the
modules are arranged in a way that allows
the existing built structures down below to
continue to function by letting light through.
Similarly to New Babylon, this structure
is elevated above existing urban fabric on
columns which facilitate accessibility and
infrastructure connectivity.
One of the more noteworthy aspects of the
Spatial City is the relinquishment of the
role of the designer in creating the modules
situated in the structure. This notion
arises from Friedman’s “Manifesto of the
Mobile Architecture” which he presented in
1956. The concept of mobile architecture
was based on the notion that occupants
should be able to design their own inhabited
spaces. Friedman developed a tool which
he called “Flatwriter” to enable users to
independently design their living spaces.
This correlates with Friedman’s rhetoric on
self-expression as a fundamental right of
any individual and interrogation of the role
of architect. Again, this transformation of
the role of designer is not unlike that
of meta-design. Spatial City can be seen
as a project that facilitates individual
creativity and aspirations. This methodology
comes close to Open-source architecture, a
paradigm that emerged in the late ’90s,
which is broadly seen as a citizen-centred
design approach that empowers users to
become part of the design process.
Although not directly related to the Spatial
City, Friedman contributed in theorisation
of effective communication within groups.
He put forth the limitations of effective
communication in connection to the size of
the group calling it “critical group size”.
It is the size of a group at which the
message or communication becomes distorted
due to overcomplication of dialogues within
the group. As a consequence, Friedman
implies, effective global communication is
impossible. It is an important factor to
take in when imagining social systems.
Yona Friedman, 1959. Photomontage of a Ville Spatiale over the Seine in the heart of Paris.
Retreived from: archdaily.com/912823/a-selection-of-the-most-representative-drawings-by-yona-friedman/
Yona Friedman, 1959. Tunis: section of the bridge-town
above Medina.
Retreived from: archdaily.com/912823/a-selection-of-
the-most-representative-drawings-by-yona-friedman/
Yona Friedman, 1958-1962. Details of the concept for the
Ville Spatiale looking up.
Retreived from: yonafriedman.nl/?page_id=400
<50> <51>
Yona Friedman, 1959. Photomontage of a Ville Spatiale crossing high up over the town and the Seine in the heart of
Paris.
Retreived from: vernaculaire.com/yona-friedman-ville-spatiale/
< CASE STUDY > < CASE STUDY >
<52> <53>< CASE STUDY > < CASE STUDY >
NO-STOP CITY
< by Archizoom >
The last project to be discussed is
Archizoom’s No-Stop City. Archizoom,
Italian studio founded in the ’60s, is known
for their critical approach towards design,
taking consumerist and modernist principles
to the point of absurdity (Artemel, n.d.),
as in the example of their reenvisioned
Mies van der Rohe chair. The same is true
in the No-Stop City project. Compared to
the projects discussed before, No-Stop City
is less of an imagination of an alternative
future, but more of a critical thought
experiment. It expresses capitalist super
production and super consumption through
depictions of endless spaces arguing that
capitalism can no longer be contained within
the limits of a city (Varnelis, K., 2006).
The architecture of No-Stop City is devoid
of any qualities, blank and repetitive,
reminiscent of a supermarket or a factory.
Endlessly repeating structures were
represented by inserting one element into
a mirrored box. Architecture essentially
disappears and any symbolic value is
eliminated. Simultaneously, endless
interiors are decorated with artefacts
of mass-production. This way Archizoom
expressed a city that is liberated
from conformities of the current built
environment, going as far as stating that it
is a form of emancipation, allowing anything
to happen anywhere (as cited in Artemel,
n.d.). Architecture is thus seen as a sort
of infrastructure that facilitates flows of
information with no other function.
Although it is presented as both a utopian
and dystopian vision, No-Stop City as a
No-stop City, Homogeneous Living Diagrams, Archizoom 1969
From: “Programming After Program: Archizoom’s No-Stop City” by Kazys Varnelis 2006
Archizoom Associati, No-Stop City, 1969
From: “Diagram Utopias: Rota and Network as Instrument and
Mirror of Utopia and Agronica” by Christoph Lueder 2013
Archizoom Associati, No-Stop City, 1969
Retreived from: frac-centre.fr/_en/authors/rub/
rubworks-318.html?authID=11&ensembleID=42&oeuvreID=215
Archizoom Associati, 1969. Mies Chair and Ottoman.
Retreived from: moma.org/collection/works/89847
project takes capitalist tendencies as a
given. The created atmospheres represent an
extremely consumerist society. It is both
a critique and at the same time a form of
submissiveness into the capitalist machine.
<54> <55>
No-stop City, Andrea Branzi 1969
Retreived from: bmiaa.com/reliefs-cycle-of-exhibitions-and-events-at-les-turbulences-frac-centre/no-stop-city-
andrea-branzi-1969/
< CASE STUDY > < CASE STUDY >
<57>
< PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK >
TAKEAWAYS
< Conclusion >
In the discussed projects certain patterns emerged.
Most notably, an aspiration of redetermining
the role of the designer and enabling user
participation, be it through giving carte blanche
for the inhabitants to construct the future as in
the New Babylon or providing a framework in which
the inhabitants have opportunity to express their
desires like in the Spatial City. This corresponds
to the frameworks that are established in the
meta-design approach, where user participation is
the key factor. In all the discussed projects
certain frameworks are expressed that facilitate
the necessary infrastructure forming networks
in a way that allows an assumption to be made
that these megastructures are systemic in their
design, possessing internal mechanisms that enable
social, technical and spatial interactions. Post-
labour condition is explored furthest in New
Babylon, however, lacks in the investigation
of human-machine relationship, whereas Plug-
In city only considers automation as a factor
that liberates humans from repetitive work.
Formation of social relations and networks is
investigated by both Friedman and Constant, with
Friedman taking a more systematic approach while
Constant is a bit more elusive. In sum, these
examples of radical imagination of the ’60s do
show substantial reactions to the cultural and
economic transformations of that time, all the
while, most of the issues addressed in the projects
are still relevant today. The ’70s saw the rise
of neoliberalism, together with its ideologies
of privatization and austerity, and promotion
of free-market capitalism, consequently, radical
imaginations were shunned away. This does not
mean, however, that radical imaginations should
remain forgotten and unpracticed.
< CASE STUDY >
< PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK > NORTH QUARTER
< SITE ANALYSIS >
/// As a focus site for spatial imaginings
of alternative future, I chose Brussels
North Quarter, specifically, four blocks
called “World Trade Center” which were
semi-realized according to the Manhattan
project. The rationale for this choice
is the history of the site as grounds for
the Manhattan Project and its subsequent
failure. The site analysis will be conducted
through investigation of the historical
account of the Manhattan Project, its
reasonings, geopolitical motivations,
manner of implementation, and consequences.
I will start with a broader introduction to
the location and history of the territory,
followed by specifics of the Manhattan
Project, and ending with a look at the
current situation.
<60> <61>< SITE ANALYSIS > < SITE ANALYSIS >
Located right outside Brussels pentagon
(the historical centre) in between canal
to the west and railway to the east, North
Quarter is considered as a business district
of Brussels. The territory started to be
developed in the 19th-century corresponding
to the construction of Brussels-Allée-Verte
station, the very first train station of
Brussels. Prior to that, as we can see from
the Ferraris map of 1777, the territory
consisted mostly of green nature fields.
Following the emergence of the railway,
the territory was heavily industrialized
and developed into a tight urban fabric
which was primarily inhabited by foreign
immigrants. The North Quarter started taking
its current shape at the turn of a decade
from the ‘60s to ’70s.
North Quarter and World Trade Center blocks. Ferraris map, 1777
Retreived from: mybrugis.irisnet.be/brugis/
Brussels-Allée-Verte station, end of 19th century
Public domain. Retreived from: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fichier:Groendreefstation.jpg
Vandermaelen map, 1846-1854
Retreived from: mybrugis.irisnet.be/brugis/
<62> <63>< SITE ANALYSIS > < SITE ANALYSIS >
The idea to modernize the north quarter
was first introduced by Belgian architect
Victor Bourgeois in 1929 with a plan titled
“Grand Bruxelles”. In this proposal, an
idea to completely rebuild the entire North
Quarter was introduced. The tight urban
framework would be replaced by high-rise
buildings in an orthogonal street grid,
with vast empty spaces in a true modernist
fashion. This plan, however, was never put
into action and attempts to reconstruct the
North Quarter regained momentum only after
the Second World War.
A plan that actually started the
reconstruction of the North Quarter was
introduced in 1964 by a group called
“Structures”. It was their second attempt,
the first one in 1962, was rejected because
it was not grand enough (Demeulemeester, K.
2006). This second attempt, titled “Manhattan
Project”, consisting of 58 skyscrapers,
motorways of widths up to 60 meters,
pedestrian connections on plinths separated
from traffic, was approved unanimously
(Ledent, G., 2019). At the epicentre of this
grandiose ambition were 8 monofunctional
skyscrapers dedicated for office space and
titled “World Trade Center”. The project had
an important geopolitical significance and
symbolism. These inspirations stemming from
New York mark the project as a capitalist
vision. After all, the World Trade Center
of New York was seen as a powerful symbol
of capitalism, “an icon of capitalism”
(Schneider, Hilzenrath, 2001). Imagined
as a business and administrative area,
the project can be seen as a dichotomous
expropriation of North Quarter by market
and state, and complete disregard for civic
interests. An interesting parallel can thus
be drawn between the analyzed cases of radical
imaginations of the ‘60s and “Manhattan
Project”, also from the ’60s. As complete
opposites, these projects illustrate on one
side a strive for a different future, on
the other - complete submissiveness to the
capitalist vision of the future.
Grand Bruxelles Plan by Victor Bourgeois, 1929
From “From Ideal Proposals to Serial Developments:
Victor Bourgeois’s Schemes in the Light of Post-War
Developments in Brussels.” by Gérald Ledent 2019
Manhattan Project by Structures, 1964
From “From Ideal Proposals to Serial Developments:
Victor Bourgeois’s Schemes in the Light of Post-War
Developments in Brussels.” by Gérald Ledent 2019
Project for the World Trade Center
Retreived from: https://primarystructure.net/manhattan-
project/
<64> <65>
Manhattan Project model
(World Trade Center Brussels, s.d., p. 9).
Retreived from: irismonument.be/nl.Brussel_Uitbreiding_Noord.Koning_Albert_II-laan.24.html
Project for the World Trade Center, the proposed esplanades on the pedestals (World Trade
Center Brussels, s.d., p. 17).
Retreived from: irismonument.be/nl.Brussel_Uitbreiding_Noord.Koning_Albert_II-laan.24.
html
Project for the World Trade Center
Project voor het World Trade Center, SAB/DD 531.
Retreived from: irismonument.be/nl.Brussel_Uitbreiding_Noord.Koning_Albert_II-
laan.24.html
< SITE ANALYSIS > < SITE ANALYSIS >
<66> <67>
However, this grandiose capitalist vision
failed to be fully realized. The displacement
of locals started in 1969, with empty
promises of relocation (Ledent, G., 2019).
Undermining protests, the modernist vision
moved forward with its intentions. With
extensive governmental support, only three
towers of the “World Trade Center” were
complete until unable to rent out spaces, the
project came to a complete halt at the end
of the ‘70s, due to financial instabilities.
This left the North Quarter with demolished
neighbourhoods and vast empty spaces, with
only a few promised residential buildings
completed. Kasper Demeulemeester (2006)
called this attempt to realize the project
no matter the cost, “one of the most tragic
episodes in recent urban planning”. This
reckless and careless approach was later
termed “Brusselisation” (“Brusselization”,
2020), an urban planning policy that
prioritises real estate interests without
taking any existing spatial or social
systems into account.
< SITE ANALYSIS > < SITE ANALYSIS >
Urban fabric of North Quarter in 1961.
Retreived from: mybrugis.irisnet.be/brugis/ Urban fabric of North Quarter in 1977, after demolisions.
Retreived from: mybrugis.irisnet.be/brugis/
<68> <69>
EXPECTATIONS vs. REALITYEXPECTATIONS vs. REALITY
Comparative analysis of the visions of Manhattan Project
(left) and today’s state (right) of World Trade Center
blocks. On the left, highlighted in blue, are elements
of the project that were not realized. On the right,
highlighted in blue, are the elements of the project
that were, to an extent, realized.
Although the project was abandoned, the
economy picked up in the ‘90s and despite
negative connotations with the project,
4 more towers in the intended spaces of
“World Trade Center” were built. And yet,
not surprisingly, none of the promised
pedestrian plazas on plinths and overpasses
or large motorways intersecting in between
the towers were realized. What left of the
urban project are giant monofunctional
towers, architectural shells of past
aspirations, till this day struggling with
occupation. Any notion that in the original
plan was considered for public use was
forsaken. What is left is the trauma of
the locals and an open wound unable to heal
still.
< SITE ANALYSIS > < SITE ANALYSIS >
<70> <71>
The consequences are clearly visible today.
They are especially noticeable in public
spaces. Dominated by modernist car-centric
design, public spaces lack quality and
function. Green parks, in place of promised
motorways, are separated from buildings by
roads, restricting access. These boulevards,
going north-south and east-west directions,
are poorly functioning compromises of the
infrastructural promises of the failed
modernist vision. Pedestrian and car
infrastructures are not separated as they
were intended to be, producing confused
spaces in which automobile infrastructure
takes the priority, with questionable
functionality, since these roads are not
the promised connections from Amsterdam
to Paris and from Germany to Ostend,
but just oversized corridors in a rather
secluded territory from main transportation
arteries. Stepping into the future, this
logic is no longer going to be relevant,
with the rise of micro-mobility and other
alternative modes of transportation, these
spaces are in dire need to be reimagined.
Another consequence of the Manhattan Project
is the monofuncionality produced in the
area. The towers are barren of any public
use. In place of a tight and alive urban
network, a territory which functions 9 to
5 was produced. Architectures relegated
to market or administrative use enclosed
spaces from civic use, clearly advocating it
with private property signs. Furthermore,
they enclosed not only spaces but processes
that happen within them. The knowledge
produced in these spaces is privatised by
the market, while governmental processes
in administrative entities are restricted
from public participation. What happens
outside the working hours outside these
monofunctional shells of enclosure, can
only be described as anarchy of those most
vulnerable (homeless and refugees squatting)
and predatory opportunists (pickpocketers
and drug dealers). Civic agency is long
forgotten in this space.
< SITE ANALYSIS > < SITE ANALYSIS >
Nevertheless, the North Quarter possesses
certain qualities that are instrumental in
reimagining the future. Being located next
to North Station, it serves as an important
international connectivity node of a larger
trans-European network as well as the local
network. Furthermore, North Quarter is an
intersection point of three municipalities
(communes), Brussels, Saint-Josse-ten-
Noode and Schaerbeek, each with distinct
identities and semiocapital. Position of the
intersection being right around the “World
Trade Center” blocks, offers opportunities
for incubation of diverse social structures.
Proximus Towers. World Trade Center blocks. Man sitting on a curb, next to a private property sign.
Image taken from Google Street View (2020).
Land Use map. Dominant monofunctionality in the North
Quarter. Highlighted in blue - administrative areas.
Blue diagonal hatch - regional interest areas.
Data source: geobru.irisnet.be/en/
<72> <73>
North Station - a node in
trans-European network
Intersection point of 3 municipalities (communes).
Brussels, Saint-Josse-ten-Noode and Schaerbeek
< SITE ANALYSIS > < SITE ANALYSIS >
< PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK > SOCIO-SPATIAL IMAGINATION STRATEGY
< URBAN STRATEGY >
/// Following the analyses and studies, I
turn to the North Quarter as a project site
and establish grounds for imagining the
future of the quarter, based on theoretical
narrative, case and site analyses.
<76> <77>
3rd INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION
Mass customisation of consumer goods greatly disturbs
mass production chains. Localised, user driven,
production proliferates, while centralised production
loses dominance.
4th INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION
Acknowledgement of companion species leads to tight
relation frameworks. Distinctions become blurry.
The fusion between digital, technological and
biological spheres leads to 4th industrial
revolution. Everyone and everything is a cyborg.
CAPITALISM
FORMATION OF NEW SOCIAL SYSTEM
SEEDING EVOLUTIONARY GROWTH AND RESEEDING CYCLES
SPACE RACE v2
Technological advancements in energy production and storage,
automation, wireless communication and technology autonomy driven by
the second space race, are adapted back on earth.
The unforeseen consequences of the second space race are solidarity and
reinvigoration of the imagination.
SELF SUFFICIENT TECHNOLOGY
The emergence of completely self-sufficient technology is
starting to radically redefine the relationship dynamics between
humans and technology.
DEMISE OF LABOR/LEISURE DICHOTOMY
Automation and user-driven production, in what was once
considered as “work”, has lead to a liberation from labour
- leisure framework, as it was no longer adequate.
CITY OVER STATE
The Westphalian construct of the state
loses ground. The city becomes the
dominant unit. A large majority of the
population lives in cities.
SPACE =/= PROPERTY
The concept of space as property is
no longer functional. Vast
administrative use spaces are no
longer occupied. Temporary
occupations, sharing economy
induces a perception of space as
commons.
COMPANION SPECIES
Anthropocentrism no longer satisfies interspecies relations. All
species are now considered as companion species, acting and
progressing together.
BLOCKCHAIN / DECENTRALIZATION
With the decentralization of production processes,
economic, social, governance systems, networked
technologies take over.
EMERGENCE OF NEW SOCIOSPATIAL UNITS
With capitalism’s demise, it’s induced alienation falls. New
social groupings emerge, which naturally reach the limits of
global communication and critical group size. Interactions
between different groups gain significant importance. Complex
adaptive systems emerge.
< URBAN STRATEGY > < URBAN STRATEGY >
Future history
In order to set an abstract timeframe of the project, I am using a method called future
history. It is used both in Future Studies discipline and science fiction as a tool to
set out certain chains of events that either are predictions of the future or a timeline
constructed to show the background of the story. I will lean on the latter function of
the methodology. Intentionally I am not attaching specific dates to the events of future
history as to do so, in my opinion, would create expectations of prediction of events, which
I try to avoid. These chains of events are what leads to second-order effects (consequences
of said events) which I illustrate later with explorations of the radical future vision. As
a starting point, it is a series of imagined events in the future which form a background
of radical imagination, like in examined cases of the ’60s where certain technological
changes were imagined as precursors for the projects. As American writer, Charlie Jane
Anders (2019) said: “You don’t predict the future, you imagine the future.” I also consider
the momentum that certain developments have, to be part of this future history.
The events described in the diagram lead to two important developments concerning social
units (actors, users) and conception of space, which form two sides of the new imagined
socio-spatial arrangement.
<78> <79>
Companion species
Technological and ecological developments
have led to a posthuman condition. Through
these developments species other than homo
sapiens have gained their own forms of
sovereignty. Biological and technological
species now stand on equal grounds forming
a larger family of companion species. New
forms of interspecies relations are created
based on mutually beneficial interactions,
consolidating into complex systems. Due to
this ability to form these relations, species
can be considered as social units, actors
and users. Technological species developed
into tangible and intangible forms, robots
(machines), which act in the same spatial
dimensions as humans, and algorithms,
which are embedded in digital space, in
complex infrastructural frameworks. While
technological species emerged as new
social units, biological species regained
recognition as well. Flora entered cities
no longer as submissive species under the
human domain of landscape design or landscape
architecture, but in its own independent
manner. Followed by other species of animal
and fungi kingdoms, bringing ecosystems
into spaces previously solely controlled by
humans, forming new forms of independencies
and interdependencies.
< URBAN STRATEGY > < URBAN STRATEGY >
Companion species. Collage.
<80> <81>
Conception of spaces
According to future history, alteration of
conception of space is twofold. Firstly,
the reconsideration of an already built
environment, secondly, reconsideration of
space as solely human domain. Processes
of automation together with demise of the
capitalist enclosure of space, has put
vast built spaces under reconsideration.
Office towers with their no longer relevant
functions, have now turned into open spaces
for new forms of appropriation. In parallel,
the emergence of posthuman condition with
other species and their own forms of
sovereignties, has relegated the concept of
space as exclusively human property to the
past. Now all species and systems that they
form, are appropriating spaces in their own
manner. Digital technological species have
become the independent arbiters of protocols
by which that space is appropriated. Since
these digital species are least dependent on
physical space, they are able to objectively
evaluate requests for space use based on
amounts of data which are beyond capability
of any biological species to process,
while still ensuring integrity of their
own infrastructure. These digital species
act as smart contracts1 ensuring compliance
with protocols which are developed based on
inputs from mutual interspecies interests
and their negotiations. Open spaces, thus,
do not turn into a subject for anarchic,
free-for-all style appropriation, rather
into systemic and reasoned forms of
appropriation, based on mutual interests of
multitude of species.
< 1 > “A smart contract is a computer program
or a transaction protocol respectively, which
is intended to automatically execute, control
or document respectively legally relevant events
and actions according to the terms of a contract,
of an agreement or of a negotiation.” (“Smart
contract”, 2020)
<sidenote>
Game of Life
For experimentation with such algorithmic
protocols of space appropriation, I turned
to Game of Life, a cellular automaton game
developed by mathematician John Horton
Conway. Game of Life is a suitable tool
for illustrating a simplified version of
appropriation protocols since it consists
of inputs and simple rules, which lead
to the development of complex patterns
of behaviour (in this case spatial). I
contextualised Game of Life in the analyzed
site and through the “Seeding, Evolutionary
Growth, and Reseeding” model of meta-design.
Initial input (seeding) of requests leads
to patterns of evolutionary growth based
on rules (protocols) of Game of Life which
eventually, due to nature of the game, which
corresponds to systems inability to sustain
evolutionary growth, leads to a halt and
a reseeding process begins by adding new
inputs (requests) to resume evolutionary
growth processes. This method illustrates
one linear process, however, if a multitude
of these processes is imagined acting at
the same time, it could represent something
similar to algorithmic processes of space
appropriation.
https://youtu.be/qC2iCGSzFac
</sidenote>
3 stills taken from experimentation with the Game of
Life in 3 different periods: seeding, evolutionary
growth and reseeding.
< URBAN STRATEGY > < URBAN STRATEGY >
<82> <83>< URBAN STRATEGY > < URBAN STRATEGY >
Socio-spatial units
With social units and their relation to space outlined, potential socio-spatial units,
which form on the grounds of interrelations, can be investigated. Interspecies relations
eventually lead to the formation of organized collectivities through mutual interests
and aspirations. I approach these socio-spatial units through the understanding of the
commons systems and networks. Imagined here are four types of units: free radicals, commons
systems, symbiotic commons systems and meta-commonality systems.
Free radicals
Free radicals are social units that willingly
or unwillingly lack interconnections with
other social units, nevertheless they still
appropriate space under their terms. I
borrow the concept of free radicals from
biology and chemistry where, according to
physical chemist Gerhard Herzberg (1971),
they are understood as “any transient species
(atom, molecule, or ion) <...> that has a
short lifetime”. This definition implies a
temporal nature of a free radical. In the
context of social units it means that these
free radicals are units that exist only for
a period in time within which it does not
form any connections with any other unit,
this interpretation can be collaborated
by biological/chemical understanding
of free radicals as “physically stable
<...> if undisturbed by collisions”
(Herzberg, G., 1971). As social units, free
radicals are here interpreted as either
willingly disconnected units (e.g. due to
overconnectivity) or units that have not yet
formed connections. Thus free radicals can be
described as isolationists, ultra-private,
individualist units that are consciously
resisting commoning or as units that are
not yet participating in communication.
With regards to appropriation of space, they
are non invasively observed and taken into
consideration of appropriation protocols.
Commons systems
Commons systems are the basic socio-
spatial units, microsystems, formed through
clustering of social units through their
interrelations and mutual interests with
regards to specific resources (materials,
space, knowledge, etc.). These commons
systems form their internal production and
reproduction processes, define boundaries
according to the extent of their internal
processes and strive to sustain their
autopoiesis. They usually engage in boundary
commoning practices (either symbiotic or
meta-commonality) in turn forming larger,
more complex systems.
Symbiotic commons systems
The first method of boundary commoning
produces symbiotic commons systems,
mesosystems. These consist of two or more
commons systems which share similar sets
of values and interests, form mutually
beneficial interrelations and are operating
within one border inside which they can
contain their internal processes. This
method enables the convergence of commons
systems into more resilient units which are
able to form strong intramural networks
through internal feedback loops.
Meta-commonality systems
Meta-commonality systems emerge when two
or more commons systems (or even symbiotic
commons systems) form strong bonds but
retain their own borders. This means that
two systems with different interests or
sets of values are able to join in certain
mutually beneficial relations whilst
retaining their own sovereignties. These
bonds constitute sharing practices between
otherwise different systems through which
a systemic coherence is achieved. Meta-
commonality forms exo- and macrosystems of
various scales.
<84> <85>< URBAN STRATEGY > < URBAN STRATEGY >
Ministries
< Symbiotic systems >
In response to the theoretical framework and established future history, I imagine 4
symbiotic systems forming in the context of the focus site of the North Quarter. These 4
systems occupy one of the blocks each containing within themselves multiple commons systems
all joined in values, focus and interests. Previously monofunctional architectural shells
are turned into incubators for “higher activity” of posthuman subjects. Due to the size of
these symbiotic systems, I call them ministries.
Care
Care ministry is a symbiotic collection
of commons systems related to empathy,
maintenance, healthcare, and many others
that are focused on sustaining existing
systems. Care ministry, through meta-
commonality connections, helps other
systems with their autopoiesis. It also
joins posthuman subjects in systems that
focus on physical well-being and provides a
transient enabling environment for those in
vulnerable positions.
Creation
Creation ministry is a convergence of commons
systems which are related to the processes
of creation and co-creation. DIY-ers,
tinkerers, designers, builders, artists and
performers, all joined in common interests
and goals, sharing resources required for
the processes of creation. From applied
to fine arts, creation ministry is where
the design and actualisation of radical
imagination happens. Creation here is no
longer dictated by hegemonic expectations
but enabled through mutual interests,
sharing and collaboration.
Knowledge
Knowledge is on one hand a storage of
collective memory, and on the other hand
a convergence of commons systems that see
data, information and knowledge as their
focus resource. Internal and external
feedback loops of different systems produce
data, information and knowledge that is
collected at the knowledge ministry, a
repository of collective memory. It is
then accessed by different commons systems,
which are commoning that data, information
and knowledge as their resource, with
intentions of research and learning.
Internal mechanisms of the symbiotic
knowledge system (the ministry) ensure that
it remains open access and not enclosed by
any of the systems, not allowing knowledge
to be turned into privatised capital.
Tech
Tech ministry is the manifestation of
technological subjects’ sovereignty. It
is a collective of systems, of different
technological species, both digital and
physical. In tech ministry, these collectives
of different species can freely enact
their internal production and reproduction
cycles. In addition to being “home” for
technological species, the tech ministry
also facilitates meta-commonality bonds
which require networks of both digital and
physical interconnectivity.
WTC I & II North Galaxy towers
WTC III
Proximus towers
<86> <87>
CARE
CREATION
KNOWLEDGE
TECH
Maintenance
Medium
Programming
Assistance
Knowledge access
Data / Information Feedback
Assistance
Maintenance
Data / processing
Inovation
Feedback
Knowledge
< URBAN STRATEGY > < URBAN STRATEGY >
Feedback loops
< Meta-commonality >
Commons systems, both individual and
symbiotic, engage in certain forms of
interconnectivity creating various bonds
between them. These bonds form feedback
loops that are mutually beneficial to two
interconnecting systems. Through these
bonds, meta-commonality is established,
sharing of material or immaterial resources
in mutually beneficial cycles. The 4
aforementioned ministries also engage in
these cycles forming larger meta-commonality
system, a network based on a multitude
of different systems, enabling them to
progress through autopoiesis, providing the
external inputs for further development of
the internal processes. For these bonds to
function an infrastructural framework is
required. Meta-commonality infrastructure
is devised, which facilitates physical and
digital connectivity as well as establishes
new opportunities for appropriation. It
consists of two primary elements - connections
and appropriation modules, both of which
are established within a grid. The grid
is a metaphorical construct, symbolizing
an algorithmic manner of appropriation
inspired by analyzed cases. It works as
a spatial framework for the appropriation
of space based on the new conception of
spaces. Connections are linear elements
that house infrastructural connections
(electricity, water, data, etc.), but also
enable movement of humans and other species
that require physical infrastructure to
move. Appropriation elements attach to the
connections and allow to form new commons
systems directly connected to the meta-
commonality framework.
THE GRID
CONNECTIONS
APPROPRIATION MODULES
<88> <89>
Autopoiesis
< seeding, evolutionary growth, reseeding >
Both internal and external feedback loops enable the autopoiesis of commons systems. Complex
interconnectivity networks that aid in the reproduction of the system emerge. Through these
networks, which are enabled by meta-commonality infrastructure, even the smallest commons
systems can interact with multiple symbiotic systems. The process of autopoiesis, the
reproduction and adaptation of the system, is aided by the “Seeding, Evolutionary Growth,
and Reseeding” model of meta-design, from the inception of the system. This model allows
the commoners to actively participate in the alterations of the system.
< URBAN STRATEGY > < URBAN STRATEGY >
< PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK > 6 Explorations
< THE VISION >
/// With imagination strategy set out, I
turn to explore 6 different perspectives of
the alternative vision for Brussels North
Quarter. Starting with a broad view of the
four World Trade Center blocks, followed by
4 explorations of 4 different ministries
and finishing with the exploration of the
infrastructure that connects them together.
<92> <93>
MASTERPLAN
< EXPLORATION #1 >
META-COMMONALITY SYSTEMS
META-COMMONALITY SYSTEMS
MASTERPLAN
< Exploration #1 >
The masterplan is an answer to the failed
Manhattan Project vision of these 4 blocks.
Chosen representation method - the parallel
oblique projection, is used to make the
drawing akin to the drawing of the same site
from the ‘60s, which can be seen in site
analysis.
In the masterplan, 4 symbiotic commons
systems - the ministries are interconnected
with the meta-commonality infrastructure in
a 3-dimensional maze which enables the path
of the subject user through the commons.
Outside of the ministries, appropriation
modules are attached to the meta-
commonality infrastructure, representing
diverse appropriation opportunities that
are being enacted in the new vision. On the
ground level, portions of the public space
are overtaken by the flora and non-human
biological species. Space here is no longer
used according to hegemonic imposition.
Hyperdiversity of companion species has
created a complex ecosystem of actions and
interactions, all in common.
The 3-dimensional connectivity infrastructure
is a reimagination of what has not been
realized from the original manhattan project
- all public-use infrastructure. This new
meta-commonality infrastructure reenables
the civic agency in the open/public space
and replaces the previous modernist spatial
organization, whose primary focus was the
automobile infrastructure. In the shift from
the individually owned car as the primary
means of transportation, to micro-mobility
in parallel to public-transportation
infrastructure, meta-commonality
infrastructure offers connections for the
micro-mobility.
< EXPLORATIONS > < EXPLORATIONS >
<94> <95>
CREATION MINISTRY
< EXPLORATION #2 >
SYMBIOTIC COMMONS SYSTEM
SYMBIOTIC COMMONS SYSTEM
CRAFT SPACE
WOOD WORKSHOP
FABRICATION LABORATORY
STORAGE
CREATION MINISTRY
< Exploration #2 >
The second exploration is into the symbiotic
commons system of creation ministry. This
specific block of the site was chosen
for the creation ministry due to the one
missing tower. This condition allows for a
larger collective action to take place in
realization of the radical imagination.
This new action is represented by the Tower
of Babel - a mythical biblical structure.
According to the story of Babel, it was
an effort of a united human race to reach
the heavens. It represents a collective
endeavour to achieve a common goal. Only
this time, it is a collective endeavour of
companion species.
Existing spaces of the building are used
by different collectivities for creation
purposes. Underground spaces, previously
occupied by parking lots are now used as
vast storage of materials required for
creative practices. A vertical connection
allows the transfer of materials from
level to level, reaching the spaces in
the plinth. These are used as workshops,
fabrication laboratories, craft spaces and
other creative facilities. Here designers,
tinkerers, DIY-ers, builders and inventors
are able to enact their higher-activity
and realize their individual or collective
visions.
Meta-commonality infrastructure pierces
existing and new structures allowing
for feedback and collaboration between
different ministries at the same time
enabling different users to participate in
the processes of creation ministry.
< EXPLORATIONS > < EXPLORATIONS >
<96> <97>
CARE MINISTRY
< EXPLORATION #3 >
SYMBIOTIC COMMONS SYSTEM
SYMBIOTIC COMMONS SYSTEM
CARE MINISTRY
< Exploration #3 >
The third exploration is focused on the care
ministry. Here existing building spaces are
appropriated for localised food production,
physical activity, general wellbeing, and
maintenance processes. It is a symbiotic
commons system which is established by
empaths, user subjects which are inclined
to realize themselves through care and
maintenance. Care ministry is also inviting
for subjects in moments of vulnerability or
transitionality. Some temporary habitation
can be seen in the spaces. Sports activities
can also be seen - users wall climbing in
the existing framework of the building.
In this investigation, humans and other
biological species coexist in one symbiotic
commons system. Flora is putting down its
roots in the existing framework of the
building, allowing for mutually beneficial
exchanges such as food growth provided by
flora and care to the flora provided by
humans, establishing mutually beneficial
networks, which, through meta-commonality
infrastructure transgress to other sites.
Chosen representation method is an eye-
level perspective. Creating an immersive
view into the cosy and inviting nature of
the care ministry.
< EXPLORATIONS > < EXPLORATIONS >
<98> <99>
TECH MINISTRY
< EXPLORATION #4 >
SYMBIOTIC COMMONS SYSTEM
SYMBIOTIC COMMONS SYSTEM
TECH MINISTRY
< Exploration #4 >
The fourth exploration is into the tech
ministry. Here technological species have
overtaken the building and constructed
their habitats, forming their own commons
system.
In the right tower, physical technological
species have 3d printed their hives. These
hives attach to the existing framework of
the building making use of the constructed
infrastructure and rendering other elements,
such as facades, unnecessary. These hives
are interconnected with meta-commonality
infrastructure allowing these technological
species to move to different commons systems
and engage in collaborative practices with
other species.
The left tower is appropriated by digital
technological species which assist in
processing the data and information flowing
through connectivity infrastructure,
keeping the infrastructure stable taking
care of the throughput of the infrastructure
between different commons systems. It also
facilitates wireless connectivity, making
use of the existing antenna.
< EXPLORATIONS > < EXPLORATIONS >
<100> <101>
KNOWLEDGE MINISTRY
< EXPLORATION #5 >
SYMBIOTIC COMMONS SYSTEM
SYMBIOTIC COMMONS SYSTEM
To TECH ministry
CENTRAL
ACCSESS
TERMINAL
EPIPHANY SPACE
LIVE BROADCASTS
LABORATORY
ARTEFACT DISPLAYS
RESEARCH FACILITY
AUDITORIUM
PERSONAL SPACE
CLASSROOM
LOUNGE
PUBLIC INFORMATION
KNOWLEDGE
ARCHIVES
KNOWLEDGE ARCHEOLOGISTS EMBARKING ON A MISSION
INTO THE MAZE OF KNOWLEDGE ARCHIVES
FAST-ACCESS
MEMORY
To CARE ministry
KNOWLEDGE MINISTRY
< Exploration #5 >
The fifth exploration concludes 4 examined
symbiotic commons systems. It focuses on
knowledge ministry. As a twofold construct,
knowledge ministry facilitates storage and
access of collective memory and spaces for
commons systems that see data, information
and knowledge as their focus resource.
The storage of collective memory is
two-stage. First, the fast-access data
information and knowledge is stored close
to the access terminal. It collects and
distributes the most recent information and
frequently accessed information. Second, the
information and knowledge that is no longer
frequently requested are relegated to the
archives. An elaborate maze that facilitates
long-term storage of information with
complex taxonomies. A group of knowledge
archaeologists can be seen embarking on a
mission to the maze of knowledge archives,
hoping to find artefacts that were once
forgotten and lost in the endless stream of
information. Both of these stages connect
to the access terminal which facilitates
and computes storage and access requests.
Through this terminal, commoners in the
spaces above access their common resource
- data and information. These spaces are
divided up into two towers. The left tower
houses the generation and the forging of
knowledge. Research and experimentation
spaces are created by subjects that take a
methodic academic approach, but some non-
conventional methods can be seen as well,
an epiphany space was created as a sensory
deprivation chamber, enclosed from outside
stimuli, it offers an opportunity to
completely disconnect and establishes a more
psychological approach to the generation of
knowledge.
The right tower facilitates different forms
of learning. Mainly didactic and auto-
didactic. Auditoriums and classrooms are
used for the didactic approach, to teach and
share one’s knowledge. Meanwhile, lounge-
like spaces enable auto-didactic methods
of learning by offering high throughput
connectivity to collective memory.
Knowledge ministry is also used to display
information. Exhibitions of knowledge
artefacts can be created, which enable
the display of not so common information.
Meanwhile, the facades are used as displays
for current information - live streams and
statistics, public safety information and
so on.
Meta commonality infrastructure feeds to
the central terminal for access and storage
requests from different commons systems.
< EXPLORATIONS > < EXPLORATIONS >
<102> <103>
META-commonality infrastructure
< EXPLORATION #6 >
META-COMMONALITY SYSTEMS
META-COMMONALITY SYSTEMS
FREE RADICALS
FREE RADICALS
FREE RADICALS
FREE RADICALS
COMMONS SYTEM
COMMONS SYTEM
COMMONS SYTEM
COMMONS SYTEM
META-COMMONALITY
INFRASTRUCTURE
< Exploration #6 >
The sixth and final exploration is into
the meta-commonality infrastructure. It
illustrates a closeup of spaces in between
the ministries. Space, previously devoted
to car infrastructure, is now occupied by
new connectivity infrastructure and new
forms of space appropriation.
Within the grid, connectivity infrastructure
and appropriation modules are constructed.
These modules form clusters appropriated
by different commons systems. Spaces
appropriated by free radicals can also be
seen, not conforming to the infrastructure
and, most importantly, not connected to it,
acting independently.
Furthermore, flora entered cities no longer
as submissive species under the human domain
but in its own independent manner. Followed
by other species of animal and fungi
kingdoms, bringing ecosystems into spaces
previously solely controlled by humans.
< EXPLORATIONS > < EXPLORATIONS >
<104> <105>
Connections
Connections create multilayered pathways
that join different commons systems.
They enable multiple types of micro-
mobility as well as facilitate necessary
infrastructures for water, electricity,
digital connectivity and so on. Two lanes
are dedicated for micro-mobility use, while
the rest of the connection is for pedestrian
use. Necessary infrastructures enable the
modules of appropriation to be attached and
function.
< EXPLORATIONS > < EXPLORATIONS >
<106> <107>
Appropriation modules
Appropriation modules allow the flexible
creation of new spaces. They connect to the
infrastructure of connectivity and further
its reach. Formed out of modular elements,
these structures enable temporal and
multifunctional appropriation scenarios.
The module consists of the base, framework,
and optionally, the skin and its framework.
The framework of the skin allows it to
be retracted if needed, while the skin
itself encloses the module and protects the
interior from the environmental impacts.
Skin - a creative medium
The skin of the module can be utilized as
a medium for visual arts or display of
information. It allows the commons system,
appropriating the module, an opportunity
of expression towards the outside of the
system, encouraging feedback cycles and
external inputs.
< EXPLORATIONS > < EXPLORATIONS >
< PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK > CONCLUSION
</masters dissertation>
<111>
< PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK >
This project is not intended to be seen as a
utopian vision that should be followed. Although
some elements of the project could be implemented
even right now, it is not meant to be taken
as a concrete unifying proposal that ought to
be followed. It is an exploration of radical
imagination paradigms. Converging theories and
contexts into a vision of an alternative future.
This attempt of envisioning an alternative is at
the core of this dissertation, breaking from the
collapse of imagination induced by neoliberalism.
These alternative visions are the tool to start
constructing the future, the future free from
alienation and hegemony.
In this project, I have experimented with
alternative understandings of commons, user
subjects and radical imagination. I discovered
topics, which previously seemed too intimidating
or naive, in a different light. Throughout the
process of the project, I understood that these
topics are at the core of my personal academic
interests. I am excited to follow these interests
in the future, in practice or in research, and
further my understandings. But most of all, this
project inspired me to encourage others to engage
in radical imagination practices. After all,
radical imagination is not only an act of thinking
differently but also acting differently.
< PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK > APPENDIX
///
<114> <115>
REFERENCES
Actor-Network theory. (2020, May) In Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Actor%E2%80%93network_theory
Autopoiesis. (2020, May) In Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autopoiesis
Braidotti, R. (2017) Posthuman, All Too Human. The Memoirs and Aspirations of a Posthumanist.
Manuscript for Tanner Lectures Delivered at Yale University March 1-2, 2017
Bratton B. H. (2015) The Stack. On Software and Sovereignty. The MIT Press.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (2009). The Ecology of Human Development: Experiments by Nature and
Design. Harvard University Press.
Brusselization. (2020, May) In Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brusselization
Castoriadis, C. (1975). L’institution imaginaire de la société. Éditions du Seuil.
Translation: Kathleen, B. (1987) The Imaginary Institution of Society. The MIT Press
Castoriadis, C. (1994) Radical Imagination and the Social Instituting Imaginary. In Curtis,
D., A., (1997) The Castoriadis Reader. Blackwell Publishers.
Conway’s Game of Life. (2020, May) In Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway%27s_
Game_of_Life
De Angelis, M. (2017). Omnia Sunt Communia: On the Commons and the Transformation to
Postcapitalism. Zed Books.
Demeulemeester, K. (2006). MANHATTAN, NEW YORK – MANHATTAN, BRUSSELS: postwar urban planning
in the grip of an island.
Fischer, G. & Giaccardi, E. (2004) Meta-Design: A Framework for the Future of End-User
Development. In Lieberman, H., Paternò, F., Wulf, V. (Eds) End User Development -
Empowering People to Flexibly Employ Advanced Information and Communication Technology.
Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Freeman, J. (1972). The Tyranny of Structurelessness. The Second Wave. 2 (1): 20.
Gielen, P. (2015). Performing the Common City. On the Crossroads of Art, Politics, and
Public Life. In Constant. New Babylon (pp.224-244). Museo Nacional Centro de Arte Reina
Sofia.
Haiven, M. (2010). The Financial Crisis as a Crisis of Imagination. Cultural Logic, 17.
https://doi.org/10.14288/clogic.v17i0.191526
Haiven, M. (2014). Crises of Imagination, Crises of Power. Zed Books.
Haiven, M. & Khasnabish, A. (2014). The Radical Imagination: Social Movement Research in
the Age of Austerity. Zed Books.
Haraway D. J. (1991). A Cyborg Manifesto: Science, Technology, and Socialist-Feminism in
the Late Twentieth Century. In Simians, Cyborgs and Women: The Reinvention of Nature
(pp.149-181). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203873106
Haraway D. J. (2003). The Companion Species Manifesto. Dogs, People, and Significant
Otherness. Prickly Paradigm Press.
Herzberg, G. (1971) The Spectra and Structures of Simple Free Radicals. An Introduction to
Molecular Spectroscopy. Dover Publications.
Hilzenrath, D., S., & Schneider, G. (2001, September 12) An Icon of Capitalism: ‘Now It’s
All Gone’. The Washington Post. Retrieved from: https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/
politics/2001/09/12/an-icon-of-capitalism-now-its-all-gone/63016867-6378-4542-b6b3-
34a24dc0a8b1/
Kim, J. (2018). Posthuman Labor. E-flux. https://www.e-flux.com/architecture/
superhumanity/179232/posthuman-labor/
Latour B. (2005) Reassembling the Social. An introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. Oxford
University Press.
Ledent, G. (2019) From Ideal Proposals to Serial Developments: Victor Bourgeois’s Schemes
in the Light of Post-War Developments in Brussels. Urban Planning 4(3). http://dx.doi.
org/10.17645/up.v4i3.2115
Marinetti, F., T. (1909) The Founding and Manifesto of Futurism. In Apollonio, U., (Ed)
Documents of 20th Century Art: Futurist Manifestos. Brain, Robert, R.W. Flint, J.C.
Higgitt, and Caroline Tisdall, trans. 1973 (pp.19-24). Viking Press.
Marx, K. (1973). Grundrisse. Penguin
Sadler, S. (2005). Archigram: architecture without architecture. The MIT Press.
Smart contract. (2020, May) In Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_contract
Srnicek, N. & Williams, A. (2015). Inventing the Future. Postcapitalism and a World Without
Work. Verso.
Systems theory. (2020, May) In Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_theory
Thompson, B. (1984) Studies in the Theory of Ideology. University of California Press.
United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division (2019).
World Urbanization Prospects: The 2018 Revision (ST/ESA/SER.A/420). New York: United
Nations.
Varnelis, K. (2006). Programming After Program: Archizoom’s No-Stop City. PRAXIS: Journal
of Writing Building, (8), 82-91.
Varnelis, K. & Friedberg, A. (2008). Place: The Networking of Public Space. In Varnelis,
K. (Ed) Networked Publics. The MIT Press.
Wigley, M. (1998). Constant’s New Babylon. The Hyper-Architecture of Desire. 010 Publishers.
Worth, O. (2015) Rethinking Hegemony. Palgrave.
Young, L. (2019). Neo-Machine: Architecture Without People. Architectural Design, 89(1)
(pp.6-13). http://doi.org/10.1002/ad.2381.
Žižek, S. (2012). Less Than Nothing. Verso.
<116> <117>
LIST OF EXTERNAL FIGURES
Stack theory diagram.
From “The Stack. On Software and Sovereignty.“ by Bejamin H. Bratton. 2015
New Babylon Nord (New Babylon North)
From “Constant’s New Babylon. The Hyper-Architecture of Desire” by Mark Wigley 1998
Oriënt sector (Orient Sector)
From “Constant’s New Babylon. The Hyper-Architecture of Desire” by Mark Wigley 1998
Homo Ludens 1966
From “Constant. New Babylon” 2015
Grote gele sector (Large Yellow Sector)
From “Constnt’s New Babylon. The Hyper-Architecture of Desire” by Mark Wigley 1998
New Babylon / Amsterdam
From “Constnt’s New Babylon. The Hyper-Architecture of Desire” by Mark Wigley 1998
Plug-In_City, Overhead View, Axonometric. Peter Cook, 1963
Retereived from: archigram.net/portfolio.html
Dennis Crompton, Computer City, 1964
From “Archigram. Architecture without architecture” by Simon Sadler 2005
Ron Herron. Walking City on the Ocean, project (Exterior perspective), 1966
Retereived from: moma.org/collection/works/814
Peter Cook, Plug-In City: Maximum Pressure Area, section, 1964
Retereived from: moma.org/collection/works/797
Yona Friedman, 1959. Tunis: section of the bridge-town above Medina.
Retreived from: archdaily.com/912823/a-selection-of-the-most-representative-drawings-by-yona-
friedman/
Yona Friedman, 1959. Photomontage of a Ville Spatiale over the Seine in the heart of Paris.
Retreived from: archdaily.com/912823/a-selection-of-the-most-representative-drawings-by-yona-
friedman/
Yona Friedman, 1958-1962. Details of the concept for the Ville Spatiale looking up.
Retreived from: yonafriedman.nl/?page_id=400
Yona Friedman, 1959. Photomontage of a Ville Spatiale crossing high up over the town and the Seine in
the heart of Paris.
Retreived from: vernaculaire.com/yona-friedman-ville-spatiale/
Archizoom Associati, 1969. Mies Chair and Ottoman.
Retreived from: moma.org/collection/works/89847
Archizoom Associati, No-Stop City, 1969
From: “Diagram Utopias: Rota and Network as Instrument and Mirror of Utopia and Agronica” by Christoph
Lueder 2013
No-stop City, Homogeneous Living Diagrams, Archizoom 1969
From: “Programming After Program: Archizoom’s No-Stop City” by Kazys Varnelis 2006
Archizoom Associati, No-Stop City, 1969
Retreived from: frac-centre.fr/_en/authors/rub/rubworks-318.html?authID=11&ensembleID=42&oeuvreID=215
No-stop City, Andrea Branzi 1969
Retreived from: bmiaa.com/reliefs-cycle-of-exhibitions-and-events-at-les-turbulences-frac-centre/no-
stop-city-andrea-branzi-1969/
Brussels-Allée-Verte station, end of 19th century
Public domain. Retreived from: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fichier:Groendreefstation.jpg
Ferraris map, 1777
Retreived from: mybrugis.irisnet.be/brugis/
Vandermaelen map, 1846-1854
Retreived from: mybrugis.irisnet.be/brugis/
Grand Bruxelles Plan by Victor Bourgeois, 1929
From “From Ideal Proposals to Serial Developments: Victor Bourgeois’s Schemes in the Light of Post-War
Developments in Brussels.” by Gérald Ledent 2019
Manhattan Project by Structures, 1964
From “From Ideal Proposals to Serial Developments: Victor Bourgeois’s Schemes in the Light of Post-War
Developments in Brussels.” by Gérald Ledent 2019
Project for the World Trade Center
Retreived from: https://primarystructure.net/manhattan-project/
Manhattan Project model
(World Trade Center Brussels, s.d., p. 9).
Retreived from: irismonument.be/nl.Brussel_Uitbreiding_Noord.Koning_Albert_II-laan.24.html
Project for the World Trade Center
Project voor het World Trade Center, SAB/DD 531.
Retreived from: irismonument.be/nl.Brussel_Uitbreiding_Noord.Koning_Albert_II-laan.24.html
Project for the World Trade Center, the proposed esplanades on the pedestals (World Trade Center
Brussels, s.d., p. 17).
Retreived from: irismonument.be/nl.Brussel_Uitbreiding_Noord.Koning_Albert_II-laan.24.html
Urban fabric of North Quarter in 1961.
Retreived from: mybrugis.irisnet.be/brugis/
Urban fabric of North Quarter in 1977, after demolisions.
Retreived from: mybrugis.irisnet.be/brugis/
Land Use map. Dominant monofunctionality in the North Quarter. Highlighted in blue - administrative
areas. Blue diagonal hatch - regional interest areas.
Data source: geobru.irisnet.be/en/
Proximus Towers. World Trade Center blocks. Man sitting on a curb, next to a private property sign.
Image taken from Google Street View (2020).
