1

LANDSCAPE ANATOMIESTHERESE HASSETT

2

3

I. The Introduction

a. The Architect and The Site

a. Site Anatomy

a. The Radiologist

a. Potsdamer Plotz

b. How the radiologist/sculptor/pilot engage the landscape.

b. The Fly Fisherman

c. The Low Flying Pilot

c. An Exercise in New Methods (focus: quality)

b. Current Methods of Representa on (focus: quan ty)

b. Site Sightprivilege to sight sense

What makes up site?

Establishing Meaning

Analyze and Interpret

hap c/ three dimensionsinterpret sensory informa on (“feedback loop”)

privilege to sightplane as tool for interpreta onearth as tool (earth to take off and land, wind, gravity)

aesthe c touch

Slicing

The Ingredients of Site

privilege to plan viewprivilege to measurable quan es

II. The Breakdown

III. Relevant Methodologies

IV. Design Proposal

4

INTRODUCTION

The Architect and The Site.

Le CorbusierVilla Savoye Poissy, France

5

In the pursuit of architecture, inevitably we engage the issue of the site. Just as the painter has his canvas, and the chef has her plate, architects have the land. We create on and with the surface of the earth, her soil suppor ng the heights of our sculptures. It is in a though ul and precise marriage of a building to the land where we fi nd beau ful and relevant architecture.

But is there more to this rela onship?

Perhaps the most evident use of site is during the construc on phase as holes are bored into the ground and concrete is poured over the dirt. Clearly, the site is a major player during the fi nal phases of architecture - if you don’t have anywhere to build, there wont be a building. But when do we start thinking about the site? History gives an unclear answer. Modern architecture long exemplifi ed sustained disregard for site related issues. Many architectural examples from this me period could have likely been dug up and moved to a new site, loosing none of their character. Along side of the industrial revolu on, idoliza on of exchangeable parts and the stamp of the machine infl uenced the character of architecture during this era. Architectural drawings and literature refl ected this a tude, o en refer-ring only to the architecture itself and not its physical context1. Modernist architectural thought made a clear statement that design was complete in its own right, and the site was simply where we could place the fi nal work of art. In this way, the site was essen ally conceived as the picture frame for a work of architecture: a bounded and blank en ty ready to receive any building that might fi t.

In her essay On Site, Carol Burns iden fi es this type of thinking as the no- on of the cleared site : “The idea of the cleared site is based on an as-

sump on that the site as received is unoccupied, lacking any prior construc- ons and empty of content. It posits space as objec ve and ‘pure’, a neutral

mathema cal object.”2 The ordering of land was a fundamental tac c of the early colonial socie es in order to control and assign property.

6

INTRODUCTION

In assigning a grid to the American landscape, they achieved not only a clear assignment of land tracts, but also the neutraliza on of the landscape. The grid eff ec vely omits any real diff erences between sites invisible and pre-sumes equal access to all land.

Certainly, more recent architectural discourse has treated the site with great-er recogni on. The idea of a neutral or homogenous landscape is being chal-lenged by an increasingly strong focus on the inherent character and individ-uality of the earth. As much as the modern architectural movement would have like to assumed no site infl uence, me has told another story: leaky roofs, decaying lumber, and sagging structure. We cannot avoid the infl uence of the landscape on our buildings, and this is true even beyond the eff ect of weather. As opposed to the no on of the cleared site, Burns iden fi es this as the no on of the constructed site, “...which emphasizes the visible physical-ity, morphological quali es, and exis ng condi ons of land and architecture.”

2 The constructed site embodies a tudes and prac ces which ac vely add to the layers of a site; construc ng it. According to this philosophy, designers must embrace their temporary control over a piece of the earth, recognize it’s past, and contribute to its future.

Given the strong and durable rela onship of a building to its site, designers should give greater weight to the character and atmosphere of the site.Perhaps even before the design of any building takes place, the architect should be considering the site.

7

In their book, Site Ma ers, Andrea Kahn and Carol Burns discuss the inevitable e between site and designer:

“Design does not simply impose on a place. Site and designer engage in a dialogic interac on. At once extrinsic and intrinsic, a site exists out there in the world but acquires design meaning only through its apprehension, intellectually and experien- ally...Site thinking provides the means whereby these exchanges are construed and

comprehended” (p.xv)

Site thinking is the means by which we achieve that successful marriage between the land and the building. Not solely part of the landscape architecture fi eld, the earth is a valuable and ever-present medium of the architect’s art form and should be em-braced as an integral addi on to our toolset.

8

INTRODUCTION

Site Sight.(ways of “seeing”)

Steven HollMuseum of Contemporary Art, Helsinki

9

To be er incorporate site thinking into our design process, we must fi rst acknowledge how we think about site and how this type of thinking manifests itself in our design fi eld. How we think about site is directly related to how we engage with it, o en a purely sight based interac on. This is nothing new - as far back as Greek and Roman mes, sight has been considered the noblest of the senses. The advent of the prin ng press solidifi ed our preference to sight by rendering the passage of informa on as a visual method. Our infatu-a on with the sense of sight has only increased in vigor in the form of Hollywood, gaming consoles, and online social media. Our world is becoming increasingly “ocularcentric”.3

The Western emphasis on sight-generated, sight-centered, sight-condi oned interpreta- ons of knowledge, truth, and reality produces eff ects that only tell part of a whole story.

Defi ning reality primarily by sight excludes informa on from our other senses; consequent-ly we struggle to value what we know through them so they become weak and undevel-oped. A cycle emerges in which the less-used senses contribute less, become less valued, and less cul vated. The essen al unity of the senses is disrupted. We miss the overlapping, mutually enriching resonances of the full sensory experience. We limit ourselves to a nar-rower range of physical movement and sensory s mulus. We lose touch with our bodies. The combina on of narrowed reality, sensory imbalance and soma c dullness can contrib-ute to a fl a ening of experience.

The problem lies not in sight itself but in the way we see. We have neglected the body as a source of knowledge. The eff ortless, disengaged quali es of sight reinforce the illusion that we can minimize the condi ons of the body and the environment.3

Consequently, a sight-centered mentality leads to our explaining issues of site in terms only the eye can understand. This bias toward sight creates a tendency to represent sight issues visually, as evidenced by the site plan and sec on. It is not to say that these are not helpful representa ons of a site, but they cannot tell the whole story. By appealing to the sense of sight, we place ourselves outside the site (so as to grasp its en rety). From here we can see its boundary and shape, but not feel its textures, hear its sounds, or taste and smell its life.

In his book, Eyes of the Skin, Juhani Pallasmaa states, “The authen city of architectural ex-perience is grounded in the tectonic language of building and the comprehensibility of the act of construc on to the senses. We behold, touch, listen, and measure the world with our en re bodily existence, and the experien al world becomes organized and ar culated around the center of the body.” (p. 64)

It is important to recognize our bias toward sight, refl ected in the way we choose to repre-sent site issues, and it is just as important to make greater and more provoca ve eff orts to represent the other sensory experiences of the site.

Privilege to Sense of Sight

10

INTRODUCTION

In tandem with the privilege to the sense of sight and the privilege to measurable quan - es, we also fi nd a privilege to the birds eye (or plan view) when represen ng site. The use

of the eye to study a site locates us outside of the site at some distance, to view the site from afar. O en the fi rst (and most crucial) concerns about a site are its size, its boundar-ies, and its context - all of which are shown to us with a site plan. From this view we also fi nd the property line informa on, set back informa on, fi gure/ground diagrams, geologic informa on, zoning informa on, etc. It is clear that the plan view is the preference when conveying site informa on.

However, this type of drawing has implica ons. First, it takes its roots in the Jeff ersonian grid and the establishment of control over the landscape. These drawings maintain the no- on that site is a bounded en ty and therefore perpetuates the idea that sites are neutral,

having no eff ect outside the drawn lines. Just stepping foot onto a site, we fi nd this to be false. Despite the drawn plan lines, the experience of a site is always infl uenced by the environment surrounding it. Addi onally, by mapping informa on in this way, it begins to show only rela onships of proximity. It is common for us to draw rela onships between places on a map because they are close together, when in reality, that might be the only thing they have in common.

Another bias in site informa on is one which focuses on the measurable a ributes of the site. We are o en concerned with quan fying the space it contains within its boundaries, what mes day it receives sunlight, its monetary value, how tall a structure can be within its boundaries, etc. This bias is directly related our ability to own, occupy, and sell land. As we objec fy it, it becomes important to communicate land in terms of its measurements.

However, sites - unlike mathema cs, are not sta c. While it is important in our culture to assign values to land, we must also understand that it is never a precise fi t. Property values are constantly fl uctua ng such that land is always changing in value. Also, the assigning of boundary lines to a site becomes less clear when we aren’t looking at the piece of paper. The thin black line deno ng the edge of the site is more ambiguous when you’re dealing with a fi eld (is it on this side of that rock? Or the other side?). Even more ambiguous when you’re dealing with a neighbor who’s tree trunk is on his property but the tree’s leaves are hanging over yours (even if its only when the wind blows). The a empt to assign hard lines and num-bers to an ever evolving landscape is never as clear as the drawings make it seem to be.

Privilege to the plan view

Privilege to Measurable Quan es

11

Represen ng the site as something measured from a plan view is not harmful in and of itself. In many ways, it is an important step by which we begin a design process. To be con-trolled or owned, the physical site needs delimita on; however to be understood in design, it must be considered extensively in reference to its se ng. Places cannot be experienced in isola on. Embedded in the comprehension of a place is the contact with something greater.

“The concept of site simultaneously refers to seemingly opposite ideas: a physi-cally specifi c place and a spatially and temporally expansive surround. Incorporat-ing three distinct geographic areas, two divergent spatial ideas, and past, present,and future time frames, sites are complex.”

- Carol Burns and Andrea Kahn p.xii

12 THE BREAKDOWN

Site Anatomy.

Rio De Janeiro SketchesLe Corbusier

13

Up un l this point, the focus of this book has been to emphasize the importance of a site’s individuality. Understanding the site as part of a unique and kine c landscape is crucial to designing the kind of architecture which marries to it in a meaningful way. Being aware of our tendency to objec fy and neutralize the site, or reduce it to its quan es, is an important step in formula ng new approaches.

This next sec on looks solely at the idea of site. Disengaging it from a par cular landscape and focusing on the act of making site reveals common elements which result from this process. I call these the anatomies of site. Found across all geographies and cultures, these are the parts of the body which make up site.

In accordance with the no on of the constructed site, this exercise a empts to reveal certain quali es that are inherent in site making. The manufacture of a boundaries (not just the property line), the rela onship the site has to the sky and the sun, the memories carried from that place through an experience with it, and many others. In making a site, the landscape comes loaded with these a ributes and can be fuel for design.

14

ENCLOSURE

GROUND SKY

SURROUND

SURFACE

Sites are the result of many enclosures. Th ese enclosures happen at varying scales and shapes, and are not necessarily static. Site might be the enclosure of surround-ing walls, or the acoustic enclosure of a moving truck and stationary soloist on the corner.

Th e relationship that the site has to the ground and sky is never fi xed. Th e kinetic earth places the site in a new relationship to the sky constantly. Th e earth itself, both organic and inorganic, is in a permanent state of fl uctuation. Within the enclosure of site, the content is always shift ing and changing.

At each scale of the sites enclosure, there is a surround which constitutes that which is immediately outside of the enclosure.

Sites are always bounded by surfaces, however not all of them are visible to the naked eye. Th e more obvious surface boundaries are surfaces on or within the earth, or the wall of an adjacent building. Th e less apparent surfaces are defi ned by its zoning codes, its height limitations, etc

THE BREAKDOWN

15

ORIENTATION

LOCATION

CONTEXT

Sites have an orientation, oft en defi ned with respect to the north in western culture.

We can assume that sites are also locatable in relation to something else. Be-cause they exist in the physical environment, we can map them within a city, or within a realm of landscape.

Diff erent from surround, sites have context. Th e context is oft en a part of the site. Th e context includes ways of accessing the site, relevant geological or sociological features.

16

Site Representedquan ta ve lens

Mies Van Der RoheFarnsworth House Site Plan

THE BREAKDOWN

17

“Instruments of representa on allow developments in techniques of descrip on. Graphic tools inform and bracket how designers think. Thought is both allowed and constrained by formats (plans, sec ons, maps, photography, video, and use schedules), scale and scope, and informa onal frames of reference (types and choices of data).” (p. xvii) Andrea Kahn + Carol Burns

The quickest way to portray how we think is to look at how we draw. The ways we choose to represent something speak volumes about what our understanding of that thing are, as well as our value set surround-ing it. Consequently, the way we see something represented has a great deal to do with how we will understand that thing. Because of this, it is important to be aware of the ways in which we choose to represent the issues of site and the meanings they convey. Prevailing approaches to site representa on focus on quan fi able aspects and are more associated with the ownership and legality of a place. O en not seen are the qualifi -able aspects of the site: what are its textures, colors, smells, and sounds? Within these boundaries of ownership there exists a great richness of material, whether in rural or urban se ngs, which could serve as crea ve material for the design process.

In this sec on, I fi rst establish the most common representa onal meth-ods for site - all of which see through a quan ta ve lens. Then, I make the argument that these methods of representa on aren’t telling the whole story of the site and call for new and more provoca ve methods by which to examine the site.

When we are represen ng a work of architecture, we don’t sell it on its plan alone. Colorful perspec ves and material studies help to communi-cate what it is like to exist there. Without knowing what it is like to exist on a site before we design a building for it, do we really know the site well enough to interact with it?

18

The Site Plan

The conven on of the site plan reveals the site from an indiscrim-inate point above the place of design interven on, o en without perspec ve. It communicates informa on about objects within the environment of the design proposal, revealing the context in the form of two-dimensional shapes, the most common being: polygonal footprints of surrounding buildings, circular tops of trees, and rectangular roads or walkways. Each object rendered as a simple, outlined form.

This type of drawing conveys the no on that sites are simple, bounded en es. As Carol Burns and Andrea Kahn discuss in their book, “Site Ma ers”, the conven on of the site plan perpetuates the modern no on that sites are “de-natured (engaged as formal surface); mythologized (emp ed of meaning); and colonized (sub-jected to the singular authority of design controls)”1. This type of drawing requires generalizing the specifi city of place into a set of categories (building/landscape/hardscape) and reduces the rich-ness of experience to the more limited sense of place as loca on.

The site plan values quan ta ve a ributes of sites (number of objects, size, distance, etc.) and de-emphasizes the qualita- ve features. If I wanted to know what Paris was like, I might

be rather dissa sfi ed if the only answer was given to me in map form. We should give careful considera on to communica ng informa on about our site in only this way. As Robert A. Beaure-gard argues in ‘From Place to Site’1, “planners and designers take control of a place by dis lling its narra ves. They eliminated the ambigui es that might derail the project by cas ng doubt that it is the best and only viable op on”. However, in dis lling a site’s narra ves, we forfeit the opportunity to use the narra ve of the site as a design tool.

Zaha HadidBurnham Pavillion, Chicago

THE BREAKDOWN

19

The Figure Ground

Another diagram from the vantage point of the low-fl ying pilot looks at the landscape as a set of binary informa on – fi gure and ground. Serving as the ul mate reduc on of informa on, this type of rep-resenta on perpetuates the modern movement’s privilege of clear categoriza on.

The fi gure/ground drawing is used to speak compara vely about urban morphologies, and more specifi cally about rela ons of scale between built objects, between mass and void, or of the rela on-ship between public and private spaces. However, the fi gure ground drawing is only concerned with the construc on of diff erence. It ren-ders the true complexity of landscape as “ostensibly stable grounds and locatable loca ons”2. Through its use of black and white, this method of representa on has been used to clarify an understanding of situa ons, as well as to proclaim inten ons and desires for spaces.

However, here too we fi nd a method of representa on that fails to depict the experien al reali es of a place. In her book “The ABC’s of Bauhaus, Bauhaus and Design Theory”, Ellen Lupton argues that “… while Gestalt theory foregrounds perceptual frames, it discourages thinking about cultural frames. The social, linguis c, and ins tu onal contexts of design recede behind the dominant fi gure of form.”3 Given that human occupa on of design exists within the ‘social, linguis c, and ins tu onal contexts’, a method of representa on by which these are emphasized is missing in architectural prac ce.

Zaha HadidnVitra Firesta on

20

Th e Site Section

Another common drawing arising out of contemporary site analysis is the site section. At its most communicative, it renders visible changing elevations in the landscape and the relationship of these elevations relation to the sky and other elements within the landscape

Like the site plan, it fi nds its root in the dimensional attri-butes of a site and is drawn at scale. A necessary depiction for the construction of a building, it can accurately depict the distance of objects from the surface of the earth. However, while this way of representing site nears the zone of human habitation more so than the site plan and fi gure ground, it emphasizes a reality of the site which is rarely experienced. Much like the section of a building, the site section reveals hidden information, yet very little of it helpful beyond the actual construction phase of architecture.

Petra Gipp ArkitekturRefugium of a Forester

THE BREAKDOWN

21

The Site Narra ve

Embedded in the paperwork about a site, the narra ve is sel-dom seen if you walk across the site. The site narra ve embod-ies the social and legal informa on about a site. Important to the design process, the narra ve tells of legal set backs or height limita ons; zoning codes or neighborhood associa ons; school districts and vo ng informa on; and private or public property designa ons. Even though rarely seen, the informa on within the site narra ve can have great implica ons on exis ng within the site bounds. For example, you might not feel the change of a parcel from public to private, but it could mean your arrest.

The site narra ve is highly a highly social and therefore fl exible instrument by which to assign and control the landscape.

Stockton, CASetback Code

22

Site Representedqualitative lens

watercolor by Steven Holl

THE BREAKDOWN

23

Because the ways in which we represent the site are important to our understanding of the site, it is crucial to explore more provoca ve representa onal methods to be er understand site. It is important to capture not only the quan es of the site, but also the quali es.

So what are the quali es of site? If the site is to be an architectural tool, what are its poten als? What is site made of?

What follows is a generaliza on of the ingredients of site. More than just “rock” or “grass”, the images a empt to embody the feeling and the quality that those things bring to a site. In this way, grass might be the same as straw or fur - all being comprised of a mul tude of thin projec les.

Once having established the ingredients of site, I will look to other methodologies which might inform new ways of understanding these ingredients. Consequently, these alternate methodologies will create new representa onal methods - opening up new and provoca ve ways of understanding site issues.

24

Rough beneath my fi nger ps - concrete. Grainy - the surface erodes under my touch, white le overs. Boulders. Cracks in the ground. Dry earth swallowing up shadows. haze of dust. A forgo en window sill, or rocky mountain tops.

ROUGH

THE BREAKDOWN

25

BRISTLES

Bristly to the touch, fi ne hairs move in the wind. The fi ne underside of a rab-bits stomach, or the fi ne hairs on a vegetable stem. The coarse hair behind the horses ear or the young grass fi rst protruding the soil of a er the winter.

26 THE BREAKDOWN

So and sa ny, touching the breast of a duckling, or the advanced stage of mold. Perhaps the blooming stamen of a fl ower. The moss that covers the shady side of boulders.

FUR

27

Coarse, yet gives beneath the weight of your fi ngers. Find it a ached to the ro en corpses of fallen trees, or in the depths of the ocean. A close look at the pads on the paws of an animal, or at a complex root system once you pull out a plant.

SPONGE

28 THE BREAKDOWN

Tall fi eld grasses blowing the wind or a microscopic view of bacteria. Dried straw. An assemblage of branches and twigs.

STRANDS

29

Tear drops, or the surface of boiling water. Bubbles in the ocean cur-rent. Dirty sewer water.

FLUID

30 RELEVANT METHODOLOGIES

Relevant Methodologies

Jim LindermanFolk Art Diorama

31

Having established the ingredients of the site, a lot can be gleaned from the methodologies of other fi elds. I focus here on three specifi c methods which would have varying approaches to analyzing site issues. Because the focus varies so greatly among these characters, I hope to reveal complexi es of site that are o en hidden to designers because our design methods do not focus on them.

The following characters: the radiologist, the fl y fi sherman, and the low-fl ying pilot serve as methodological precedents by which to glean new and provoca ve representa onal methods. I have chosen these three characters for their divergent interests. The radiologist is concerned with the intricacies of the site and it sec onal a ributes. The fl y fi sherman is interested in the textures of the landscape and the ways they might be manipulated to create new eff ects. And fi nally the low-fl ying pilot is concerned with the landscape as a grouping of surfaces.

32 RELEVANT METHODOLOGIES

the radiologist

33

The goal of the radiologist is to reveal informa on about the human body which is never available to the human eye. They are experts of machinery which makes visible informa on within the skin of the body. From here, they must make value judgments about this informa on. They have to understand the varying textures and densi es of the human body and fi nd the inconsis-tencies to locate illnesses.

The radiologist wants to look at the site as an assemblage of sec ons, each one describing diff erent rela onships, and each sec on reveals diff erent textures, densi es, and materials. However, much like how a deadly tumor might be the smallest thing on a body scan, they must know how to interpret the important characteris cs. Thus the radiologist not only creates sec ons of the site, but also interprets the sec ons to reveal the important character-is cs of that place which might be lost in the sec on otherwise.

34 RELEVANT METHODOLOGIES

35

In this analysis of the Robie House, the radiologist is interested not only in the slices both in plan and sec on, but interpre ng that infor-ma on. This diagram emphasizes the height of the concrete building behind the Robie House as well as the greenery which isn’t present in the sec on.

36

the fl y fi sherman

RELEVANT METHODOLOGIES

37

We acknowledge our ability to manipulate and shape things through ac vi- es such as plan ng and pruning, sawing and hammering, cu ng and sew-

ing, sculp ng and carving, chopping and s rring. All these ac ons have a cri -cal but hidden dimension: the sensory. Sensory touch seamlessly, ceaselessly interweaves with manipula ve touch. If you have ever watched a po er at work on a wheel, you know how magically the pot seems to emerge from the clay turning between her hands. It grows from the skillful discourse between sensing and doing, between feeling and making. An unbroken con nuum runs through sensory touch, aesthe c touch, manipula ve touch and crea ve touch.

The fl y fi sherman extends this con nuum into an act of decep on. As he cre-ates his lures, he works to assemble textures which aren’t meant to mirror any specifi c insect, but to generalize their characteris cs and colors. The re-sult is a work of art which interprets something exis ng in nature and draws emphasis to its appearance.

38 RELEVANT METHODOLOGIES

The fl y fi sherman reconfi gures the textural aspects of the landscape to con-struct new ideas. In just the way that a fl y fi shing lure challenges the no on of a fl y by assigning its anatomy new materials, so too the fl y fi sherman chal-lenges the no on of concrete by giving it a furry texture, or challenges the so ness of fur by adding hard edges to it.

39

40

the low-fl ying pilot

RELEVANT METHODOLOGIES

41

The Pilot has a unique point of view - and sees site as a composi on of surface and volume. He understands the world as either something he can land on, or something he cannot. He understands his al tude in rela on to the ground, as well as unique rela onship with gravity and he uses it to maintain balance. He sees his rela onship with the earth in terms of measurements and angles.

We rely strongly on vision to approximate distance, size, and nature of things in our sight. We use these approxima ons to categorize and iden- fy objects in our environment. Anything which does not carefully fall

into a category or iden fi ca on is notable and curious to us.

42 RELEVANT METHODOLOGIES

The pilot can see the greater pa erns in the landscape, but might not always be able to tell what the material is that makes up that pa ern. The pilot replicates the three dimensional rela onship he has with the ground through a series of dioramas. They show the textural quali es of the land and also place the pilot in his normal rela onship to them - from above.

43

44 DESIGN PROPOSAL

Design Proposal

Berlin, GermanyPotsdamer Platz

45

To engage these relevant methodologies in a design eff ort, each character will be given the site of Potsdamer Platz in Berlin, Germany. For the de-sign proposal, I will exercise each character’s methodology on this site to reveal hidden complexi es and characteris cs. I will use this informa on as fodder for the design of three interven ons - one for each character. For example, I will use the radiologists method of slicing and interpre ng to examine this site and fi nd its most relevant quali es for an interven on made by the radiologist. These wont be large architectural interven ons, but small, inten onal markings of the landscape in the language of their marker.

Potsdamer Platz was chosen for its inherent complex site - geographically, socially, and historically. The layers of this site provide plenty of informa- on to be revealed and analyzed by these alternate methods.

46

Works Referenced

1. Burns, Carol, and Andrea Kahn. Site matters: design concepts, his-tories, and strategies. Psychology Press, 2005. Print.

2. Burns, Carol. “On Site.” Drawing Building Text. Ed. Andrea Kahn. New York, NY: Princeton Architectural Press, 1991. Print.

3. Pallasmaa, Juhani. Th e eyes of the skin: architecture and the senses. John Wiley & Son Ltd, 1996. Print

4. Hensel, Michael, Christopher Hight, and Achim Menges. Space Reader: Heterogeneous Space in Architecture. West sussex, UK: John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 2009. Print.

5. Lieberman, Oren. "Figure Ground: Double Occupations of Dis-courses and Events." Occupation: Negotiations of Constructed Space 1-9. Web. 11 May 2011. <http://artsresearch.brighton.ac.uk/research/centre/offi ce-for-spatial-research/projects/project-and-conference-archive/occupa-tion/conference-papers/27_Oren%20Lieberman-Figure-Ground.pdf>.

6. Lupton, Ellen. Th e ABC's of Bauhaus, Th e Bauhaus and Design Th eory. New York, NY: Th e Princeton Architectural Press, 2000. Print

7. Tuft e, Edward. Beautiful Evidence. Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press LLC, 2006. Print

8. Cook, Peter. Drawing: the motive force of architecture. John Wiley & Sons Inc, 2008. Print.

47

Image Bank

Cover: Photo by Author

Page 4: h p://archrecord.construc on.com/features/cri que/0704cri que-1.asp

Page 6: maps.google.com

Page 8: h p://www.arcspace.com/studio/s_holl/pages/8_jpg.html

Page 12: h p://modern-brazil-architecture.blogspot.com/2009/12/fi rst-a empt-to-introduce-modernist.html

Page 14-15: Diagrams by Author

Page 16: h p://chlorinegardening.wordpress.com/2010/02/27/farnsworth-house-mies-van-der-rohe/

Page 18: h p://www.yatzer.com/1858_the_burnham_pavilion_by_zaha_hadid_ar-chitects_in_chicago

Page 19: h p://drawingarchitecture.tumblr.com/page/27

Page 20: h p://www.archdaily.com/69805/refugium-of-a-forester-petra-gipp-arki-tektur/

Page 21: h p://qcode.us/codes/stockton/view.php?topic=16-3-16_36-16_36_110&frames=on

Page 22: h p://europaconcorsi.com/projects/16687-School-Of-Art-Art-History/print

Page 24-29: Photos by Author

Page 30: h p://www.planandsec on.com/?p=754

48

Page 32: h p://image.made-in-china.com/2f0j00HvktBpSyZbrL/Set-Of-Slices-of-The-Whole-Body.jpg

Page 34-35: Diagram by Author

Page 36: photograph used with permission of author Chris Burtram: h p://www.fl ickr.com/photos/cburtram/4408818567/

Page 38-39: By Author

Page 40: h p://www.ametsoc.org/sloan/cleanair/cleanairgallery.html

Page 41-43: Photos by Author

Page 44: h p://buildberlin.wordpress.com/2010/06/09/potsdamer-platz-urban-open-space-in-the-21st-century/

49

50