1

THE ARCHITECTURE OF DEBATE:The Method ,context and outcome

of an Effective debate

D60DA_2019-2020: Dissertation (Architecture)

Alawiya Ali Mohammed-H00257508

2

1-Abstract 2-Acknowledgement3-List of Figures4-Introduction 5-History and Evolution of Debate in Architecture 6-The Role of Debate in Architecture 7.0-The historical debates analysis 7.1Dialectic debate -le Corbusier and the cannons of classical architecture (1920) 7.2-Debate – Robert Venturi “More is not less” Versus Modernism 7.3-Debate-Peter Eisenmanvs Christopher Alexander “Discard over Harmony in Architecture”,1982.7.4-The little Magazine of the 20th Century 8.0-Contemporary debates Analysis8.1-Patrick Schumacker vs Mark Foster Gage 2018

8.2-Patrick Schumacker vs Shigeru Ban 2014 9.0-Criticism on contemporary debate 9.1-The outcome of Contemporary debates10.0-Strategies to improve contemporary debates in architecture 10.1-Resistance groups against contemporary discourse 10.2-The Integral Theory 11-Conclusion12-Bibliography

345-67-89-1112-1314-2214 16 19 2123-2523

23

26 2728-332828 3233-35

CONTENT

3

AbstractIn history, many of the new transformation in architecture was due to the ongoing debates, which used dialectic philosophy adapted from the 4th-century Greek philosopher, Socrates and Plato as guiding principle. The role played by these debates in transforming architecture is by providing a platform where theories would evolve and that allows a progressive flow of discourse. For example, the debate between le-Corbusier and classical architecture produced the 5 points of architecture, and specifically an example of theory evolution through debate was an ongoing debate between Le Corbusier, Jane Jacobs and Rem Koolhaas on urbanism. During the historical period in architecture from Modernism to postmodernism, there was a lot of introduction of new theories in a short period of time, which was because of the profession every time challenging current ideologies through debate. However, contemporary debates have been facing a lot of criticism by critics ,the media ad resistance groups from the profession. The criticism revolves around the debates producing mainstream discourse, they became elitist and lack sensibility and are not challenging. Moreover, magazine such as arch daily and Dezeen argues that the debates became less informed due to the negligence of using theories and current minimal debate resulted into the death of many contemporary styles, homogeneity and the scarcity of new theories. Architectural critics such as Michael Sorkin claims that there have been ineffective criticisms in architectural debates which seen through the domination of architecture of Neoliberalism driven by market. Therefore, all these critics and commentaries has led to the question “what constitutes an effective debate? “ The study aims to investigate what constitutes a good and effective debate by examining the debates that shaped architectural discourse from modernism, postmodernism and deconstructivism period in architectural history. This enabled to explore the different forms of debates, methods that made them effective and the context influencing their synthesis. Hence this analysis revealed that the 3 components Method, context and an outcome forms an effective debate ,this revelation is used to compare with the current contemporary debate to observe its changes in its meaning, execution, and identify its potential weakness through also looking onto different critics such Michael Sorkin, resistance groups against current debates such as turncoats and Architecture: what matters and design magazines such as design, arch daily and architect. The study then suggests strategies to improve debates in architecture by analysing the format designed by Turncoats which enable critically and open challenging discourse in debates and the use of integral theory by Peter Buchanan to suggest a way to have informed debates.The Methodologies involve the use of books, international debates as case studies from both historical and contemporary architecture, the use of architectural critics, visual diagrams and Collages and architectural design Magazine as a reference.

4

AcknowledgmentI would like to thank all of Heriott -Watt Professors for their constructive feedback and special thank to my supervisors,

Professor Harpreet Seth and Mary Jane Rooney for their guide during the writing of this dissertation. This study has left me open-minded and aware of the importance of debate in Architecture and

how it can impact my career as a future architect.

5

List of Figures

Figure 1.0

Figure 2.0

Figure 2.1

Figure 3.0

Figure 4.0

Figure 5.0

Figure 5.1

Figure 5.2

Figure 5.3

Figure 6.0

Figure 6.1

Figure 7.0

8

10

11

12

13

15

17

18

20

21

22

24

Framework Collage Diagram,consisting of case studies for each section

.Image courtesy: from www.Google.com.

Dialectic phylosophy evolution from the 4th century to the 19th century.Image courtesy: from www.Google.com.

Forms of Debates, Panel Debates-Leon kier and Peter eisenmen 1983 & Turncoat Debate, Debate between architects of defferent centuries-Le corbusier vs vitruvius, Alberti and Andrea Palladio,Debate between contemporary Architecture vs built work-Benini vs Borromini in Rome. Image Courtesy:from www.Google.com.

1999 Debate between Rem Koolhas and uban theorist,Andres Duany at Harvard Graduate School of Design.Image cortesy : from future-expansion.com(“Future Expansion Architects: Miami Rematch,” 2019).

Urban Theory Revolution through ongoing debates between Lecorbusier 1920s,Jane Jacobs1935 and Rem Koolhas 1999.Image courtesy :Google images.

A collage showing the debate between Le corbusier and the classical archcitecture in 1920, The Key people on the debate such as Ludwig Mies van der Rohe and Philip Johnson and the Global impact .Image courtesy:www.Google.com.

Method, context and the outcome of the debate in the Debate between Robert Venturi and Modernism.Image www.Google.com.

The Similarities between Modernism debate in 1920 and Postmodernism debate in the 1960s.Image courtesy : www.Google.com.

The debate between Peter Eisenman and Christopher Alexander 1982,the context,their methodology and the global impact .Image courtesy:www.Google.com.

Journal “L’Esprit Noveau” 1920-1925.Image courtesy: from www.bmiaa.com (“‘L’Esprit Nouveau’ 1920-1925 now available online by Dipartimento di Architettura Roma Tre,” 2017).

The Little magazine of the 20th century.Image courtesy: from www.pinterest.com (“Pinterest,” 2019).

Debate Between Patrick Schumacker and Mark Foster Gage ,2017.Image courtesy: from www.archcomm.arch.tamu.edu(“E-news letter for Archtecture,” 2019).

6

Figure 7.1

Figure 8.0

Figure 9.0

Figure 9.1

Figure 9.2

25

27

29

30

31

Social Media as a new form of Debate-Debate Between Patrick Schumacker and the Pritzker award commetee on awarding Shigeru Ban in 2014 for His Humanitarian work.John Newel,an opinion contributor to Architizer debate against Patrick Shumacker in a series of illustration.Image Courtesy:from www.archinect.com (Archinect, 2014).Criticism from Micheal Sorkin, Turncoat and Media Platforms.Image courtesy: from www.Google.com.

Strategical designed panel debate format by Turncoat. Image courtesy: from www.archdaily.com (“Rage, Rage Against the Dying of the Light,” 2016).

Pamphlets and T-shirt as a new method by Architecture:What mat-ters , to bring back inclusivenes in debate.Image coutesy:adapted from www.siblingarchitecture.com (“Architecture,” 2019) (Buchanan, 2012).

Top -Integral theory , Visual Matrix offering different Perspective on a problem.Bottom original AQAL Matrix.Image courtesy: adapted from www.researchgate.net (“Figure i.3 The four quadrants of Integral Theo-ry, with their concerns...,” 2019).

7

Introduction

A debate in architecture is the discussion between two opposing positions, ideas or theories whereby this dichotomy is reconciled through negations, aggregation, either one of both sides to form a new proposition (Smith, 2012). Debates started to transform architecture since the 19th century, when the philosopher started to question the logic system of the western world which made many disciplines started to questions, the current modes of thinking and operation(Maybee, 2019; Smith, 2012). A debate has been crucial in the articulation of new architectural thinking, It is necessary for the theory evolution, it contributes to the flow of knowledge in Architectural discourse, Debates has led to new architecture styles, for instance, le Corbusier debate against the canons of classical derived the 5 points of architecture. Fast forward to now, debates in architecture have changed, it has become less effective, there are minimal debates, consequently producing homogeneity; the death of contemporary movement, scarcity in new theories and architecture thinking and the domination of Neo-liberalism architecture driven by the market(Maybee, 2019; Smith, 2012).Therefore, this has led to the question “What constitutes an effective debate in Architecture?” The study examines what makes a good debate that is effective by investigating historical debates that have been the foundation of new movements, new theories and thinking in Architecture. Thus, A close analysis of what constitute these debates. The result of this then is used to inform what is missing from the contemporary debates. This investigation is then followed by a closer look onto the effort by the architectural resistance groups against current debate to bring back good debates in architecture, In addition, a suggestion of new theory, that overall form as revival strategies for contemporary architectural debates. The Methodologies adopted in this study is by using secondary information from debate case studies from Modernism, postmodernism and deconstructivism to contemporary architecture as well as reviews, criticism and commentaries from protagonists such as the turncoat debates, the architecture theorist and critics such as Michael Sorkin, Jane Jacob and Peter Buchanan and the Media such as the social media and magazine such as Dezeen, archdaily and archinect. Another method is through the use of visual diagram and collages as a tool to study and also as a method of visualization. The study comprises of 6 sections which aim to answer the main questionbut through the platform of other question such as What are the different forms of debates? What are the outcomes of debate in the chosen timeline? The synthesis of a debate is determined by which factors? Has the debate system changed? Does this new system of debate benefit the flow of discourse in the profession or is it ineffective? The breakdown of the sections are as follows• Exploration of the history, meaning and origin of debate in architecture by looking onto the philosophers Plato and Socrates and the philosophers of the 19th century. This will eventually define the principle and format guiding an effective debate in architecture• Investigate the role of Debate in Architecture by looking onto the debate between Corbusier, Jane Jacobs and Rem Koolhaas and how has contributed to produce new theories • An extension of the second but aim as the foundation for the study. It looks onto Different debate forms by referring from different Virtual, media and panel debates from the time of modernism, postmodernism and deconstructivism timeline. It then investigates the methods that made the debate effective and the context influencing its outcome to derive, to what did the debates contained.• The address of contemporary debate and uses the method and context revealed in the previous section as a guide to identifying and analyses the current debate system• looks at different criticism from media, professionals and critics on the current state of debate in architecture to identify its potential weakness. The next part of this section,discuss the physical outcome of contemporary debates looking onto its outcome in producing new theory, looking onto its relation to the increase of homogeneity, death of contemporary styles and the Architecture of Neoliberalism• Suggestion on strategies to revive effective debates by looking onto a resistant group against current debates in architecture such as Turncoats and they tactics to make it effective and then it also suggests the use of new theory known as integral theory outlined by Peter Buchanan that can potentially enable debates to be informed and produce progressive flow of discourse in architecture.

8

Fig 1.0-Framework Collage Diagram,consisting of case studies for each section .Image courtesy: from www.Google.com.

9

History and evolution of debates

Debate in Architecture history utilized the dialectic philosophy from the 4th-century Greek philosophers, Plato and Socrates. According to Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Maybee, 2019)Dialectic philosophy during the classical times ,is a philosophical argument between 2 opposing sides which is characterized by contradictory process in between. Having to defined dialectic philosophy, this theory throughout history has evolved and began to be a guiding principle in architecture debate in the 19th century. The German philosophers of the renaissance such as George Wilhelm Fredrich Hegel and Johann Gottlieb Fichte reproduced the idea of dialectic philosophy. for example, in Hegel’s dialectic, unlike Plato whose opposing side were people, the opposition side for Hegel became the subject matter he discusses( refer to fig 2.0) . Moreover, Fitches further clarified and dissected the dialectic philosophy into 3 parts thesis, antithesis and synthesis (Smith, 2012).The thesis is the original idea, position, or argument that is initially put forth and antithesis is the counter-argument to the thesis and synthesis aims to provide resolution of the 2 opposing part. Thus, this inspired concept was a platform to question the logic systems of the western world, consequently transforming many disciplines such as Architecture (Maybee, 2019; Smith, 2012)In Architecture discourse there are a lot of dialectics such as mass and void, light and shade etc., however, the aim of the dialectic is not one-sided, but both opposing sides is necessary. For instance, the 1982 debate between Peter Eisenman and Christopher alexander held at Harvard school of design whereby Alexander thesis was the importance of harmony in architecture and Eisenman antithesis was that discord was for harmony to be appreciated. In short, this is an example of how dialectic philosophy was used as a guiding light in an architectural debate (Smith, 2012).There are Different forms of debate exist in architecture., there are dialectic debates held Infront of people to debates that are between theories. For example, according to (Smith, 2012) some debates are held Infront of audiences such as the 1989 debate between Peter Eisenman and Leon kier held in Chicago, Some debates are between the contemporary architecture versus built work e.g. Bernini and Borromini, some debates are between architects from different centuries example le Corbusier against the classical architecture( refer to fig 2.1). So far, this section has focused on the meaning of dialectic philosophy, its evolution from the Greek philosopher to how it became as a guiding principle for effective debate in architecture, so as the many forms of debates that exist in architecture. The following section will discuss the deeper role played by dialectic debate in transforming architecture through the debate between Le Corbusier and the classical tenets, Jane Jacobs and Rem Koolhas.

10

Fig 2.0-Dialectic phylosophy evolution from the 4th century to the 19th century.Image courtesy: from www.Google.com.

11

Fig 2.1-Forms of Debates, Panel Debates-Leon kier and Peter eisenmen 1983 & Turncoat Debate, Debate between architects of defferent centuries-Le corbusier vs vitruvius, Alberti and Andrea Palladio,Debate between contemporary Architecture vs built work-Benini vs Borromini in Rome. Image Courtesy:-from www.Google.com.

Panel debates

Contemporary architecture versus Built work

Debate between Architects of different centuries

12

Role of DebateThe role of debate in architecture is to transform existing ideologies and foster a continuous flow of discourse. According to (Smith, 2012)debates makes theory evolve which in turn makes new architecture. For instance, the debate between Le Corbusier and the classical tenets produced the 5 points of architecture that are The Pilots, roof garden, free ground plan, horizontal windows and free façade which produced the international style. Later in 1920-30, Le Corbusier’s work influenced his urban planning, whereby he envisions the future of cities as vertical, standardized and symmetrical architecture, a theory realized by urban planners around America .however his theory on “Le Ville Radieuse” was later opposed by a Canadian journalist Jane Jacobe in 1935, the argument was about the preservation of cultures in the architecture of cities rather than a total transformation. In the 1960s, Jacobs released her book “the death and life of great American cities” about how urban planners ruin the culture of the cities, which has its complexities in its order. the new architecture of contextualism was the product of this debate, whereby buildings were designed to respond to its specific urban and natural environment. This theory evolved again when Rem Koolhaas criticized contextualism on urban spaces in his published book S, M, L, XL: Small, Medium, Large, Extra Large(1995) arguing that the scale of the building makes them “amoral” and are beyond judgment based on the context, later in the 1999 he debated with Andres Duany, a urban theorist, whose argument was about the continuation of using existing historical process and principles on urban design, which involved control on the use and planning of private and public spaces and infrastructure, however, Koolhaas argument was to lessen urban design control ( refer to fig 3.0)(Barns, 2016; Kohlstedt, 2018; “Rem Koolhaas,” 2019; “The Year Jane Jacobs and Le Corbusier Discovered New York City,” 2016; Smith, 2012).Therefore, this is example of how a theory changes when the profession continuous challenge the current ideology through debate meanwhile producing new architecture, which in this case is the birth of new approach to design in architecture such as from the international style to contextualism to new urbanism.In conclusion, this section discussed in general how debates play a role in evolving theories in architecture as well as make new architecture. In general, an effective debate is ongoing responding to the changing context and keep a continuous flow of discourse which make architecture productive( refer to fig 4.0). The next section, the debates will be examined in detail, what are their method and the context influencing their outcome in a specific timeline from modernism, postmodernism and deconstructivism, to uncover what did they consist and what made them effective.

Fig 3.0-1999 Debate between Rem Koolhas and uban theorist,Andres Duany at Harvard Graduate School of Design.Image cortesy : from future-expansion.com(“Future Expansion Architects: Miami Rematch,” 2019).

13

Fig 4.0-Urban Theory Revolution through ongoing debates between Lecorbusier 1920s,Jane Jacobs1935 and Rem Koolhas 1999.Image courtesy :Google images.

1920s

1935

1935-60s

1999

14

Historical debate Analysis

The period of from modernism in the 1920s, postmodernism 1960s and deconstructivism 1980s in architectural history, debate was contributing to the rapid flow of discourse which was giving rise to new theories and new architecture i n short time. There were different forms of debate which consisted of methods and context that determine their effectiveness and influence their outcome (synthesis).

Dialectic debate -Le Corbusier and the cannons of classical architecture (1920)

The transformation of Architecture by the idea of dialectic seen in the debate between Le-Corbusier of the 19th century and the classical architects Alberti, Palladio and Vitruvius and their classical tenets. In architecture dialectics as discussed before, both opposition side is important to articulate synthesis and in this case, Le Corbusier was contesting the canon of classical architecture with the totems of modernity while supporting the cause of the classical architects and the synthesis formulated a new Architecture of the machine age (Smith, 2012).Therefore, Le Corbusier used dialectic philosophy as his guiding principle in the debate, but also the methods he used, and the context made this debate effective, The context was during the machine age with new engineering and mass production of new materials such as concrete, steel and glass, strengthen le Corbusier argument and the current discourse to come up with his famous phrase “A house machine for living”. Le Corbusier methodology in this debate was the re-use of the theories from classical architecture and built structure to support his new theory on modern architecture. In his writings “Vers une architecture”1923, he described his fascination with the totems of modernity with its engineering and efficiency but also argued that the beauty was not only in the new technologies of the machine age but also on the beauty of the ancient architecture such as the pantheon which according to him was perfection of an archaic system, then he reconfigured the classical tenets into his vision of Architecture in a new context and formulated 5 points of Architecture, a universal form which is standardized to be placed anywhere. Besides, to materialize this theory and support his argument in this debate he built Villa Savoye in 1929, which symbolized his refined architecture system using simplicity brought by engineering but with the integration of proportion and procession of the classical ideals (Simon, 2007)As a result, the debate outcome was the international style of architecture Therefore, what constituted this debate effectiveness is the method of reusing past theories, to inform the current argument which was strengthened by the context of rapid advancement of technology and changes in social forms ( refer to fig 5.0)(Etchells, 1931; Simon, 2007; Smith, 2012).

15

Counter Argument -classical architecture,ornamentation

Context Methods

Outcome

Fig 5.0-A collage showing the debate between Le corbusier and the classical archcitecture in 1920, The Key people on the debate such as Ludwig Mies van der Rohe and Philip Johnson and the Global impact .Image courtesy:www.Google.com.

16

Historical debate Analysis

Debate – Robert Venturi “More is not less” Versus Modernism (1960s) The debate between Le Corbusier and classical architecture revealed the methods of an effective debate and how the context act as a contributing factor. Moreover, investigating the later debate between Robert Venturi Versus the modernist ideal, reveal similarity in employing the same methodology as the previous debate and again the context influencing the effectiveness of the debate. The context was in the 1970s when modernism was becoming elitist ,monotonous and exclusive as there was the collapse of the Ronan Point, a tower block in east London in1968 and the alienated housing estate such a Pruitt -Igoe which denoted the failure of the modernist building method and material. This reason alerted the architect and critics such as Robert venturi that a change must be done. Thus, Robert Venturi debated against modernism, he used dialectic in his manifesto, re-use the classical theories and used published literature, built structures to support his argument like Le Corbusier. Robert Venturi initiated the beginning of this debate when he published his book Complexity and contradiction in architecture in 1966 highlighted how the reductive Modernist architecture was after his in-depth research in the 1950s at the American Academy in Rome (Reed, 2016; Venturi, 2002; Smith, 2012). The book consisted of his manifesto titled “a non-straightforward architecture” which he argued that architecture is complex and contradictory in its inclusiveness of traditional Vitruvian elements of commodity, firmness and delight, He adored elements that were hybrid instead of pure, compromising rather than clean, he vouched for richness in meaning instead clarity of meaning in architecture and lastly, he concluded it with “More is not less” a phrase that became counterpart of Mies van der Rohe “Less is More” Therefore, we see Venturi’s use of dialectic as a guide in his arguments. He further argued through his built projects such as The Vanna venturi house 1964 being the most notable, he conveyed complexity and contradiction through the integration of modern experience and classical architecture. Therefore this context with the methodology was the key components for the synthesis of this debate which resulted to the new architecture of Post-Modernism characterized as an eclectic, colorful style of architecture with the decorative arts whereby classical architecture of the past was applied to modern structures( refer to fig 5.1). According to an Article Published by the RIBA(“Postmodernism,” 2019).The result was an architecture that embodied historical allusion and dashes of whimsy.”. (Reed, 2016; Venturi, 2002; Smith, 2012) (“Postmodernism,” 2019).Hence ,apart from methods such as the dialectics, the manifestos and built project Like le Corbusier, Venturi debates were informed by the past theories from classical architecture but what also made the debate different, is the changing context ( refer to fig 5.2)(Reed, 2016; Venturi, 2002; Smith, 2012).

17

Fig 5.1-Method, context and the outcome of the debate in the Debate between Robert Venturi and Modernism.Image www.Google.com.

Tadao Ando

18

Le corbusiermodernism

Method of effective debates

Method of effective debates

context

Robert VenturiPost modernism

context

Fig 5.2-The Similarities between Modernism debate in 1920 and Postmodernism debate in the 1960s.Image courtesy : www.Google.com.

19

Historical debate Analysis

Debate-Peter Eisenman and Christopher Alexander “Discard over Harmony in Architecture”,1982. The previous debates, similar methodologies were observed with the context setting them apart and likely, the debate between Debate-Peter Eisenman and Christopher Alexander 1982 used dialectics as a guide, published writing and the use of built structure. however, the unique methodologies seen in this debate unlike the previous one is the use of theory outside architecture as well as reference from philosophy The panel debate was between a deconstructivist Peter Eisenman and a builder Christopher Alexander held at Harvard University, Graduate School of Design, in 1982. The debate was about a series of dialectics such as intellect vs metaphysics, abstraction vs empiricism and harmony vs discord. The debate was built up around Christopher’s ideas on the Nature of Order and importance of harmony which was a based on a new paradigm shift and Peter Eisenman was opposing this theory arguing that for harmony to exist discord had to be appreciated (katarxis3, 2019; Smith, 2012) The methods used in this debate was the use of theory outside the architecture field unlike Le-Corbusier and Venturi re-using the classical theory, for example, Christopher spoke about the nature of order through the lens of cosmology field. Another method used in this debate was philosophy, for instance, Peter Eisenman argued using French structuralist’s such as Michel Foucault, Roland Barthes, Jacques Derrida’s ways of discovering the order of thing rather than order of mechanism, he opts for transgression as the cause of the existence of architecture, Eisenman perceived the idea of order not only as wholeness but it is about expression, what mattered to him was the social narrative. Eisenmann arguments were supported by emergent deconstructivism projects at the time (katarxis3, 2019; Smith, 2012). In addition, the context decided the synthesis of this debate. At the end of the debate the critics sided withAlexander vision of the new paradigm in architecture rather than the transgressive vision of Eisenman, According to (katarxis3, 2019) the debate was at a late-industrial society looking for more and more thrilling forms, new assemblies, alien geometries which was only offered by the deconstructivist architects at the time who built amusing new metallic expression in building (katarxis3, 2019; Smith, 2012). As a result, the outcome of this debate paved a way for deconstructivism as the new architecture as Eisenman work flourished, grew bigger in scale while Alexander his work converged and became invisible ( refer to fig 5.3) (katarxis3, 2019; Smith, 2012). Therefore, from the 3 debate discussed an effective debate is informed, inclusive, challenging and this depend on their methodologies and the context, altogether contributing to the effective outcome of these debates. Hence for every effective debate, there is methods, context and an outcome.

20

Fig 5.3-The debate between Peter Eisenman and Christopher Alexander 1982,the context,their methodology and the global impact .Image courtesy:www.Google.com.

21

Historical debate Analysis

The little Magazine of the 20th Century So far, the discussion was focused on debates between professional and what constituted their debate, but media during the 20th century was used as both a form of debate and a tool and method used to foster debates between professionals. For example, according to FA Magazine (Amistadi and Prandi, 2019) The little magazines was an architectural magazine based in Italy and united states that determine the architectural debate in the last quarter of the 20th century due to the great cultural vivacity and exchange that was established in the art and architecture world, that attracted attention for architectural historian and critics. The magazines were forms of debate as they reflected current ideologies happening in architecture during that time for instance Bauhaus (1928-1933) in Germany, and Futurist magazines in Italy such as Valori plastic in 1918-21 and L’Esprit Nouveau in France between 1920-25 Magazine( refer to fig 6.0) (Amistadi and Prandi, 2019).Furthermore, The Little magazine as a method used in debate made them effective because they were source of research and experimentation because they determine new research paths, gave new, less common ideas a voice to be an experimented in architecture, hence the published projects had more effect in presenting new architectural theories rather than a physical constructed buildings that survived an epoch such as Villa Savoye or the Vanna Venturi house. , the architectural theories were constantly updated, so it was a more effective tool used in debates rather than the built structures and hence made the debates more effectual. In addition, the little magazine phenomenon and its potential in the progress of architectural discourse were launched organized by the IAUS New York in 3-5th February 1977, a period after modern architecture which was realized and joined by many architectural debate protagonists such as Peter Eisenman. The second little architecture phenomenon was by the students from the schools of architecture which was arranged by the Canadian center of architecture Beatriz Colmina.In conclusion, when examining what constitutes an effective debate in architecture is that it is a role not only played by the Professional architects but also the media because it is more inclusive, informed and present different challenging views which were necessary in theory evolution ( refer to fig 6.1)

Fig 6.0-Journal “L’Esprit Noveau” 1920-1925.Image cour-tesy: from www.bmiaa.com (“‘L’Esprit Nouveau’ 1920-1925 now available online by Dipartimento di Architettura Roma Tre,” 2017).

22

Fig 6.1-The Little magazine of the 20th century.Image courtesy: from www.pinterest.com (“Pinterest,” 2019).

23

Contemporary debates Analysis

The historical debate analysis revealed that an effective debate produces an outcome that is beneficial for progress of architecture and from these debates, methodologies are observed such as reusing historical theories, published writing such as manifestos, built structures, the use of philosophy, and the media and these methods remain constant throughout the case studies, and equal importance is the context which differentiates the outcome of the debate. Therefore, when comparing the forms and methods used in contemporary debates in architecture, there are still panel debate, for example, Patrick Schumacher and Mark foster Gage held in Texas Austin university in 2017, in contrast, the rise of social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter has become a new form of debates, for instance, Patrick Schumacher vs Shigeru ban.Regarding the context influencing these debate, has change from before because the people are more concerned with the issues about climate change, housing policies, wars and how architecture could play a role, it is more about politics rather than inventing new theories or new architecture, specifically The architectural league of New York stimulate thinking, and host debates about critical issue related to architecture such as waste, climate change and race (A conversation on race and climate change, 2019; “Leading designers discussed divergent views April 21 - One|Arch,” 2017; Jones, 2014).An example of contemporary debate becoming more political is the debate between Patrick Schumacher and Mark foster gage moderated by Gabriel Esquivel about their different views about built environment public policy related to public land use( refer to fig 7.0). The debate began from the controversial statement from Patrick Schumacher to eliminate the government-issued land-use policies, public and affordable housing programs and privatizes public spaces such as parks and streets. The methods for this debate mainly was referring to different critics and the current architecture of neoliberalism. On the other hand, Mark foster gage was referring to different critics such as Phineas harper the deputy director of the Architecture Foundation who was a critic of Schumacher as an invaluable provocateur whereby his proposal lack intelligence and reality and his views was of an “extremist blinded by ideology but given credence by a fawning architectural press”. Hence, not only has the context change the way problems are addressed in architecture but the methodologies have changed as seen, in this particular debate it did not involve the use of any past theories, it was more on referring to critics, and the current political context while in the historical debate analysis, although the context was changing but the methodologies remained the same and its effect was seen from its outcomeAnother Debate is between Patrick Schumacher and Shigeru Ban about social responsibility. The debate was in the form of social media when Patrick Schumacher posted on Facebook criticizing the Pritzker award committee for giving Shigeru Ban an award for his humanitarian projects in 2014 when he commented “…..however, I worry if the criteria of the Pritzker Prize … architecture’s most prestigious prize … are now also being diverted in the direction of political correctness “(Archinect, 2014).This has started a digital debate forum on Facebook and media platforms about whether an architect should assume social responsibility(Jones, 2014).Thus this is to say that the form of debate currently has changed as it has integrated with the digital platforms( refer to fig 7.1)(Archinect, 2014; Jones, 2014; Korody, 2015). Therefore, references from the two debates, contemporary debate system has changed its method with the rise of political, culturally, conscious aware society and use of social media as a new platform of debate. However, the question is does this new system of debate benefit the flow of discourse in architecture or is it ineffective, hence a different view on contemporary debate will be discussed on the next section, referring to different critics, scholar, media and current debates .

24

Fig 7.0-Debate Between Patric Schumacker and Mark Foster Gage ,2017.Image courtesy: from www.archcomm.arch.tamu.edu(“E-news letter for Archtecture,” 2019).

25

Fig 7.1-Social Media as a new form of Debate-Debate Between Patrick Schumacker and the Pritzker award commetee on awarding Shigeru Ban in 2014 for His Humanitarian work.John Newel,an opinion contributor to Architizer debate against Patrick Shumacker in a series of illus-tration.Image Courtesy:from www.archinect.com (Archinect, 2014).

26

Criticism on contemporary debate

There has been a lot of criticism on the contemporary debate in terms of its methods and effectiveness( refer to fig 8.0). According to Michael Sorkin an American architect, critic and theorist in his critical mass essay whereby he commented on current architectural debate and how it lacks effective criticism by the profession focusing more on procedures rather than effect and he referenced how the LEED rates building as if there were restaurants (Smith, 2012).Another criticism in by an opinion column published by Dezeen which talked about debates becoming less informed because of the lack of understanding the social, political and economic context from which the significant ideas in architecture emerged which results to less informed debates about the path of contemporary design practice and hence the debates become less effective in providing a solution to problems. A published article by Arch daily also stressed on how the architecture profession has stopped questioning itself suggesting that debates have become minimal unlike in the past and hence the reason why currently there are few styles formed in architecture. Along with this criticism by the critics and the online magazine platform, there is a rise of resistance group such as Turncoat and Architecture matter who are against the current architectural debate. Turncoat is a London based community started by Phineas Harper, Maria Smith and Robert Mull and their critic on the contemporary debates is that they produce mainstream architectural discourse and the biggest problem of the current debates is that they have become elitist while architecture is not about aristocracy anymore, the current debates have given social and political progress rather than the profession itself, this is seen in many current debates which are led by elite, for instance, Patrick Schumacher dominating the debates shown before .moreover the debate are dull and not challenging enough unlike, for instance, the debate between Peter Eisenman and Christopher Alexander, there is also lack of sensibility in the discussion and they also mentioned the failure of media in their recent debate called” Vanity Publishing” which debates the state of journalism which does little by republishing architects and press release, presenting hollow market terms with seductive imagery, they lack a sense of judgement reflection on issues and failed to present challenging questions. Therefore the Digital Magazine unlike the Little magazines of the 20th century has lost its power as a tool for an effective debate (Buday, 2019; Sorkin, 2019; Turncoats, 2019; Turncoats, 2019; charlottefiell,peter fiell, 2019).

Another example of the weak debates is the 2015 Archgenda debate at the inaugural Chicago architecture biennial about the direction of contemporary architecture. The panel debate was between, Patrick Schumacker, Peter Eisenman, Jefferey Kipnis, Reinier de Graaf, Theodore Spyropoulous. It began about 40 minutes where Patrick Schumacker debated with the panel members about how parametricism was the future, however, Peter Eisenman initial comment was “ Just curious whether this discussion in the last 40 minutes was talking about the art of architecture…..I think our culture whether people realize it or not need great architecture and I don’t think we’re talking about that and how we arrived at those things” and he added that the old building is more astonishing than the new buildings.Thus, this sums up the weakness in contemporary debates to become effective to produce as seen in the historical debate analysis, and this is because it lacks sensibility, use of proper theories and became very mainstream(“07_Debate 2: ArchAgenda Debates at Chicago Architecture Biennial 2015 - YouTube,” 2015).In conclusion, yes, there is a potential weakness in contemporary debate methodologies and as discussed before an effective debate consist of a method, context and an outcome, hence next will discuss the outcome of these contemporary debates by referring at different architecture critics and how it reveals that the contemporary debates are ineffective.

27

Outcome of comtemporary debates

From different critics and media, there is an outcome for these ineffective, minimal, less informed elitist debates. According to Michael Sorkin, the ineffective criticism in debates led to the domination of the architecture of Neoliberalism which is driven by a market and consequently homogenizes urban spaces. Moreover, there has been a scarcity in new theory and architecture thinking due to the circulation of the same existing theories. In addition, currently, there have been death of contemporary architecture movements which signifies that the profession no longer question itself like in period of the 20th century, where new architecture styles rose within short period of time due to the progressive flow of discourse from the effective debate methods (Buday, 2019; Sorkin, 2019; Turncoats, 2019; Turncoats, 2019; charlottefiell,peter fiell, 2019).Therefore, these outcome means the profession must have strategies to revive and bring back the effectiveness of debates in Architecture, hence the next section discusses revival strategies employed by the resistance groups such as Turncoat and moreover another strategy known as the integral theory. .

Fig 8.0-Criticism from Micheal Sorkin, Turncoat and Media Platforms.Image courtesy: from www.Google.com.

28

Strategies to improve contemporary debates in architecture Revival strategies in contemporary Panel Debates

The following is how the different resistance group rethink debate methodologies in architecture;Turncoat devised a panel debate that provide an atmosphere that encourages critical and open discourse. The debate starts with a polemic opening statement which is meant to spark a conversation rather than immediately expressing views, then they create an atmosphere to enable free, open and critical discourse by taking away any recording from the audience, then it begins with an opening act followed by the panel and audiences having shots of vodka. Though there is no recording a courtroom sketch artist was hired to capture the memory, essence of the debate. The next step is a 3-5-minute speech given by each speaker with an opening statement before the mediator facilitates the debate. After this is followed by the audience provoking further discussion. The end of the debate meant that the speaker would advocate by presenting for 2-minute closing argument /synthesis for the opposing side. Thus this was a devised execution to experiment how the profession debates key issues ( refer to fig 9.0)(Sisson, 2015; “Turncoats NYC Debate,” 2017).

Another resistant group against the current debate known as Architecture: What Matter initiated by Australian based architect known as sibling architecture in collaboration with 20 architects which were activist, academia and in practice. Their critic is that the debates are stiff, so they re-thought the panel formats of debates by using the pamphlet as another tool for architecture debates. This is because of the history of architecture pamphlets used as a device to directly symbolize activist for change and make architectural provocations. Moreover, each participant in the debate had 20 seconds each to answer the question What matters? With the remaining time for debating the provocation. a Pamphlet accompanied each response. Therefore, in the end, the pamphlet, the panel and the designed shirt for the event enabled different architectural ideas to be realized through giving freedom of voice to multiple people ( refer to fig 9.1)(“Architecture,” 2019).

The Integral TheoryThe previous strategies propose how to make panel debates effective, Integral theory is a possible strategy that can be applied to any form of debates in architecture since the potential weaknesses as discussed were that debates are less informed and elitist due to negligence of proper theories. The integral theory was initiated by Ken Wilber, an American philosopher and in architecture, its was encouraged by Peter Buchanan, in his essay “The big rethink”, which provides 21st century with a new framework for design. According to a case study on the use of Integral Theory to evaluate architectural sustainability(Roetzel et al., 2015), Integral theory offers a simultaneous perspective which is represented in a visual diagram known as the “AQAL Matrix” but briefly the matrix consists of 4 quadrants, The experience, the behaviour, the cultural and the system quadrant. The experience perspective deals with environmental performance, the cultural perspective deals with collective interpretation of meaning, symbolism and world views, and the system quadrant is about an investigation on the response and interaction with the context( refer to fig 9.2)(Roetzel et al., 2015 (Buchanan, 2012)).In summary, the theory acts as a guide and a reminder to architects in their argument to be all-rounded and since the ideas and their relationship are represented in a visual diagram, architecture professionals shall use this to their advantage. However integral theory continues to have minimal impact but can be used as a guide in Architectural debates in order to make the debate effective in a way that it can become inclusive and informed by balancing Subjective and objective using the integral theory.

29

Turncoats design panel debate format

Polemic opening statement

Create an atmosphere

that encourage open and critical

discoure

3-5 min open speech and state

aurgument by each speaker of

the panel

The Mediator of the debate starts

audience provokes further

discussion

The speaker advocate by presenting 2min clossing

argument of the opposition (synthesis)

-No recordings-Begin with an opening act-Panel and audience drink a communal shot of vodka

Fig 9.0-Strategical designed panel debate format by Turncoat. Image courtesy: from www.archdaily.com (“Rage, Rage Against the Dying of the Light,” 2016).

30

Fig 9.1-Pamphlets and T-shirt as a new method by Architecture:What matters , to bring back inclusivenes in debate.Image coutesy:adapted from www.siblingarchitecture.com (“Architecture,” 2019) (Buchanan, 2012).

31

Fig 9.2- Top -Integral theory , Visual Matrix offering different Perspective on a problem.Bottom original AQAL Matrix.Image courtesy: adapted from www.researchgate.net (“Figure i.3 The four quadrants of Integral Theory, with their concerns...,” 2019).

32

ConclusionThe debates in architecture are run by the idea of dialectic, which was initiated by the renaissance non-architecture philosopher but, originally proposed by the Greek philosopher, Socrates and Plato of the 4th century. The classical version dialectic philosophy was redefined into a new model, known as the Hegel dialects which contained 3 part; Thesis which is the original idea, position or argument, anti-thesis which is the opposition of the thesis and synthesis is the reconciliation of the 2 opposition side to form a more sophisticated view. Therefore this became an essential guide and a format in all architectural debates that began since that period and also The architectural debate were of different forms such as between people, subject matters and even between architect from different centuries, for example, Le-Corbusier versus classical architects Andres Palladio, Vitruvius and Alberti. Thus, architecture was radically transformed by the role played by dialectic debates challenging current Ideologies which led to theory evolution that made architecture constructive to make new visions, for example, the debate between Le Corbusier against classical tenets produced the 5 points of architecture, then he applied his theory in urban design but then it was opposed by many professionals such as Jane Jacobs, whose theory emphasizes the importance of contextualism in architecture by preserving culture of the cities instead of total transformation, later then this theory was seen as constrictive, hence Rem Koolhaas debated against it. Therefore, an effective debate is always ongoing throughout time, the theory is always questioned based on its effect with the changing context. Furthermore, the analysis of the major historical architectural debate has revealed patterns that explains that an “effective” debate constitute 3 parts the Methods, context and an outcome. The methodology involves, the use of Theories, published literature such as manifestos and built projects. for example although Le Corbusier’s debate was against classical architecture and Robert venturi was against modernism, they both use the same methodology, they re-use the classical theories, but the context is what differentiated their argument for instance For Corbusier, the context was the Industrial Revolution and the machine age while in Venturi’s argument, the context was the failure of many modernism built projects such as the collapse of the Ronan Point, a tower block in east London in 1968 and the alienated housing estate such a Pruitt -Igoe. Also, the debate between Peter Eisenman and Christopher alexander on Discord over harmony 1982, we saw again the context influencing outcome of the debate for instance, Although Alexander’s argument was stronger, The society embraced Peter Eisenman’s transgressive vision since the context of the argument was in postindustrial society who wanted new expressive forms .also,what this particular debate suggest the Theory as a method of effective debate, can be inclusive in way that it can be borrowed from other fields, for instance, theories on cosmology and reference to philosophy was used in the debate. Not only the debate was being done by architects and scholars, but media can be both as to form and a tool for effective debate, a good example are, The little magazines in the 1920s. Hence comparing the historical debates to contemporary debates, the debate system has changed in the methods and the context. There are still panel debates such as the debate between Patrick Schumacher and Mark foster gage about public land use, but a new debate platform has arisen, that is the social media and this is seen in the debate between Patrick Schumacher and Shigeru Ban humanitarian work. The context makes these debate more about political correctness, climate change, urban policies rather than about the profession itself, for example, current debates hosted by Architecture League of New work are about, waste, climate change and race. However, this new system had revealed potential weakness through commentaries from critics such as Michael Sorkin, media such as Dezeen, archdaily and archiinect and resistance groups such as turncoats and architecture: what matters. Their criticism is that current debate has ineffective criticism, minimal, less informed, elitist, lack sensibility, and not challenging and overall the media as a tool used in debate in years, has lost its effectiveness as it lacks judgement and questioning. Hence the current debates are weak because their outcome is negative for the profession as there is the domination of Neoliberalism driven by a market that homogenizes urban spaces, there is the death of contemporary movement which means that the profession has stopped questioning itself and scarcity in theories and architectural thinking. Therefore, the study of historical debate revealed what constitute an effective debate and comparing it to contemporary debate has enabled to concretize the criticism on contemporary debate and its potential weakness and this is very critical and require immediate action because debate are what keep the profession alive especially with this new age where disruptive technology question our ability as architects. The suggestion for the future, there should be more focus and groups such as turncoats who are devising a new model for a panel debate which aims to revive architectural debates. Another strategy is to make the debate critical and informed by the use of an integral theory, which offers many perspectives on a problem and since it’s a visual diagram, it could be used in any forms of debate even in Panel debates. This piece of study aims to bring awareness on the importance of debate, as it believes it to be the foundation of architecture. If we allow the death of architecture of debate, we are losing the chance to make architecture great again.

33

Bibliography07_Debate 2: ArchAgenda Debates at Chicago Architecture Biennial 2015 - YouTube [WWW Document], 2015. URL https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Rg2V42JAZ8 (accessed 12.26.19).

Amistadi, L., Prandi, E., 2019. FA(little)Magazine e le “piccole riviste” di architettura del XX secolo | Amistadi | FAMagazine. Ricerche e progetti sull’architettura e la città [WWW Document]. URL http://www.famagazine.it/index.php/famagazine/article/view/139/667 (accessed 11.30.19).

Archinect, A., 2014. Patrik Shumacher - backhanded compliment to Shigeru Ban? [WWW Document]. Archinect. URL https://archinect.com/news/article/96481159/patrik-shumacher-backhanded-compliment-to-shigeru-ban (accessed 12.26.19).

Architects Patrik Schumacher and Mark Foster Gage face off. 2017. [Film] Directed by Texas A&M College of Architecture. USA: Texas A&M College of Architecture.

Architecture: What Matters? | Sibling, 2019. URL http://siblingarchitecture.com/projects/melbourne-art-book-fair/ (accessed 12.1.19).

Barns, S., 2016. Against the modernist nightmare: the legacy of urbanist Jane Jacobs | CityMetric [WWW Document]. URL https://www.citymetric.com/fabric/against-modernist-nightmare-legacy-urbanist-jane-jacobs-2185 (accessed 11.29.19).

Buchanan, P., 2012. The Big Rethink Part 3 :Integral theory. THE BIG RETHINK.

Buday, R., 2019. archdaily. [Online] Available at: https://www.archdaily.com/921760/how-to-write-an-architectural-manifesto[Accessed 2019].

charlottefiell,peter fiell, 2019. DEZEEN. [Online] Available at: https://www.dezeen.com/2019/05/10/design-thinking-opinion-charlotte-fiell-peter-fiell/[Accessed 2019].

Etchells, F., 1931. Toward new architecture. London : J.Rodker.Jones, R., 2014. Ban vs. Schumacher: Should Architects Assume Social Responsibility? [WWW Document]. ArchDaily. URL http://www.archdaily.com/490850/ban-vs-schumacher-should-architects-assume-social-responsibility/ (accessed 11.30.19).

Figure i.3 The four quadrants of Integral Theory, with their concerns... [WWW Document], 2019. . ResearchGate. URL https://www.researchgate.net/figure/The-four-quadrants-of-Integral-Theory-with-their-concerns-and-value-criteria_fig2_259266972 (accessed 12.29.19).

Future Expansion Architects: Miami Rematch [WWW Document], 2019. URL http://future-expansion.com/Essays/MiamiRematch (accessed 12.29.19).

34

Bibliographykatarxis3, 2019. katarxis3. [Online] Available at: http://www.katarxis3.com/Alexander_Eisenman_Debate.htm#Top

Kohlstedt, K., 2018. Ville Radieuse: Le Corbusier’s Functionalist Plan for a Utopian “Radiant City.” 99 Invis. URL https://99percentinvisible.org/article/ville-radieuse-le-corbusiers-functionalist-plan-utopian-radiant-city/ (accessed 12.1.19).

Korody, N., 2015. Patrik Schumacher takes to Facebook “In Defense of Stars and Icons” | News | Archinect [WWW Document]. Archinect. URL https://archinect.com/news/article/124976094/patrik-schumacher-takes-to-facebook-in-defense-of-stars-and-icons (accessed 11.30.19).Leading designers discussed divergent views April 21 - One|Arch [WWW Document], 2017. URL https://one.arch.tamu.edu/news/2017/4/5/leading-architects-divergent-views/ (accessed 11.30.19).

Le Corbusier, 1986. Towards a new architecture. Dover Publications, New York.

“L’Esprit Nouveau” 1920-1925 now available online by Dipartimento di Architettura Roma Tre [WWW Document], 2017. . BMIAA. URL https://www.bmiaa.com/lesprit-noveau-%e2%80%8b1920-1925-now-available-online-by-dipartimento-di-architettura-roma-tre/ (accessed 12.29.19).

Maybee, J.E., 2019. Hegel’s Dialectics, Winter 2019. ed. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University.

Pinterest [WWW Document], 2019. . Pinterest. URL https://www.pinterest.com/pin/106397609925880767/ (accessed 12.29.19).

Postmodernism [WWW Document], 2019. . RIBA. URL https://www.architecture.com/explore-architecture/postmodernism (accessed 11.30.19).

Rage, Rage Against the Dying of the Light: On Turncoats, The Cass and Architectural Debate [WWW Document], 2016. . ArchDaily. URL http://www.archdaily.com/780969/rage-rage-against-the-dying-of-the-light-on-turncoats-the-cass-and-architectural-debate (accessed 12.1.19).

Reed, P., 2016. MoMA. [Online] Available at: https://www.moma.org/artists/6132[Accessed 2019].

Rem Koolhaas [WWW Document], 2019. URL http://www.undisciplinary.com/rem_koolhaas (accessed 12.24.19).

Roetzel, A., Fuller, R., Rajagopalan, P., Luther, M., 2015. The use of Integral Theory to evaluate architectural sustainability – a case study, in: Crawford, R.H., Stephan, A. (Eds.), . Presented at the Living and Learning: Research for a Better Built Environment, 49th International Conference of the Architectural Science Association, The Architectural Science Association and The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia, pp. 598–610.

35

Bibliography

Simon, M., 2007. khanacademy. [Online] Available at: https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/ap-art-history/later-europe-and-americas/modernity-ap/a/corbusier-savoye

Sisson, P., 2015. UK Architecture Debates Challenge “Rubbish” Design Dialogue [WWW Document]. Curbed. URL https://www.curbed.com/2015/11/4/9904126/turncoats-debate-london-architecture (accessed 12.1.19).

Sorkin, M., 2019. Critical Mass: Why Architectural criticism Matter.

Smith, K.H., 2012. Introducing architectural theory: debating a discipline. Routledge, New York.

The Architectural league NY, T.A. league N., 2019. A conversation on race and climate change.

The Year Jane Jacobs and Le Corbusier Discovered New York City, 2016. . Metropolis. URL https://www.metropolismag.com/cities/jane-jacobs-le-corbusier-new-york-city/ (accessed 11.29.19).

Turncoats, 2019. failedarchitecture. [Online] Available at: https://failedarchitecture.com/turncoats-phineas-harper-architectural-debates-are-rubbish/[Accessed 2019].Turncoats NYC Debate: “Buildings Don’t Matter” [WWW Document], 2017. . ArchDaily. URL http://www.archdaily.com/873485/turncoats-nyc-debate-buildings-dont-matter (accessed 12.1.19).

Turncoats, 2019. Turncoats. [Online] Available at: http://turncoats.world/Venturi, R., 2002. Complexity and Contradiction in Architecture. 2nd Revised ed ed. s.l.:Museum of Modern art. Warke, A. S. a. V., 2014. Dialogue. In: The Language of Architecture : 26 Principles Every Architect Should Know. s.l.:Rockport publishers, pp. 132-137.

36

“ If we allow the death of architecture of debate, we are losing the chance to

make architecture great again”-Alawiya Ali