An academic review of literature – in this case, the comparison of required readings in dialogue with each other, and relative to the unit themes – is an objective and critical summary of published research relevant to a topic under consideration. Its purpose is to create familiarity with current thinking and research on a particular topic, and aims to justify future research into a previously overlooked or understudied area.
ARCHITECTURE + THE CITY
ARC3401 ARCHITECTURE + THE CITY
1. THEMES ARE: -Imagining The City Considers the planning of ideal cities and assumptions of the architect as comprehensive visionary. Examines how architecture also helps structure urban occupation through the Situation and cognitive mapping, focusing on conceptual approaches to analyzing urban images and facilitating interactions.
READINGS: 1.Rosenau, Helen. “Foreword.” The ideal city: its architectural evolution. (2007 [1959]); 12-16. 2.Fishman, Robert. “Urban utopias in the twentieth century: Introduction.” Fainstein, Susan S. & Scott Campbell, eds. Readings in Planning Theory (2012): 27-40. 3. Lynch, Kevin. “The city image and its elements.” The Image of The City. (1960). 4.Sadler, Simon. “Formulary For A New Urbanism.” & “Unitary Urbanism.” The Situation City. (1999): READ PAGES 69-81, 92, 97-103 & 117-118 5.Wigley, Mark. Constant’s New Babylon: The Hyper-Architecture of Desire. (1998): READ PAGES 5-12 ONLY 6.Lyons, Siobahn. “The City as Palimpsest: A Primer on Psychogeography.” Foreground. (22 June 2017): Available at: https://www.foreground.com.au/cities/the-city-aspalimpsest-a-primer-on-psychogeography/
2. THEMES ARE: -The City As Critique Focuses on the canonical urban analyses of Las Vegas by Denise Scott Brown (and Robert Venturi), and Koolhaas’s ‘delirious’ provocation for architectural projects and research. We also interrogate the critical speculative approaches to architecture and the city deployed by the Italian Radicals.
READINGS: 1.Trufelman, Avery. “Lessons from Las Vegas.” 99% Invisible. (04 September 2018). READ THE BLOG POST, THEN LISTEN TO THE PODCAST. Available at: https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/lessons-from-las-vegas/ 2.Scott Brown, Denise. “On Formal Analysis as Design Research.” Journal of Architectural Education. 32(4). (1979): 8-11 3.Koolhaas, Rem. “Introduction.” & “The Double Life of Utopia: The Skyscraper.” Delirious New York: a retroactive manifesto for Manhattan. (1994): READ PAGES 9-12 & 81-109 4. Aureli, Pier Vittorio. “Manfredo Tafuri, Archizoom, Superstudio and the Critique of Architectural Ideology.” Architecture and Capitalism: 1845 to the Present. Deamer, Peggy. ed. (2013): 217–38. 5. Brown, Alexandra. “A Night at the Space Electronic, or the Radical Architectures of 1971’s ‘Vita, Morte e Miracoli dell’Architettura’.” Fabulation: Myth, Nature, Heritage: Proceedings of the 29th Annual Conference of the Society of Architectural Historians. (2012): 147-157.
Introduction = 10% of total word count = 120 words Paragraph 1 = Thematic 1 overview = 320 words Paragraph 2 = Thematic 2 overview = 320 words Paragraph 3 = Thematic 1 in dialogue with Thematic 2 = 320 words Conclusion = 10% of total word count = 120 words Total = 1200 words (1200 words maximum, excludes bibliography/footnotes) Paragraph 1 provides an overview of your selected Thematic 1 (either ‘Architecture, Urbanism/s and the City’ or ‘Environments, ‘Nature’ and the Urban’ or ‘Imagining The City’ or ‘Controlling The City’ + 1 extra reading of your own sourcing). In 320 words, you will probably only be able to establish 3 clear ideas. The following might be a useful guide: 1. What are the historical and theoretical concerns of this group of readings? 2. What does your extra reading add to this discussion? 3. How do they – as a group – engage with ideas of architecture and the city? Paragraph 2 provides an overview of your selected Thematic 2 (either ‘The City As Process’ or ‘The City As Critique’ or ‘We Lost The City. Now What?’ or ‘We Make Worlds, Not Buildings?’ + 1 extra reading of your own sourcing). Again, in 320 words, you will probably only be able to establish 3 clear ideas. Consider the following: 1. What are the historical and theoretical concerns of this second group of readings? 2. What does your extra reading add to this new discussion? 3. How do they – as a group – engage with ideas of architecture and the city? Paragraph 3 considers your two thematics in dialogue, and synthesises all the information above into a few important ideas. Like before, you will probably only be able to establish 3 clear ideas in 320 words. So be strategic: 1. What are the common concerns across the two groups of readings? 2. What are the main differences? 3. Does this dialogue (the similarities and the disagreements together) mean we can re-think architecture and the city? That is, what is YOUR primary discovery so far?
