This article was downloaded by:[Lorch, Richard] On: 12 April 2008 Access Details: [subscription number 790465784] Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Building Research & Information Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713694730 Design for flexibility N. John Habraken

Online Publication Date: 01 May 2008 To cite this Article: Habraken, N. John (2008) 'Design for flexibility', Building Research & Information, 36:3, 290 - 296 To link to this article: DOI: 10.1080/09613210801995882 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09613210801995882

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf This article maybe used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material. Downloaded By: [Lorch, Richard] At: 11:57 12 April 2008 B hi ayeape,AgsePre’ aosRue famous Perret’s Auguste the to examples, cover among aim many to finds, that therefore their ‘flexibility’ decisions One functionality. design term rigid possible loosen the of then use range terminology entire to of issue Schneider decide the Tatjana to discuss book, Till their Jeremy to and introduction the to In aiming own it, vision. see their tribal they or as coining personal world a in promote the describe pride to communi- take words a internal Architects by for themselves cation. employed define vocabulary – law precise instance medicine, for of engineering, those architectural or – for professions typical Other is discourse. terminology in Confusion everybody. to acceptable vocabulary a with up impossible come virtually to it of often make that and concept ‘adaptability’, meanings multiple overlapping the like have to ‘polyvalence’ Words and book ‘flexibility’, architecture. a devote in to flexibility courage takes It UILDING R ESEARCH uligRsac Information & Research Building &I lxbeHuig rhtcua rs,K 07 SN9807 6222 068202 75 0 978 ISBN 2007; Press,UK, Architectural Housing, Flexible NFORMATION einfr£exibility for Design (2008) o ad eerhAgenda Research Towards a SN06-28pit⁄SN16-31online 1466-4321 ⁄ISSN print 0961-3218 ISSN ajn cnie n JeremyTill and Schneider Tatjana O:10.1080 DOI: tp wwtnfc.k⁄journals ⁄www.tandf.co.uk ⁄ http: 36 .Jh Habraken John N. 3,290–296 (3), / 09613210801995882 eodo eil osn spol represented, poorly is below. housing more which flexible about Japanese a extensive on noted The but selection. record me the to in new slant were found I Western that studies’. instances ‘case few for a each page quite a given more are which 70 of than documented are projects 160 than More exposition broad A o l eeatvesadisacsfo aiu parts various from instances and if views most relevant mention well all and as not informed Here well made. very are is authors design the flexible movement for case the the Next, and participation. housing, user the towards the times, of of modern rise in industrialization the dwelling as minimal and such leading restricted flexibility motivations address major to to context. designers introduced larger the first sketch are chapters We two limit- first that the Within it. ation, shape inter- that of the influences interaction the broader disciplinary the about that about not in and entirely housing misleading are somewhat is is contents title that book’s idea The an with book. up flexible’ this come more in ‘go present to already a difficult to not it inclined in find designers will completeness sense: approaches important examples of ie swl steetrl mt territories empty the entirely in Arsene-Henry the brothers as the by well user the as deter- offered functionally – seems rooms kitchen, other mined and the of bathroom none including but fixed, physically is where – everything (1903) Paris in apartments Franklin ait fue rfrne n h nrdcaiiyof unpredictability the use. and future spontaneous preferences a the user the of recognize variety to highlights architecture: architects contemporary among successfully desire to peculiar approach problem sensible That 1970s. early # 08N onHabraken John N. 2008 1 u h uhr’selection authors’ the But design fflexible of Downloaded By: [Lorch, Richard] At: 11:57 12 April 2008 fteworld, the of om n oehtrmvdfo oecomplex more The of a ideas evidence. from on removed this world. focused somewhat one all conversation, and reminds studio in form, It design way analytic. a not a of descriptive, guidelines opinion, not find is or an criteria do to approach with they which give reader the but by to provide illuminating, to hesitate and seek jargon. not of sensible devoid do usually prose, relaxed authors and The clear and con- a is historical in provide both veyed Till and information, Schneider that of morphological, range wide The the avoid to help mistakes. can served of is that handful subject much first the including to plate, new is full who a designer a all, in All of subdivision or territories. combination internal addition, the external flexibility or by a transformation, ways as and such many provided, reviewed be the are can summarizes each ‘manual’ material organiz- and final the space design: of of of ation selection perspective available the the from examples upon look chapters Further requires pages 20 given by about subject just unfairly complex editing. in disciplined a probably references cover many to is that attempt an exposition it sensible how overall an show in that party this like third Lapses add a 47). (p. by criticism then does cite also to and It first upon. much frowned clarify be not to empow- is such technically facilitate erment to trying user that of or abandonment empowerment implies innovation technical if as reading user’s when a eyebrows to raised the: adapted I apparently promoter be that a Building, As to Open flexible. not of technically when tend while even when rent wishes empowerment; determined for is functionally units ownership are because home even latter bought, that what, matter context the no this houses when reinforced in their timber- or change hear will masonry the we owners in do as built Nor or well Europe concrete. apartment in the as with house compared US row Japan is the in it one in framed that balloon-framed mentioned house the not modify suburban to is easier it much way but technically by plans, production inflexible housing from of in benefit for obsolescence worldwide hear, builders planned We house superficial. that is instance, knowledge, personal by it fa rgnlitn ocet osn that housing create to intent user expense the original over- empowers the at an to housing issues of of design technical the allowing determine Building of Open dangers of history 2 u h artv,a a sIcudcheck could I as far as narrative, the but ...... ugs[]the suggest[s] (p.48) oilsriesm fu elmrlybudto kind bound challenging and morally new feel a us imply it of simply does it some or Is pursue, service architecture. new might social a flexibility a way of what making in the know inspire design, to about like book would a one for however, importantly, to Most reader sceptical the subject. the helped with towards stay have reference some might questions and answers such validity rec- their reasons, some of elsewhere, ognition separately practical addressed frame be for best to may If, attempting and topic? advanced theories the the What been world? on have the impact in ideologies lasting done more is at or housing documen- profession way broader thus some the ideas in had design to many ted flexibility marginal the of still with Which is of large? design century issue to a the than architects mind, more after by that, For attempts it unanswered. is vast remain why the offered example, perusing evidence after of asked Obvious amount be probe. might not do that but questions expose, Till and Schneider arisingQuestions iiyrmiigmria otercresa thas it as large. careers at their flexi- profession the on, to for moved been marginal then remaining but get built, bility to project managed who flexible architects their by are done book the cases, in one-off over- documented but examples exceptions, missed the the to whelmingly have added sub- must be could I that participation names practice. removed architectural but user from career, them entire which their dominated after sequently Nabeel influ- project an did like their UK, ential the Others, in Wilkinson implemented Nicholas approach. and for Hamdi book. Housing’ and who, the Step Kyoto proposed in ‘Two in feature decades, Takada not and several does Tatsumi the but do belongs in list, Neither Avi also short found certainly only that are Brussels to Werf in housing, Kroll der flexible Lucien actually van index. doing Frans who is on and architects opposite Friedman career practising the a few but built the serious profession, Of a the true. design. been the for always housing give has doing may occupation flexibility century, of a that way about impression spanning new list, who a long known, men- The to well architects some aspired Till, of all and array pro- Schneider wide by lack architectural tioned or the the flexibility, consider for of thereof, design matter in the involvement fession’s with begin but To to architect, the housing. lead in for involved questions parties only professional not other always, for case also this As the in advance flexibility. research, can of experiments out and find cause study to helps further also how seriously questions such see Taking authors the the in that sign raised no perspective. not is architectural an there is and question either book This architecture? of Review 291 Downloaded By: [Lorch, Richard] At: 11:57 12 April 2008 tansitne oserteue oad ‘good’ a towards user the con- in steer result. build to to intended attempt Others let straints action. to user unforeseen of stimulates prepared that results context Architects a actually provide to flexibility. who seek go, for those note design among perceptively did Till tendencies and opposite Schneider two context, this In guidance. of notion need in the and incapable also are be dwellers and that to difficulties, tend technical debate costs, public about like in flexibility involvement, put against arguments make forward user the to so criticized, course, allowed be cannot be motherhood, Of finally not decisions. pressed, could users design when in that who, out ostensibly blurted participation, colleagues, of would from remember favour I users reactions do. still that emotional many idea And decisions. fore, the design the make resented to arm’s architects came at participation many housing when flexible that, keeping was length for reason bad The jeopardize to never want not publications, business. did their research and our sensibly lines They the mission along advocated. practice and its own 1970s their and in in acted 1960s the pride in research took its foundation, for research paid who Research) Foun- Architect’s (the SAR for the dation initiated The that implement. offices to architect’s difficult in ten therefore parties is other and of process cooperation the the It on affair. heavily cumbersome the and depends that risky a is is engagement flexibility of of lack pursuit this for reason good The Review aisadcnetosbcm oeeiet new a evident, 292 more current become of conventions limitations methodology? and the while habits another and change, flexibility for times embracing But oneself by gain re-educating to and there is what Indeed, initiative taking owners Developers and responsibilities to where mounts. asked risk world is and unknown shift One an anxiety: expert in of by of operate infringement exacerbated at system is indignation territory the familiar result, a destabilized. the As is cooperation and plan accountability mutual floor a Without marketing. predetermined figure assess can can developers bankers financing, every- calculate, can known, begins builders structure design services, are can and project consultants these part: their housing Once do can layout. body any floor is of the methodology ourselves common with design A among The done. the agree be applied: to to of In is need exclusion what efficient. only more about the and we already which culture unavoidable culture, that in regarded a is old, of inhabitant century product a the than all housing. are in involved is We professions expertise of other domain among their in shared invaded being of sense A 3 iligapot sarsl,St fee hr and Khari year. pro- offered such each Sato several jects for result, contract open-ended a an time, As Tocoman in profit. completed a and yielding budget, within executed sold, nteNtelns igtoDevelopers Lingotto Netherlands, the In oeta 000m 000 Eventually, year. 40 feasible. this than nine- start by more formed will investment block buildings internal city storey-high entire long-term that an for Construction concluded makes Oosten, flexibility housing Het Amsterdam the corporation of Director Bijdendijk, empty Frank it. the exploiting in selling advantage saw by who extra client flexible a the to space building recovered making space They for find proportion. costs can desired uses which any commercial in in and building residential multi-function a both build to initiative on t a ntemarket, the in way that its type house found new flexible and and introduce systemic Friedman to a first Avi successfully the after been manuscript.) have may their known Rybscynski of Witold became estate. date and they due Schneider real the because by of were mentioned presumably not owners Till, unsurprisingly, in are and projects which, demonstrated developers (These of is by all initiated This projects terrain. recent explore promising to willing more appears professionals of generation el led ie a h pnBidn competition Building Open the was as cited initiative Already take well. to begin bodies governmental Finally, occupants. retailer be to space will fit- free centre and offering shopping architects without no built own fitted Similarly, their be office companies. hire to Europe, out who floors tenants in real empty by increasingly with commercial out and designed in are US peers buildings the their new In by the estate. such are were as estate they construction, preceded real residential of flexible in owners pioneers and developers If way that built been n.d.). Goldhorn, have and units design (Lorichev of to of thousands precedent. waste any architects Today, of this unaware their blissfully at buildings’, asked ‘empty Appalled taste. developers design their choice capital, own to their interior of homes architect the new an of have their buyers to had class, gutted wealthy instantly a apartments of rise expensive the with Moscow, In whatever for fancied. leaseholder the is by function in filled and out rented ihTcmndt rcsiggroup. combination processing which in data Khari scheme, Tocoman Esko with winning Architect the by built of designed Co. was buildings Developing two Sato first design. the competition Building a called Open instance, for for Helsinki, of city The exception the been have rule. the to than out rather turn may they demics 2 fitro pc ilas be also will space interior of 4 u sarchitect as but 5 l nt were units All 6 okthe took / aca- Downloaded By: [Lorch, Richard] At: 11:57 12 April 2008 etre led.I sn ob eaal htan what debatable by doubt no for inspired is ways It various of already. in himself occupied centuries pandering facades, neo-clas- cast-iron their a declares with sicist warehouses Soho or City’s York He New architecture retro mediocrity. a ommend n ieie(? smnindadteS prahwill approach SI the build- and mandatory. 200-year mentioned be A way is scale. (!?) by urban lifetime to building’ an ing on ‘long-term afoot competition the a of is of of time idea drive hardware, the the government-sponsored in At promote financing. than a and other writing, jurisprudence stimu- areas as known, in such is it innovation as infill), blessing lated (skeleton Ministerial building’ control. this ‘SI of of of levels of acclaim principle separation the public of embraced finally enthusiastic government experiments an the project, open-building and of was Japan impact years in major many its 106) after flexibility, (p. of that, context innovations the technical in many but, its mention Till u tne o ei oflc ihte ihr Bijden- either. them with architects architects. conflict of in choice among be dijk’s not fashionable need necess- earn it not standards But To need building met. meet even a life is inhabitants, arily long its flexibility of a love of of the assured requirement not the is when building a users, its niiulydsge wligunits. contains dwelling building the designed flexible as a know individually which is what in initiated project Co. NEXT21 Gas Osaka 1994, be In in costly. can and less interior be erected, will the being alterations is of run time building long design the Project base the the US. while if the done reduced the and in be caught Europe specialized can initiative in firms the design architectural took but hospital major out, that of ironed problems attention be caused to reversal procedures abrupt time This habitual fit-out. the of the second for after a held was only construction competition and under system was primary scheme winning the competition for design of called a building was First, the in hospital. ‘primary for intensive-care Bern a system’ an ‘secondary of of a separation canton from the system’ the on of decided Switzerland department building The to themselves each. from committed units each winners 150 around entrants seven 60 developers The than among more corporations. ownership housing home and build- private flexible for on ings over- competition an successful concluded the Netherlands whelmingly the ago, in month Almere A of municipality. town Helsinki the by called prahsaeidctv fwa htmgtmean. might that what of Bijdendijk indicative fresh Some are game. new approaches this in expertise too an they develop initiative, must the take cannot architects Although Architectural challenges 9 rusta ihu h oeadpieof pride and love the without that argues 10 rvsta ede o rec- not does he that proves 8 cnie and Schneider 7 eiiiyb htvrnm st nbeindividual enable to user is the for name design bring of whatever to purpose by wants under- The flexibility one equation. but housing if 166), the crucial the (p. into is This Till for it and 1). standing skeleton Schneider (Figure Le puzzled a 1966) over act (Habraken, cross of a house picture drew Dom-i-no I famous Building, Open Corbusier’s of days early n ssilcniee nufiihdbidn ahrthan rather building unfinished an considered still is build- ing office commercial inspired ubiquitous yet The not profession. and has the it space such, As urban inhabitation. between individual performing a form becomes understood, collective properly building, flexible The lower a yet on done control. is of which level a of design way individual the same for settlement environment the context an In inspiring creates buildings. building an flexible the of make doing shaping to architects the seeks for and controls com- space designer distri- is public urban design a urban The such with Analogy pelling. itself new. By not the is architecture. at bution is flexible therefore, The of control, environment. roots of collective distribution of otherwise concept an in control h bs ulig,o h te,tepiaycriterion primary or the ‘support’, other, the the is one on or the building’, building’, ‘base on ‘flexible the ‘infill’, the or and out’ hand, ‘fit between For distinction tenants. the individual archi- a by an shared but that environment skeleton, tectural empty consideration an not the is building from flexible be flow can architecture Both new mentioned. a for opportunities more Two dwelling individual and design urban Between iue1 Figure ihteqaiyo vrdyenvironment. everyday architecture of quality but connects the mean, with unmistakably must requirement inhabitants its the by loved architecture htteato’ ocp a o ehia u n fthe of one but technical a not was control. design of concept emphasizedistribution (Habraken, to author’s housing’ Skeleton’ a the for not is R’s that Support ‘A ‘Three caption the the with in 1966) used was this of illustration version altered An 2008. London DACS, and ADAGP, Paris control asnDmIob eCruir image Corbusier, Le by Dom-Ino Maison o adae omk hspiti the in point this make To hardware. not , # Review FLC 293 / Downloaded By: [Lorch, Richard] At: 11:57 12 April 2008 h nt;tepnl a edsone rmteisd without inside the private from of Gas. dismounted Osaka layout Photograph: be scaffolding. small interior exterior can panels the aluminium and the anodized to units; the adaptation garden the allows too which Note roof system units. and facade the public of architect, part the chief as ‘gardens’ note Utida, Yoshitika colleagues (1994). NEXT21 project 2 Figure Review a ul hc a nyasalpr ftecniuu tutr neddt oma ra arcCuts rn a e Werf. der van Frans fabric.Courtesy urban an form to intended 294 structure continuous the of part small a only was which built was 3 Figure oevithuigpoeti aedeh,teNtelns yFasvndrWr,aciet(94.Daigo h rjc sit as project the (1974). architect of Werf, Drawing der van Frans by Netherlands, the Papendrecht, in project housing Molenvliet housing experimental Gas Osaka the of view Corner et hc ae h ET1poettuyof truly project NEXT21 the 2). archi- (Figure makes not among interest control do which design but of tects approach distribution Till this systems and note project’s Schneider the designed. in houses had mention the he do environment to architects the other NEXT21 thirteen Consequently, invited plans. already-mentioned he his showing when the me told for project the do Utida, to architect Yoshitika want chief design’ ‘I urban dwelling. dimensional individual three and between design mediates that urban architecture new a the for grasped potential fully flexibility residential of designers liber- Two a is it control encroachment. what of an separation not to the ation, architect return environment. the public can of For making the architecture at: good was plans, always together cobbling floor senseless remark- a of is from public This freed explored. other because, been able and yet not space initial have interior higher amenities for public span, in life longer investment a Possi- by way. created another in bilities, fabric urban of continuation the yFasvndrWr p 9) o rn,a Frans, For means a 291). but (p. building a Werf not der was structure’ earlier van years ‘support fifteen Frans future’, Molenv- done the the Rotterdam by visit near to of team project ‘dwelling client liet Osaka the his design took Utida to asked When Downloaded By: [Lorch, Richard] At: 11:57 12 April 2008 hr ilb o utoeslto.I oa’ world today’s circumstances. In and place solution. with one vary Moreover, may just answer not research. the be post-occupancy will trial and there by found error be can and balance correct del- the here be before first egated must bearings control Design themselves. our reflects among ary bound- only true lost the variety determine cannot that professionals We because but way, preferences. own architect’s its draws in Till line and Schneider the by shown projects the of Each inhabita- and begin? stop domain building control. tion’s flexible of the domains should between Where distinction also the mentioned to be relates to challenge architectural third The control design distribution of The 3). of (Figure demonstration still hold a may is future as project the devotees what Werf’s flexibility flexibility, der by visited internal Van uniformity. continuity Werf long-term urban-scale without enables der allows parts, facade Van flexibility including for unit’s for investment, Where, the fabric. urban of extended Bijdendijk, com- the fragment poten- a shaping building’s for a remains flexible tial it the only of but demonstration is entry, pelling courtyards, The competition built gardens. initial public as that for space to project shapes offer Molenvliet access courtyards It other scale. giving while neighbourhood streets a architec- and major at structural single principle a tural deploy fabric. to urban wanted three-dimensional He continuous a form to owa xetms tepesihbtto n to and inhabitation express it facade. must the of extent design what the to To applies question similar user’s A a in freedom decisions. with user conflict stimulate can in and settlement, be not dimen- need walls size load-bearing human sions of shaped Architecturally deal unit. in good each a in limited and be bays span to with small achieved had were solutions and flexible Perfectly expensive number. more flexible that were axiomatic rampant considered parts of maximizing was days early it thus the housing spaces, In mass material. empty fit-out of large use build the make to slabs floor easy pre-stressed of it Today, open. proposals above, wide noted still the as a is Arsene-Henry, between in brothers the found range and be Perret The should walls, unit? and dwelling columns of in form material, fixed the much how separation, first that Given the entered network. car road the historic have way world’s the in they somewhat settlement recently, goods human only of control. tradition durable old user millennia bath- the full produced entered least, under industrially very be the must As kitchens at experimentation and that, Building rooms however, Open taught, of have decades Several r-ob a oeta oprbewt h auto- the with comparable indus- potential This a product. the single has a installing try-to-be as and fit-out unit’s delivering resi- dwelling industry, dedicated avenues a fit-out new instance, opens for dential suggests, such It as research. parties and for all housing, for method in of involved adjustment architectural of invites only implied It not by is control, import. flexibility, of of experimentation concept the redistribution by and the But research architects. stimulated could these This have to opportunities. attention and draw challenges not architectural does compilation Till commendable and the Schneider that by regretted be to is It agenda research A oihv .adGlhr,B nd TeFe ln usasshell- Russia’s Plan, Free ‘The (n.d) B. in Goldhorn, and E. Building Lorichev, Open Toward Developments (1995) S. bi- 20(1); Kendall, Forum, housing’ for R’s ‘Three (1966) N.J. Habraken References open. wide a is for agenda field research the but comprehensive here, study. suggested directions closer been the of in have made need suggestions ad-hoc in various are decades issues recent worked In such be All must well. control as fra- of out legal separation sound the A divide, for other. the mework the of on for: side loans called bank one short-term are on kit, mechanisms service financing mortgage fit-out pays long-term New occupant installed car.) the as (An a much for car. as about motor costs apparently, the consumer collective like durable with for league goods in more investment building is fit-out long-term longer flexible the use, truly the much to Whereas a interest well. a of becomes as is a towards control economist of design the of shift part division durable the will use-life, the estate fit-out Because kitch- housing the bathrooms. to lines which and distribute of and dwell- ens over a boundary take drain the will and contractor at feed to territory utility building ing’s flexible distribu- on and the best are in consultants lines ted main fit-out how asks reconsider to between also systems building Separation collective industry. mobile atdec os ohv t w.Hr,to long- too, republic us. Here, Dutch teach own. must its the feedback have user communal of term to house burghers monumental each the wanted Londoners behind Georgian while happy well. facades, as quite space? issue public cultural were outside a shape is help This it must extent what aa,rpr nasuyi ue19,MiiUniversity, buildigns’, Meiji apartment and-core 1995, June in Tokyo. study Architecture, of a Department on report Japan, Amsterdam. Holkema, & Scheltema reprint, lingual rjc Russia Project www.habraken.com [email protected] .Jh Habraken John N. 20. , Review 295 Downloaded By: [Lorch, Richard] At: 11:57 12 April 2008 evtv siaesm 000uishv encntutdi the in constructed con- been by have units Rybcsynski) 10,000 Witold some with estimate servative designed I (which Home Grow painful Habraken, a ‘Prof. conspiracy?’ After a asked: shortage’. of meeting us housing the accusing have the not you of you are to what could moderator end me the I tell an silence, you participation’. from ‘Can shortage ask: gain user the and to I with address hand deal my one we raising first was resist before ‘let’s response century: houses The mentioned a of half participation. someone for user when heard more housing, have for of need business the the in experts architects ten by 1965 idea. in is ‘Support–Infill’ founded the implementation of item, was the investigate to offices SAR agenda all. research at major mentioned Foun- not Research) (the Architect’s SAR’s was for which dation plans, floor predetermined on was based project done. NEXT21 been influential has projects the other after of spate years a ten built, last the Stephen In Professor idea. Japan in titled same report a the in con- Kendall, with has housing, experimented semi-govern- call middle-class sistently a subsidized projects they Corporation, for of Housing institution number what Japan mental a The advocated produced years. the has decades Mitsuo over which colleague, Housing’, several Step younger for ‘Two his have and Europe. Takada, in Tatsumi case the Katsuo is public than Professor ideology pragmatic by by is encumbered approach initiated less The much companies. technology, and private and as well participation as agencies user both of 4 3 2 1 Endnotes Review 296 tm eus,AiFida -aldm h olwn:‘fthe ‘Of following: the me e-mailed Friedman Avi request, my At professional of conference a in myself found I recently Only that replacing methodology professional new a for search The terms in Japan, in design flexible of record track long a is There 19) etossm 7rcn rogiginitiatives. ongoing or recent 17 some mentions (1995), eeomnsTwr pnBuilding Open Toward Developments o t oglf.A nls agaebo yhmi xetdto expected is him by book language English An life. flexibility long interior its full ‘lova- with building’s for conjunction the in on precondition a emphasis as his bility’ in lies theory Building Open Studio Design Urban & Chikazumi. Architectural Shinishi under Shu-Koh-Sha exe- and by Fukao, Seiichi cuted and Takada Mitsuo Tatzumi, Kazuo with department. his in policy general system secondary and primary a between distinction the make to decided has Department, (http: Architecten ANA design CEO, www.lingotto.nl). and President Jansen, PDF Kotiranta, Arabian version. htlm different PlusKoti data, – cost, Acrobat two consultant: Group Adobe ToCoMan were Internet and Architects, There and Co., Co. Development & 2005. SATO Kahri apartments; Esko 80 in and structures completed support was project Sld’bidn nAsedmi ne osrcin twas it construction; under is Fretton. Tony Amsterdam by designed in building & Baumschlager (http: ‘Solids’ Eberle, Ditmar by designed Eberle is 2008 in start will (http: year this published be 9 8 7 6 5 10 siaetenme fbituisa 1000’. at units con- built I we builders. of by which number adopted and the also project was estimate campus research university a our of on part structed as which alone Home Next designed The I builders. private various by area Montreal idnikclshsflxbebidns‘ois.Hscnrbto to contribution His ‘Solids’. buildings flexible his calls Bijdendijk Utida Yoshitika by supervised 1993, project Next21 Gas Osaka Building (provincial) Kanton Bern the of Director Macchi, Giorgio Bob by concept 2005; Estate, real Lingotto project, Multifunk winning The 2001. competition Shore) (Arabian Arabianranta h lvnbidn,4 0 m 000 40 eleven-building, The // w.amclgreel.o) nearlier An www.baumschlager-eberle.com). // www.solids.nl 2 rjc o hc construction which for project / ). // /