The Berlage

Thesis Preparation Lecture Course

Assignment 3: Architecture Depends Commentary
Nazmi Anuar

GENERIC ARCHITECTURE, HETEROGENEOUS URBANISM

Prologue
What happen to architecture is often more interesting than architecture as planned and the
mutations which a work of architecture undergoes even to the extent of losing its original form
often leads to the most heterogeneous conditions. Therefore a work of architecture should
never be completely finished. It could never be completely finished. To imagine and to propose
an architectural project as a finished monolith, a masterpiece, is akin to signing its death sentence
while it is still in the womb. Architecture should rather be seen as an infrastructure for the
aforementioned process of mutations. Formally, architecture should be seen as a structure which
through the intelligence invested in its design and conception by the architect, becomes a
platform to accommodate uncertainty and an enabler for possibilities.
This does not mean that the architect is letting go, nor does it mean the surrender of
architecture to context and to reality (or whatever is perceived as the reality). On the contrary,
the lack of finality in the nature of an architectural project should be seen as a position of
strength, a strategic, feigned retreat or a mobile defense. A robust piece of architecture, designed
and imbued with a certain degree of intelligence, should be able to mutate endlessly, to
accommodate different programs through time, to address contingency. While the aesthetic
aspects are left open to user interpretations and the ever changing demands and taste of the user,
the key architectural characteristics - which embodies the central design intentions of the
architect - remain, albeit as an invisible hand silently but surely informing (perhaps even
dictating?) the nature of change and mutations. This could even be understood as an opportunity
to engage reality head on, by dismissing the fickle realm of style and aesthetics, the role of the
architect could then be directed to the question of organization (through structure and circulation;

the core elements), and of giving form to social exchange, while the architecture remains
relatively formless in itself.
This essay will explore the notion of contingency and architecture as addressed in Jeremy
Tills book Architecture Depends. It will also argue for the case of generic architecture as the
vessel for contingency and therefore the platform for possibilities. It will end with some thoughts
on the idea of generic architecture as the building blocks for heterogeneous urbanism.
On Contingency and Unfinished Architecture
Till opened his chapter on coping with contingency with a quote from Indiana University
Germanic Studies Professor, William Rasch who said Contingency is, quite simply, the fact that
things could be otherwise than they are 1. When applied to architecture, it parallels the earlier
idea of the mutations of architecture beyond the planned and the programmed. But the quote
addresses another fundamental question, the fact that things could be otherwise than they are.
To once again relate this to architecture, it implies that what is often put forth as a finalized
design, an architectural solution, is in fact an extreme and often forced process of editing of
options. It can be argued that what is presented as a solution, by the nature of its finality is in fact
a ruthless exclusion of other possibilities, what Till referred to as the freezing of time into a set
of instant aesthetic moments 2. An architecture frozen and belonging to a certain moment in time
When will you freeze the design? being the second most often asked question by clients,
behind Whats the cost? runs the risk of underperforming in other times, even to the extent of
being rendered obsolete.
When placed in the realm of architecture and urbanism, the notion of contingency is
related to the notion of context. But in order to address this parallel, we must first accept the
redefinition of context itself, which is no longer limited to obvious and physical factors such as
tradition and geography. Context must be redefined here as an ever shifting and evolving matrix
of factors which includes socio-cultural and economic forces. The speed at which these factors
evolve and mutate, ridicules the finality, permanence and monumentality still aimed for in much
of architectural production today. Clients are still harping on about the final design, long term
1
2

Jeremy Till, Architecture Depends, Cambridge: MIT Press, 2009. p45.

Ibid., p85.

life-cycle and iconic qualities of an architectural project, while the architect becomes an
accomplice in the process, which through its exclusion of possibilities renders architecture
incapable of catching up with the speed of change happening all around it. The architect and
architecture are like two old men, blindfolded and bounded together, running backwards to go
forward.
An important notion to introduce here, and which is inseparable to the discussion of
contingency and possibilities is that of flexibility. The underlying idea being that today's society
requires architecture that could be rapidly transformed and adapted to different needs and
possibilities. The advantages of such architecture are not just financial; they also have significant
advantages in terms of longevity and retaining its physical relevance. Architects need to accept
that flexibility and adaptability and the staging of possibilities are fundamental aspects of the
architectural project. These aspects entails that an architecture project should no longer deal
exclusively with the specific; instead it should consider options and possibilities. A building can
still be designed for a certain program at a specific time, yet should be able to accommodate,
through its design, vastly different programs in the future.
Here is where the idea of the unfinished architecture project enters in, where aspects of
the design are left open to different interpretation and even appropriation by the user in due time.
This should not however be seen as the loss of control on the side of the architect. Rather the
design of architecture as a relatively unfinished platform requires a high, if not higher, degree of
intelligence. For such a design requires immense foresight derived from exhaustive testing of
future scenarios and possibilities on the structure. As noted by Till, this is far from a laissezfaire approach to architecture in which the architect merely provides a neutral background for the
users to operate on. Instead, building the unfinished compels the architect to project multiple
actions onto the building 3. Now that we are addressing the notion of flexibility in relations to
the architectural response to contingency, it must also be stressed that this exploration is
unconcerned with moving walls, interactive faade or whatever technological aspects of
flexibility which has been explored in the work of various architects. Rather the interest is more

Ibid., p108.

closely related to the idea of slack space 4 and the robust background, to which the relation of
generic architecture will be explored in the next section of this essay.
On Possibilities and the Generic
Generic architecture, which at first glance is the embodiment of the lack of quality, of the death
of imagination and identity (or imagined identity?), is proposed here as the typology (if it could
be considered as such) to be deployed for absorbing and responding to contingency. It must be
stressed here that this is not an approach in the vein of the mega structures of the 1960s nor of
Structuralism, where in both cases individual cells or units belong to a larger whole. Rather the
banal typical plan will be appropriated as the ideal typology. Structures so banal and
characterless than virtually anything can happen within the grid. Holes can be carved out of
slabs, glass curtain wall facades could be stripped bare, only for the naked structure to be cloaked
in the guise of the next stylistic trends, yet its robustness remains. Like certain generic drugs,
which are packaged and re-packaged in different guises but providing the same 'performance.
This is far from purely designing a neutral background. It requires intelligence and foresight,
control without interference.
Lets discuss that most generic, characterless of architectural typology, the typical plan. 5
The typical plan could be read as the logical outcome of economic demands, imposed on
architecture. It is the ruthless extrusion of the maximum allowable built area on a given lot,
multiplied ad infinitum (height restriction permitting). A typical plan is typically composed of
the slab, the service core, the structural grid and the enclosure. Architecture as no architecture,
design reduced to its bare essentials. Minimal to the point of being banal, the typical plan is an
overlooked, underrated platform of possibilities. The typical plan stays in the background, but it

Most obviously, slack space has to be seen in time. In this it is open to changing use not in terms of a literal
flexibility of moving parts and sliding gizmos, but in terms of providing a frame for life to unfold within. It is space
that something will happen in, but exactly what that something might be is not determinedly programmed. Slack
space operates more as a robust background than a refined foreground. Ibid., p134.
5
Typical Plan is an American invention. It is zero-degree architecture, architecture stripped of all traces of
uniqueness and specificity. Rem Koolhaas, Typical Plan in S, ML, XL, by Rem Koolhaas and Bruce Mau,
Rotterdam/New York: Monacelli Press, 1995.p335.

enables mutations and stages possibilities 6. To relate the typical plan as a typology of generic
architecture to the notion of contingency, in can be argued that the typical plan, if properly and
intelligently deployed, points the way out for architecture from the trap of finality and of
completeness. Rem Koolhaas noted in his essay on the typical plan; Architecture is monstrous
in the way in which each choice leads to the reduction of possibilityTypical Plan by making
no choices postpones it, keeps it open forever. 7
The potential of the typical plan and of generic architecture as platform for possibilities
was celebrated by Koolhaas in Delirious New York where an old drawing by cartoonist A.B
Walker from Life magazine was presented as a diagram illustrating a theorem for the possibilities
of the skyscraper in accommodating the infinite variety of the Metropolitan condition. Koolhaas
celebrated the variety of social aspirations, architectural languages and lifestyle evident in the
drawing, all supported with complete neutrality by the rack. 8 In presenting the illustration as a
theorem for the skyscraper Koolhaas also recognized the potential of the typical plan to
accommodate mutations, observing; the diversity of the 84 platforms of the 1909 Skyscraper
holds out the promise that all this business is only a phase, a provisional occupation that
anticipates the Skyscrapers conquest by other forms of culture, floor by floor if only necessary 9
What is implied here is that a typology which is generally seen as the embodiment of the
demands of capital could actually be liberated to perform a bigger role as an expression of the
context.
The main challenge in proposing generic architecture as a strategy is that there is a very
fine line between the laissez-faire attitude of simply providing an empty, neutral background and
the intelligent deployment of the typical plan as a platform for possibilities. The key question
becomes how could we design the typical plan? Or indeed how do we design generic
architecture? What can we do with a set of givens (the slab, the core, the structural grid, the
6

Its neutrality records performance, event, flow, change, accumulation, deduction, disappearance, mutation,
fluctuation, failure, oscillation, deformation. Typical Plan is relentlessly enabling, enobling background. Rem
Koolhaas, Typical Plan in S, ML, XL, by Rem Koolhaas and Bruce Mau, Rotterdam/New York: Monacelli Press,
1995.p341.
7
Ibid., p344.
8
Rem Koolhaas, Delirious New York: A Retroactive Manifesto for Manhattan New ed. (New York: Monacelli
Press,1994):83-85.
9
Ibid., p87.

enclosure) and how do we compose them in such a way, that what are already platforms for
possibilities could become enhancers to the process of mutations. Not in immediately visible or
obtrusive formal means but through the notion of informing and influencing how change
happens. This will allow the architect to remain in control of the key architectural characteristic
while admitting that some aspects, such as aesthetic - which are not as critical - are simply
beyond control, or even of no interest anymore. The question of designing generic architecture
therefore becomes a question of designing a robust background.
OMAs competition proposal for the Jussieu Library in Paris (1992) could be read as one
possible method where the bare elements (slab, column grid, elevators) of generic architecture
could be manipulated in such a way that the key architectural characteristic of the design remains
in place, regardless of the change in program and occupants. Essentially the design is conceived
as a series of stacked platforms - typical plans which are then warped and connected to one
another, creating a continuous internal trajectory. The programs of the library are then distributed
on the folded planes, an urban condition within a building. The warping of the floors the act of
design, the key architectural characteristic accommodates and creates possibility. The fact that
this building is conceived as a robust performative background for mutations and contingency
and a platform of possibilities is evident in the description of the project: the architecture
represents a serene background against which life unfolds in the foreground.In this structure,
program can change continuously, without affecting architectural character. 10
The challenge in deploying generic architecture as vessels of contingency and platforms
of possibilities is in seeking out other means, other design strategies to similarly realize the
underlying intentions of the Jussieu proposal; to reaffirm the relevance of the physicality of
architecture and with it the continuing role of the architect amidst the dizzying speed of change
and mutations in the contemporary urban environment.

10

Rem Koolhaas, Unraveling in S, ML, XL, by Rem Koolhaas and Bruce Mau, Rotterdam/New York: Monacelli
Press, 1995.p1328-1329.

Postscript: Towards Heterogeneous Urbanism

The premise behind the idea of generic architecture as the building blocks for heterogeneous
urbanism is based on an extremely simple notion. As discussed in the preceding section, generic
architecture as defined in this essay relies on the intelligent deployment of the bare elements in
the service of retaining control over performative architectural characteristics, while embracing
contingency and possibilities as a means of engaging reality.
A design which allows mutation through user interventions and appropriations - as
reflection of their needs and preferences - continues to be physically relevant beyond being
merely a frozen representation of a certain aesthetic. The architecture the robust background silently influences how and in what way mutations happens. Through these structures the
architect maintains a degree of control post-occupancy. Generic architecture, by virtue of being
characterless in itself, allows the projection and becomes the reflection of ever changing
demands. If context is defined as an ever shifting and evolving matrix of factors, then generic
architecture, being platform of possibilities, is the perfect means to be continuously contextual.
The point here is, rather than dismissing generic architecture as leading to uniformity, it should
be celebrated as the building blocks for true urban heterogeneity, beyond the traditional and
ultimately superficial notions of identity.
The idea of generic architecture as the building blocks for heterogeneous urbanism
requires an in depth process of research and design. This could perhaps be explored through
exhaustive documentation of generic architecture and methods of projecting mutations? It can be
however, be summarized at this point as a strategy for architecture to both accommodate and
create possibilities, of letting go to retain control. A feigned retreat to a position of strength.