Architectural Principles in the Age of Cybernetics

Architectural Principles in the age of Cybernetics 1st Edition. Christopher Hight teaches graduate and undergraduate design and theory at Rice University School of Architecture. If there was a book to introduce graduate students of architecture, art history and modern humanist.
Table of contents


  1. How To Negotiate Your Salary.
  2. Good Night, Sweet Dreams, I Love You: Now Get Into Bed And Go To Sleep!?
  3. Swan Lake, No. 29: Scene - Score?

His arguments, in fact, depend on their status as refrains within a long tradition. The nature of the relation between body and building may change, becoming more or less explicit, laying dormant or even falling into disrepute, but it is ever present in some way. Rykwert summarized architectural history as a dialectic of body models and metaphor: Through the metaphorical projection of our body the world of things reflects our sense of embodiment.

This is not so different from the cognitive theories of George Lakoff and Mark Johnson. In a series of collaborative and separate texts, Johnson a philosopher and Lakoff a linguist have placed the projection of bodily experience at the core of what it means to be human and of our understanding of the world created through such metaphoric operations. They argue that our experience of our body provides the primary metaphors through which to organize our perception and sensation of the world into meaningful arrangements, which is then projected through our body and its extensions tools, writing, and architecture in order to fashion a commensurable life-world, or Umwelt.

Similarly, Rykwert concludes that body metaphors are at the origin not simply of architecture as a body of knowledge but also at the core of being human: The body metaphor does not simply allow a meaningful architecture; the identification between the body and the building is also the necessary condition of being human, for making a home for humanity in a hostile world. The homely experience of going through a door is able to express so many kinds of entrance.

The body is a model which can stand for any bounded system. To put this in Heideggerian terms, the Vitruvian tradition offered a poetics for the elaboration of techne—through which to dwell in the universe. Architectonics is not simply shelter, but an act of revealing the possibility of Being as dwelling. In these arguments, anthropos and arche are synonymous. While this canon is most apparent in the classical orders, it is not limited to a style, nor does the use of classical details ensure coherence within this humanist canon, as we shall see.

Perrault did not blindly accept Vitruvius as authority and instead sought to confirm his arguments by measuring important ancient and Renaissance architectures or at least drawings of them. The body metaphor was merely an illustrative myth, one that should be replaced by reasoned measure. Moreover, Perrault claimed one could improve upon ancient theories through rationalization, proposing a common module derived by averaging the measures he had taken of admired works of the past.

Ultimately, the Ordonnance is important, he argued, because its influence needs correction: Thus, for these phenomenologists, two seemingly opposed developments eroded the Vitruvian tradition of bodily metaphor: The modern rejection of decoration was not simply stylistic, but based on its equation with rhetorical ideas such as the body metaphor. Rather than making the primal identification legible as Rykwert argued it did in ancient Greek architecture , ornament now appeared as a sophistry that persuaded with rhetorical flourishes and concealed truth.

The literal construction, its function and its structure, were thought to lead to a more rational, objective ground free from subjective license.

Architectural Principles in the Age of Cybernetics - PDF Free Download

As we have seen, in his reading of post-and-lintel architecture of ancient Greece, structure itself, by expressing the metaphor of standing is metaphorical. In elevating such tropes, he again echoes Lakoff and Johnson that metaphor is not a supplement but the core of the possibility of language. This has an architectural consequence because if all language is produced by and through such tropes, then the modernist attempt to remove rhetorical flourish and uncover a pure structure of literal language is a red herring.

The double metaphor of the body is not something that can be stripped to reveal a more pure form because it is the very essence of architecture. Instead, what occurred was the displacement of the primal identification and metaphoric commerce of the body and building with other sets of metaphoric referents, typically technological, cultural and scientific in origin.

However, Rykwert claimed the modernist tropes of technology and rationality alienate the embodied condition of humanity from the means of producing the artifact. This means that construction cannot be used to articulate the relationship between the embodied subject and the world and instead only monumentalizes the alienation of the subject. This repeats a common lament heard from writers as diverse as Heidegger, Adorno and Jacques Ellul about technology as a force of alienation.

Technology appears as the cause of a general process of dehumanization that includes both the displacement of humanistic cultural ideas in favor of modeling the human subject based on the sciences and on rationally controlled productive capacities, and a process of accentuated rationalization at the level of social and political organization that reveals the features of the wholly administrated and regulated society. Rykwert also associated this with the reduction of meaning based practices, including architecture, into commodities. Clearly today, in a world of complex technological systems, we control, individually, very little; yet our actions… have a phenomenal importance… This is why I would argue formalistic strategies in architecture, regardless of the legitimizing frame of reference in Marxist theory, linguistics, physics, or evolutionary biology may be dangerously irresponsible.

In so far that modern architecture specifically intended to break with a figurative poiesis of the classical tradition, it is deliberately nihilistic—without and against meaning. Iconic modernist images of the body are often said to index a profound break with humanistic embodiment offered by historical worldviews, even from a not explicitly phenomenological point of view.

In , Roentgen accidentally discovered x-rays and in the early twentieth century, taking x-ray photos became a popular leisure activity not unlike the cinema; by the mids radioscopy had become a standard medical tool. Freud argued that the existence of the unconscious displaced the subject from his rational Cartesian center. Marx had described the modern worker as alienated from the means of production, labor transformed into simply a resource, excessive exchange value unhinged from any substantive measure of use value.

In addition, like Lakoff and Johnson, they disparage those thinkers who challenge a normative idea of the whole body as the willful imposition of all-too modern neuroses since to attempt to dissolve this metaphoric commerce is to attempt to dissolve the world of humanity per se. Finally, though they define modern architecture not as a style but as the lack of the body metaphor, they equate the formal in modern architecture with the alienation of humanity due to modern economies of production and rationality. Appeals to aesthetics and beauty only obscure the alienation of humanity by technology and science.

The implications of this argument are sweeping. Indeed, if the body metaphor is the origin of architecture and the origin of modern architecture is the loss of that metaphor, then modern architecture is best understood as a different trope, the oxymoron. Nor do we have a viable discipline or discourse about architecture. The hermeneutic task, therefore, is to interpret whether an architecture is a proper resemblance to this original model. Some examples are judged accurate copies and therefore legitimate while others are merely simulacra, bad copies, because they distort the primal identity or ignore it altogether.

This account of architecture operates as a quasi-Platonic history of resemblances to an original model that provides normative criteria for all subsequent examples. Anything that does not conform to this original identity is simply rejected as error or noise and little else can be said about it. What does this mean for other traditions of architecture, or other bodies, that are not traceable to the double Greek origin?

Wittkower's theory of architecture

Colonialism is inherent to their arguments, in which any divergences seen as, at best, only resemblances of a privileged Western tradition and its concepts of the body, cosmological order and subjectivity. The same is true for the possibility of other formations of thought within the Western tradition. Again, difference is given only as degrees of resemblance. Such formulations depend upon an unquestioned continuity. Second, even when phenomenologists claim that a great rupture has occurred, this is not a real transformation since all that has happened is the ascendancy of one of the two terms.

The overall structure of thought, culture and architecture remains essentially the same.

See a Problem?

However, he assumes that there was always something to balance, that knowledge operated through such opposed forces, and that this dialectic is real and eternal. Indeed, his objective ultimately must be to conserve this dichotomy because he cannot imagine an architecture that works outside this structure. Yet, if since the dawn of modernity Architecture has shared the crypt with Man and God, architectural theory becomes a mystical reanimation of a corpse. Fortunately, we do not need to share in this eschatological dread because to differentiate the modern from an authentic tradition in this way is, of course, entirely modernist itself.

In fact, it is exactly the same as the differentiation of the modern from the past that Perrault himself hoped to establish, though of course with the opposite intent of demonstrating the superiority of the scientific modernity of late seventeenth-century Paris to the ancient tradition. Additionally, the phenomenologist attempts to resolve a perceived imbalance between dueling pairs—the formal and the perceptual, the subjective and the objective, the rational and the poetic.

Architectural Principles in the Age of Cybernetics

Such oppositions belong to distinctively modernist organizations of thought, traceable back to Kant and Hume. Instead, they naturalize the modernist myth of autonomous technology and ever increasing instrumentalism and rationalism. Either this underestimates the complexity of our world and the nature of humanity, or else, as Langdon Winner quipped long ago, human nature is so weak that it was not really worth saving.

More damagingly this sort of criticism anthropomorphizes technology even as they describe it as de-humanizing. The problem with technology is that it has come to be, or at least seen to be, far too alive, too like humans, not that it is dehumanizing. Finally, while they mourn the triumph of such instrumental realism over the poetics of Being, their account of the body and modernity simply inverts what they see as the modern value system, claiming that it is science that is false and what is real is the domain of subject.

In short, they look forward to the ending of the modernist end of architecture, but their arguments are committed to an eternal circling around modern forms of knowledge they condemn. Even in style, their general portrayal of modern architecture and modernity are so extraordinarily reductionist and determinist, while their claims for the past are so grandly nostalgic and romantic, that their depictions have a distinctly heroic modernist flavor. This means of course, that they find plenty of what apparently was lost when they turn their attention to more recent works. In turn, we must question not only the grounds upon which they define modernity as a break with the Western tradition of the body, but also the usefulness of this tradition itself and its historical armature.

The crisis of modern science, its erosion of a meaningful figurative architecture, is a phantasmagoria for those who take pleasure living in the tomb of Architecture they construct. At the same time as the phenomenological position was developed, poststructuralism, deconstruction, critical theory and psychoanalysis began to be mined by designers and theorists. However, since the late s, their texts and projects have attempted to open the possibility of a post-humanist architecture. As a result, their projects and texts are filled with references to alternative models of corporeality, such as blobs, rhizomes, cyborgs, mutants and prosthetic supplements.

What is Kobo Super Points?

Just as architectural phenomenology developed through specific networks of actors and institutions that mobilized both architectural and extra-disciplinary sources, the post-structuralist position precipitated around academic institutions especially those of the American North-East and sought to open architectural thought to new and more critical constellations of thought. These were often combined with references to scientific discourses, such as chaos theory, complexity theory, embryology, genetic engineering and most recently ecology and emergence, since these seem to offer alternative metaphysics and metaphors of the relationship between the culture, the subject, the body and nature.

Michael Hays, Eisenman, and Diana Agrest. Folding in Architecture , and many others. For example, the ANY project headed by Cynthia Davidson, consisted of a series of annual symposia, a thematically oriented journal, and related book projects, all of which helped to coalesce a network of architects, theorists, educators and by extension pedagogical programs.

Many of these journals are now defunct—indeed ANY was conceived with a built-in expiry date. But through them, post-structuralist theory, new scientific paradigms and computer-aided design were annealed into a formation that continues to proliferate within schools and increasingly influences the design that emerge from professional practices. Yet, in spite of all these differences I will demonstrate how both operate within the same field of reference to the Vitruvian Figure and the tradition of architectural humanism for which it stands.

Again, these examinations are not meant to be exhaustive or exclusive, but rather serve as case studies that evidence a pattern of argument repeated many times over in texts of other writers, in academic reviews, and between the lines. She traces this authorization to Vitruvius, quoting his famous equation: Nature has designed the human body so that its members are duly proportioned to the frame as a whole… we can have nothing but respect for those who, in constructing temples of the immortal gods, have so arranged the members of the works that both separate parts and the whole design may harmonize in their proportions and symmetry.

The Vitruvian body was therefore circumscribed into ideal natural order and the hierarchies of architecture become authoritative. Greg Lynn offers a similar characterization by ascribing to the Vitruvian system a set of formal principles derived from an understanding of the body as whole, ideal, static and organic. These values, he argues, have governed architecture since the Renaissance. He also reasserts that Vitruvius defined a canonical body metaphor.

Despite their differences, both the phenomenologists and the poststructuralists accept that the Vitruvian body defined the classical tradition, which in turn determined subsequent architectures through certain geometries and organizational principles. Like the phenomenologists, for Agrest and Lynn, this metaphor was the core of a classical architectural language—its grammar, as it were. Principles such as organic wholeness, harmony, proportion, verticality, symmetry and eurhythmy, structured this system.

Nevertheless, while both treat the Vitruvian system as the origin of an architectural tradition, divergences appear between the phenomenologists and the post-structuralists. Most obviously, their use of terms suggests different conceptions as to the status of this humanism. For them, the metaphorical presence of the body is something precious, to be preserved wherever possible and recovered when lost. By contrast, Agrest focuses on what and who is necessarily excluded from this Vitruvian system.

She is centrally concerned with the representation, or rather the lack of representation, of women in this humanist system: Moreover, rather than revealing a metaphysical truth, it serves to naturalize cultural and historical values as truthful and conceal violence done by them. Nevertheless, it is governed by a conception of metaphorical signification and representation via formal systems of order in which the body, architecture and the subject constitute a closed loop of reference.

Agrest suggests that issues of sexuality and gender had been rather neglected in architecture. This third repression completes the displacement of the feminine with her erasure at the metaphysical or poetic level. Nevertheless, certain geometries and poses have been associated with certain genders. In all these examples, first the feminine sexuality , woman sex , and female gender are repressed by a masculine model; then, because this phallocentric ideology is presented as neutral, matters of gender, sex and sexuality are marginalized as such.

This, it is suggested, has been a continuous condition from Vitruvius through Modernism. These repressions have continued at a subconscious level, only uncovered by the critical theorist or historian through textual hermeneutics and deconstruction. Thus, Agrest suggests alternative architectural geometries, drawing upon different models of the body that might open architecture to other forms of subjectivity. They do not seek direct geometrical or organizational models, but cultural signification and subjective identification.

In their work, the matter of the body, its Flesh as they entitled their monograph, has been a primary site of investigation of the relationship between a subject and the contemporary conditions of space. The gendered body and the critique of the phallocentric body as a model is central. For example, in Bad Press: The mis-ironing of shirts thus calls into question this masculine body model and reveals the unconscious gendering of architecture. In the Para-site, installation at the Museum of Modern Art, live-video feeds of other locations in the museum are displayed on a series of monitors, hung on architectural armatures that parasitically attach to the neutral white box of the gallery space.

By re-orienting the monitors and locating them in relationship to indexes of the body—domestic furniture—the exhibit challenges the neutrality of the body, concepts of embodied orientation, as well as the relationship between telepresence and physical space. The primary material of this pavilion for the Swiss Expo is, according to the architects, water.

A manufactured fog envelops a lightweight structural space-frame that provides platforms for occupation. The result is at once an intensification of embodiment and disorientation of geometric orientation, both for the architecture and of the experience of its occupant. The architects planned for a smart raincoat to be programmed according to a questionnaire; this prosthetic would compensate for the physical disorientation by augmenting the senses with informational indicators. What lies hidden within this interior?

It is worth examining this because it bears directly on how he and Agrest believe architecture signifies subjectivity and how one might propose different ideologies and power structures. Proportional orders impose the global order of the whole on the particular parts.

This whole architectural concept ignores the intricate local behaviors of matter and their contribution to the compositions of bodies. In these projects, Eisenman argued he was exploring the relationship between post-structuralism and architecture. While Eisenman based his research on linguistic and textural references within poststructuralism, Lynn seized upon the scientific allusions and materialism within the writings of Deleuze and Guattari. Such digitally-based research has since proliferated across the globe and continues today within many schools as computationally-based design attempts to develop new processes of fabrication, genetic algorithms and design ecologies.

The best example is his juxtaposition of two apparently similar lines presented as the frontispiece to this chapter. While these two lines appear alike, their geometries refer to very different understandings of the relationship between form, matter and forces. If any part of the line is changed, all the others have to be recalculated and redrawn separately to be re-integrated into the line. The second curve is defined by a spline geometry based on the flow of forces through the curve; this force is regulated by the position of the triangular handles. Such topological geometries are integral to the animation and surface modeling software and any change along the curve is recalculated along the length of the curve as a renegotiation of forces.

The former, Lynn argues, presents a hylemorphic and humanist world view that sees matter as at once objective and inherently static, and which must have ideal and subjective geometries in the universal Kantian sense of subjective imposed upon it to give it form. The second curve maps forces, forms and matter as an intrinsically dynamic and interrelated field, in which subjects and objects negotiate and unfold each other diagrammatically.

Such geometries do not operate according to mimesis of a fixed model, but through animations and dynamic modeling based on differentiation, multiplicity, continuous variation and transformation. These geometries, Lynn argues, can contain and express difference in a way eidetic geometries cannot. Moreover, both groups define modern architecture as a break with this Vitruvian body. However, neither associate this break with the advent of an overtly modernist style of architecture. As we saw in the last chapter, the phenomenologists located this break in the late eighteenth century; for the post-structuralists, this break has yet to occur.

In fact, they understand the modernist architectures of the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries as merely extensions of classical humanism. The apparent abstraction and functionalism of Modernism were merely new guises of the classical value system of architecture. In discussing gender, for example, Agrest argues that the Vitruvian tradition extends into modernity and continues to inscribe its phallocentrism into architectural geometry, form and space.

In Les mots et les choses translated as The Order of Things , Foucault develops this concept as a finite configuration of representations, concepts, words and things that determine the conditions of any specific knowledge or practice of that time. Importantly, an episteme is defined as much by the differences that can occur within patterns of statements as any coherence and without reference to some external identity, model, essence or spirit.

It is through the concept of the episteme that Foucault provided an alternative to the conventional history of ideas privileged by rationalization and progress. For example, he argues that the division between classical architecture and truly modern architecture cannot be defined stylistically but is to be located in the disruption of a deeper structure of signification.

He also shares their understanding of Renaissance architecture as referring to religious value, while suggesting that Enlightenment architecture privileged rational and positivistic knowledge. He argues that Durand conserved the fiction that architecture represents and that what it represents is a truth that lies outside architecture.

As I have shown, the phenomenologists argue that the body metaphor defines architecture as such. The metrification of the architecture was not a rationalization at the hands of a science divorced from the world of myth but rather a technique to produce an architecture that would even more truthfully represent the timeless as construed in seventeenth-century France. This Eisenmanian Perrault would not mark a break with the classical but merely the adoption of scientific rhetoric in order to conserve the classical system. It is important to recall that the body was itself understood through functionalist frameworks as a machine; the house as a machine for living therefore was also like the body as machine.

Yet, something did alter with modernity in that we became aware of the fictional status of these classical values as fictions. Modernism maintained the conditions of classical architecture but no longer enjoyed its authority. As the world of humanism and its God became a fable, its structures remained as empty husks.

If so, modernist architecture not only continued the Vitruvian tradition, it continued it as a simulation. From this point of view, the phenomenologists fail to interrogate how perception itself is shaped or how some perceptions become more important than others. Two paradoxical conditions arise in this network of arguments.

Because no general alternative model of architecture can be posited directly without unwittingly maintaining the classical model, what is required is the deconstruction and trans-valuation of models themselves. As the reductive nature of humanist metaphysics becomes apparent, it immediately begins to lose its authority, that is, the memory of its presence is experienced as absence what is misconstrued as the experience of alienation.

The ability to perceive humanism as limited suggests that its space no longer encloses knowledge. For writers who constantly bemoan alienation, the poststructuralist pursuit of accomplished nihilism may be their only hope. Nor can the post-structuralists project a different architectural model or suggest that we progress beyond the classical without collapsing their discourse back into the fictions of the classical in this case, that of progress.

As a side-effect, their architecture must continually defer to modernist that is, the not-yet-modern but really classical architecture as simulacra that, paradoxically, operate as origins for their thought of a not-classical architecture. To do so, he attempted to draw out the organizing principles of their architecture in abstract diagrams related to the spatial and formal effects experienced by the subject of the architecture.

As I have shown, they argue architecture has been operating as a continuity of humanism since the fifteenth century. Yet, such a claim relies upon the anachronistic premises of a unity of a singular tradition, an antithetical modernity, and a constant invocation of the Zeitgeist. Whatever its merits might be, the text fails to provide such an archaeology.

Eisenman bases this argument on the apparent resemblance between Renaissance architecture and ancient architectures. The system of ancient classical architecture is not necessarily the same as for the Renaissance simply because they use similar words or forms; their meaning and function are subject to extreme difference.

For example, a Doric column in the Greek temple is a fully formed object and a component of another volumetric whole; for the Renaissance it is a dependent component of a planar wall system. One should not assume that Renaissance architecture represented a past architecture simply because it redeployed its overt signs, but more to the point, such repetition is insignificant since signs are mobile and transformable rather than fixed marks of continuity. It is the construction of the classical architecture within and through the work and writings of Renaissance architects that remains to be described, not their repetition of a classical architecture as an already defined and fixed site of history.

Rather, it would need to be determined how this recovery was a transformation within the discourses about building, design and its practices and knowledge e. One could not assume that there is a continuous discipline of architecture that coheres to an essential identity. Instead, one would map the transforming constellations of practices and formations of knowledge. Rather than privilege the apparent similarity of certain Renaissance forms to Roman or Greek orders, one would ask what it was that allowed these objects to reappear in the way that they did. Similarly, rather than detect in Modernist architecture a continuation of classical order and define truly modern architecture as a break with this order, one would begin to ask how this apparent continuity became possible and the role it played in constructing a modern discipline of architecture.

The history of architecture would be a discontinuous charting of difference rather than a tracing of a continuity given by an original model of Vitruvius. In so far as Eisenman accepts that the attempt to move beyond classicism is itself classical in its modernist variant , he not only is bound to an indefinitely prolonged ending but, like so many of post-modernists, elevates this break to a new form of completion of a Vitruvian origin. He criticizes their metaphysics as dominant narratives but is happy to re-inscribe them as the origin of his historical significance. Thus, while on the surface of his rhetoric, Eisenman continues to operate within a Hegelian structure and conception of history.

Greg Lynn also perpetuated this covert total history. Is Lynn being ironic, drawing a parallel between the idea of a whole history and wholeness in form, implying that the two go hand in hand, that the prejudice for wholes also makes architectural history seem more unified than in fact it is? Even if this is the case, this is to conflate two different registers between appearances of truth and historical processes of formation. She does not, however, seem to ponder the possibility of concepts of gender actually changing from the fifteenth century to now, let alone deal with the non-binary constructs of gender such as existed in ancient Athens.

Ironically, by their own arguments, neither Agrest, Lynn nor Eisenman can occupy a neo-avant-garde position. They can only surf the wake of the classical, playing out the prolonged end game of its unconcealment as a fiction. A post-humanist architecture lay stranded in a near future perpetually delayed.

If the phenomenologists ultimately offer moralism, the post-structuralists are bound to a negative theology.


  1. Product details!
  2. .
  3. Architectural Principles in the Age of Cybernetics - CRC Press Book.
  4. Footsteps Across a Miracle: An anthology of poetry and cryptic philosophies.
  5. Yellowstone National Park: from the Travel Photo Guides iPhone App.

Moreover, by rehearsing a dialectic of tradition and modernity, poststructuralists de-historicize the formation of this dialectic and the objects made available through its discourse. They wish, for example, to displace the values of the timeless and the whole, but their attempts to do so rely upon a historical narrative dependent upon exactly these values.

It is bizarre to premise a shift towards a non-humanist architecture by maintaining—and reinforcing—a humanist historiography and the identities of architecture it has provided, both in terms of the nature of its objects of discourse and the discipline itself. This does not mean that architecture remains deeply humanist but that it may remain within the same space of knowledge that created this representation of its past and present.

This suggests re-examining the discourses surrounding the body and ordering that existed within modern architecture as a post-humanist archeology of the present. But this habit is itself modern, because it remains asymmetrical. Instead, here I want to examine how it operates as a historical object through which current discourse is constructed. What I will try to indicate is that, whatever else the Modulor may be or might have been, it has played an oddly useful role within recent discourses of the body in architecture. Even as architecture seeks to overcome humanism, the once rather forgotten Modulor returns as a specter of unfinished business.

It is unfinished in two senses: Like the phantom, the Modulor gains its power and importance not from an internal fortitude but as a shadow of the past. He completed the book, Le Modulor, in and published it in , followed by a sequel, Modulor 2 in Through these texts Le Corbusier developed and disseminated his claim that the forms of the human body can be inscribed within the geometries given by the Golden Section ratio and Fibonacci series. The claim was that this constituted a proportioning system based on the human body.

Beyond this simple account, any attempt to explain the Modulor is frustrated by the nature of the texts that described it. While the books were designed using the Modulor, and might be thought of as the first products of the system, the content shows little concern for systematic organization.

Hastily edited, Le Modulor and Modulor 2 were montages of tales of origin, and polemics about the future. These disjointed narratives were accompanied by parallel streams of diagrams, sketches, captioned and uncaptioned photographs, found objects, mathematical formulae and tables of numbers. The tone ranges from megalomaniacal to false modesty. The texts resist rigorous interpretation or deconstruction because their arguments disintegrate before the reader. Because of this, they can be interpreted to support almost any reading that one cares to project.

The first edition sold out quickly and was translated into English in , though by that time it was already widely discussed within Anglo-American architectural discourse. Soon, Le Modulor was translated into Spanish and was published in South America; shortly thereafter German and Japanese editions ensured it became a worldwide phenomenon. Its successes spawned symposia, numerous articles, lectures, imitators and competitors. How to write a great review.

The review must be at least 50 characters long. The title should be at least 4 characters long. Your display name should be at least 2 characters long.


  • Aidens Game: A Casino Boss Love Story.
  • Rondeau Sheet Music (Flute/Piano).
  • .
  • Architectural Principles in the Age of Cybernetics by Christopher Hight;
  • 1st Edition.

    • At Kobo, we try to ensure that published reviews do not contain rude or profane language, spoilers, or any of our reviewer's personal information. You submitted the following rating and review. We'll publish them on our site once we've reviewed them. Item s unavailable for purchase.

    Please review your cart. You can remove the unavailable item s now or we'll automatically remove it at Checkout. Continue shopping Checkout Continue shopping. Chi ama i libri sceglie Kobo e inMondadori. Available in Russia Shop from Russia to buy this item. Or, get it for Kobo Super Points! Ratings and Reviews 0 0 star ratings 0 reviews. Overall rating No ratings yet. How to write a great review Do Say what you liked best and least Describe the author's style Explain the rating you gave Don't Use rude and profane language Include any personal information Mention spoilers or the book's price Recap the plot.

    Close Report a review At Kobo, we try to ensure that published reviews do not contain rude or profane language, spoilers, or any of our reviewer's personal information. Would you like us to take another look at this review? No, cancel Yes, report it Thanks! You've successfully reported this review.

    We appreciate your feedback. Architectural Principles in the age of Cybernetics. Set up a giveaway. Pages with related products. See and discover other items: There's a problem loading this menu right now. Get fast, free shipping with Amazon Prime. Your recently viewed items and featured recommendations.

    Join Kobo & start eReading today

    View or edit your browsing history. Get to Know Us. English Choose a language for shopping. Amazon Music Stream millions of songs. Amazon Drive Cloud storage from Amazon. Alexa Actionable Analytics for the Web. AmazonGlobal Ship Orders Internationally. Amazon Inspire Digital Educational Resources. Amazon Rapids Fun stories for kids on the go. Amazon Restaurants Food delivery from local restaurants. ComiXology Thousands of Digital Comics.

    East Dane Designer Men's Fashion.