Bigness and the Problem of Large [1993]

REM KOOLHAAS, B.1944

Rem Koolhaas, Bigness and the Problem of Large, OMA< Rem Koolhaas, and
Bruce Man, S, M, L, XL, (New York: Monacelli Press, 1995), 494-516. Copyright
Rem Koolhaas and the Monacelli Press, Inc.

Species

Beyond a certain scale, architecture acquires the properties of BIGNESS. The best
reason to broach BIGNESS is the one given by climbers of Mount Everest:
because it is there. BIGNESS is the ultimate architecture.

It seems incredible that the size of a building alone embodies an ideological

problem, independent of the will of its architects.

Of all possible categories, BIGNESS does not seem to deserve a manifesto;

discredited as an intellectual problem, it is apparently on its way to extinction like
the dinosaur through clumsiness, slowness, inflexibility, difficulty. But in fact, only
BIGNESS instigates the regime of complexity that mobilizes the full intelligence of
architecture and its related fields.

One hundred years ago, a generation of conceptual breakthroughs and supporting

technologies unleashed an architectural BIG BANG. By randomizing circulation,
short circuiting distance, artificializing interiors, reducing mass, stretching
dimensions, and accelerating construction, the elevator, electricity, air-conditioning,
steel, and finally, the new infrastructures formed a cluster of mutations that induced
another species of architecture. The combined effects of these inventions were
structures taller and deeper-BIGGER-than ever before conceived, with a parallel
potential for the reorganization of the social world-a vastly richer programmation.

Theorems

Fuelled initially by the thoughtless energy of the purely quantitative, BIGNESS has
been, for nearly a century, a condition almost without thinkers, a revolution without
program.

Delirious New York implied a latent Theory of BIGNESS based on five theorems:

1. Beyond a certain critical mass, a building becomes a BIG Building. Such a mass
can no longer be controlled by a singular architectural gesture, or even by any
combination of architectural gestures. The impossibility triggers the autonomy of its
parts, which is different from fragmentation: the parts remain committed to the
whole.
2. The elevator-with its potential to establish mechanical rather than architectural
connections-and its family of related inventions render null and void the classical
repertoire of architecture. Issues of composition, scale, proportion, detail are now
moot. The art of architecture is useless in BIGNESS.
3. In BIGNESS, the distance between core and envelope increases to the point
where the faade can no longer reveal what happens inside. The humanist
expectation of honesty is doomed; interior and exterior architectures become
separate projects, one dealing with the instability of programmatic and iconographic
needs, the other-agent of dis-information- offering the city the apparent stability of
an object. Where architecture reveals, BIGNESS perplexes; BIGNESS transforms
the city from a summation of certainties into an accumulation of mysteries. What
you see is no longer what you get.
4. Through size alone, such buildings enter an amoral domain, beyond good and
bad. Their impact is independent of their quality.
5. Together, all these breaks-with scale, with architectural composition, with
tradition, with transparency, with ethics-imply the final, most radical break:
BIGNESS is no longer part of any issue. Its exists; at most, it coexists. Its subtext
is fuck context.

Maximum

The absence of a theory of BIGNESS-what is the maximum architecture can do? Is

architectures most debilitating weakness. Without a theory of BIGNESS, architects
are in the position of Frankensteins creators: instigators of a partly successful
experiment whose results are running amok and are therefore discredited.

Because there is no theory of BIGNESS, we dont know what to do with it, we dont
know where to put it, we dont know when to use it, we dont know how to plan it.

Big mistakes are our only connection to BIGNESS. But in spire of its dumb name,
BIGNESS is a theoretical domain at this fin de siecle: in a landscape of disarray,
disassembly, dissociation, disclamation, the attraction of BIGNESS is its potential to
reconstruct the whole, resurrect the real, reinvent the collective, reclaim maximum
possibility.

Only through BIGNESS can architecture dissociate itself from the exhausted
ideological and artistic movements of modernism and formalism to regain its
instrumentality as a vehicle of modernization.

BIGNESS recognizes that architecture as we know it is in difficulty, but it does not

overcompensate through regurgitations of even more architecture. It proposes a
new economy in which all is architecture no longer, but in which a strategic
position is regained through retreat and concentration, yielding the rest of a
contested territory to enemy forces.

Beginning

BIGNESS destroys, but it is also a new beginning. It can reassemble what it

breaks.

A paradox of BIGNESS is that in spite of the calculation that goes into its planning-
in fact, through its very rigidities-it is the one architecture that engineers the
unpredictable, instead of enforcing coexistence, BIGNESS depends on regimes of
freedoms, the assembly of maximum difference.
Only BIGNESS can sustain a promiscuous proliferation of events in a single
container. It develops strategies to organize both their independence and
interdependence within the larger entity in a symbiosis that exacerbates rather than
compromises specificity.

Through contamination rather than purity and quantity rather than quality, only
BIGNESS can support genuinely new relationships between functional entities that
expand rather than limit their identities. The artificiality and complexity of BIGNESS
release function from its defensive armour to allow a kind of liquefaction;
programmatic elements react with each other to create new events-BIGNESS
returns to a model of programmatic alchemy.

At first sight, the activities amassed in the structure of BIGNESS demand to

interact, but BIGNESS also keeps them apart. Like plutonium rods that, more or
less immersed, dampen or promote nuclear reaction, BIGNESS regulates the
intensities of programmatic coexistence.

Although BIGNESS is a blue print for a perpetual performance, it also offers

degrees of serenity and even blandness. It is simply impossible to animate its entire
mass with intention. Its vastness exhausts architectures compulsion to decide and
determine. Zones will be left out, free from architecture.

Team

BIGNESS is where architecture becomes both most and least architectural: most
because of the enormity of the object; least through the loss of autonomy- it
becomes instrument of other forces, it depends. BIGNESS is impersonal: the
architect is no longer condemned to stardom.

Beyond signature, BIGNESS means surrender to technologies; to engineers,

contractors, manufactures; to others. It promises architecture a kind of post-heroic
status-a realignment with neutrality.

Even as BIGNESS enters the stratosphere of architectural ambition-the pure chill of

megalomania, it can be achieved only at the price of giving up control, of
transmogrification. It implies a web of umbilical cords to other disciplines whose
performance is as critical as the architects: like mountain climbers tied together by
life-saving ropes, the makers of BIGNESS are a team (a word not mentioned in the
last forty years of architectural polemic).

Bastion

If BIGNESS transforms architecture, its accumulation generates a new kind of city.

The exterior of the city is no longer a collective theatre where it happens; theres
no collective it left. The street has become residue, organizational device, mere
segment of the continuous metropolitan plan where the remnants of the past face
the equipments of the new in an uneasy standoff. BIGNESS can exist anywhere in
that plane.

Not only is BIGNESS incapable of establishing relationships with the classical city-
alt most, it coexists- but in the quantity and complexity of the facilities it offers, it is
itself urban. BIGNESS no longer needs the city: it competes with the city; it pre-
empts the city, or better still, it is the city. If urbanism generated potential and
architecture exploits it, BIGNESS enlists the generosity of urbanism against the
meanness of architecture. BIGNESS = urbanism vs. architecture.

BIGNESS, through its very independence of context, is the one architecture than
can survive, even exploit, the new-global condition of the tabula rasa: it does not
rake its inspiration from givens too often squeezed for the last drop of meaning; it
gravitates opportunistically to locations of maximum infrastructural promise, it is,
finally, its own raison detre.

In spite of its size, it is modest. Not all architecture, nor all program, nor all events
will be swallowed by BIGNESS. There are many needs too unfocused, too weak,
too unrespectable, too defiant, too secret, too subversive, too weak, too nothing to
be part of the constellations of BIGNESS.

BIGNESS is the last bastion of architecture-a contraction, a hyperarchitecture. The

containers of BIGNESS will be landmarks in a postarchitectural landscape-a world
scraped of architecture in the way Richters paintings are scraped of paint:
inflexible, immutable, definitive, forever there, generated through superhuman
effort. BIGNESS surrenders the field of after-architecture.

specie

Dincolo de o anumit scar, arhitectura dobndete proprietile bigness.

Cel mai bun motiv pentru a pune in discutie bigness este cea dat de
alpiniti de pe Muntele Everest: "pentru c este acolo." Bigness este
arhitectura final.

Se pare incredibil c dimensiunea unei cldiri singur ntruchipeaz o

problem ideologic, independent de voina arhitecilor si.

Dintre toate categoriile posibile, bigness nu pare s merit un manifest;

discreditai ca o problem intelectual, este aparent pe cale de dispariie -
ca dinozaur - prin stngcie, ncetineal, inflexibilitate, dificultate. Dar, de
fapt, doar bigness instig regimul de complexitate care mobilizeaza
inteligena complet a arhitecturii i domeniile conexe.

n urm cu o sut de ani, o generaie de progrese conceptuale i a

tehnologiilor de sprijin a declanat o arhitectur Big Bang-ului. Prin
randomizing circulaie, distana scurtcircuitul, interioare artificializing,
reducerea masei, care se ntind dimensiuni, i accelerarea construciei, lift,
electricitate, aer condiionat, din oel, i n cele din urm, noile infrastructuri
au format un grup de mutaii care au indus o alt specie de arhitectur.
Efectele combinate ale acestor invenii au fost structuri mai inalti si mai
adanc-MAI MARE dect oricnd nainte conceput, cu un potenial paralel
pentru reorganizarea lumii-social programmation cu mult mai bogat.

teoreme

Alimentat iniial de ctre energia necugetat a pur cantitative, bigness a

fost, timp de aproape un secol, o stare aproape fr gnditori, o revoluie
fr program de.

Delirant New York implica "Teoria bigness" latent bazat pe cinci teoreme:

1. Dincolo de o anumit mas critic, o cldire devine o cldire mare. O

astfel de mas nu mai poate fi controlat printr-un gest arhitectural singular,
sau chiar prin orice combinaie de gesturi arhitecturale. Imposibilitatea
declaneaz autonomia prilor sale, care este diferit de fragmentare:
prile rmn angajate n ansamblu.
2.-lift cu potenialul su de a stabili conexiuni i, mai degrab dect
mecanice arhitecturale familiei sale de inventii conexe face nule repertoriul
clasic al arhitecturii. Problemele de compoziie, la scar, proporie, detaliile
sunt acum n discuie. "Arta" a arhitecturii este inutil n bigness.
3. n bigness, distana dintre miez i plic crete pn la punctul n care
faada nu mai poate dezvlui ceea ce se ntmpl n interior. Ateptarea
umanist de "onestitate" este sortit; interioare si exterioare arhitecturi devin
proiecte distincte, una care se ocup cu instabilitatea nevoilor programatice
i iconografice, cellalt-agent de dez-ora care ofer informational
stabilitatea aparent a unui obiect. n cazul n care arhitectura dezvluie,
bigness perplexes; Bigness transform oraul dintr-o nsumare a
certitudinilor ntr-o acumulare de mistere. Ceea ce vezi nu mai este ceea ce
primiti este.
4. Prin marimea singur, astfel de cldiri intr un domeniu amoral, dincolo
de bine i ru. Impactul lor este independent de calitatea lor.
5. mpreun, toate aceste pauze cu scara, cu compozitie arhitecturala, cu
traditie, cu transparenta, etica-implica, cea mai radical pauz final:
bigness nu mai face parte din nici o problem. Este exist; cel mai bun caz,
convieuiete. subtext ei este contextul dracu '.

Maxim
Absena unei teorii a bigness-ceea ce este arhitectura maxim poate face?
Este slbiciune mai debilitante arhitecturii. Fr o teorie a bigness, arhitecii
sunt n poziia creatorilor lui Frankenstein: instigatori unui experiment de
succes parial ale crui rezultate sunt difuzate amok i, prin urmare, sunt
discreditai.

Pentru c nu exist nici o teorie a bigness, noi nu tim ce s facem cu ea,

noi nu tim unde s-l pun, noi nu tim cnd s-l foloseasc, noi nu tim
cum s-l planifice.

greeli mari sunt singura noastr legtur cu bigness. Dar, n turla numelui
mut, bigness este un domeniu teoretic la acest fin de sicle: ntr-un peisaj
de dezordine, dezasamblare, disociere, disclamation, atracia bigness este
potenialul su de a reconstrui ntregul, renvie real, reinventeze colectiv ,
revendica posibilitate maxim.

Numai prin bigness poate arhitectura se disocieze de micrile ideologice

epuizate i artistice ale modernismului i formalismul s-i recapete
instrumentalitii sale ca vehicul de modernizare.

Bigness recunoate c arhitectura aa cum tim c este n dificultate, dar nu

overcompensate prin regurgitari chiar mai arhitectur. Aceasta propune o
nou economie n care "totul este arhitectura" nu mai este, dar n care o
poziie strategic este rectigat prin retragere i concentrare, obinndu-se
restul unui teritoriu atacat forelor inamice.

nceput

Bigness distruge, dar este, de asemenea, un nou nceput. Ea poate

reasambla ce se rupe.

Un paradox al bigness este c, n ciuda calculelor care merge n planificarea

sa de fapt, prin nsi sale rigiditi-este arhitectura unul care inginerii
Imprevizibilul, n loc de executare coexisten. Bigness depinde de regimurile
de liberti, ansamblul de diferen maxim.

Numai bigness poate sustine o proliferare promiscu de evenimente ntr-un

singur container. Acesta dezvolta strategii de a organiza att independena,
ct i interdependena lor n cadrul entitii mai mari ntr-o simbioz care
exacerbeaz, mai degrab dect compromisuri de specificitate.

Prin contaminare, mai degrab dect o puritate i cantitate, mai degrab

dect de calitate, numai bigness poate sprijini cu adevrat noi relaii ntre
entitile funcionale care se extind, mai degrab dect s limiteze
identitatea lor. Artificialitatea i complexitatea funciei de eliberare bigness
din armura defensiv pentru a permite un fel de lichefiere; Elementele
programatice reacioneaz ntre ele pentru a crea noi evenimente-bigness
se ntoarce la un model de alchimie programatic.

La prima vedere, activitile n structura acumulat cererii bigness de a

interaciona, dar, de asemenea, le bigness ine n afar. Ca i tije de
plutoniu, care, mai mult sau mai puin scufundate, deprima sau promoveaz
reacia nuclear, bigness reglementeaz intensitile coexistenei
programatice.

Cu toate c este un bigness albastru de imprimare pentru o performan

perpetu, de asemenea, ofer grade de linite i chiar amabilitate. Este pur
i simplu imposibil de a anima intreaga masa cu intentie. Este
constrngerea evile de eapament vastitatea arhitecturii de a decide i de
a determina. Zonele vor fi lsate afar, liber de arhitectur.

Echip

Bigness este n cazul n care arhitectura devine att mai puin i

arhitecturale: cele mai multe din cauza enormitatea obiectului; n ultimul
rnd prin pierderea devine instrumentul de o autonomie a altor fore,
aceasta depinde. Bigness este impersonal: arhitectul nu mai este
condamnat la statutul de star.

Dincolo de semntur, bigness nseamn predarea tehnologiilor; ingineri,

contractori, produce; pentru alii. Ea promite arhitectura un fel de post-
eroic statut-o realiniere cu neutralitate.

Chiar i ca bigness intr n stratosfera arhitectural ambiie frigul pur al

megalomanie, acesta poate fi realizat numai la preul renunrii la control, a
metamorfoza. Aceasta implic o reea de cordonul ombilical la alte
discipline, a cror performan este la fel de important ca i arhitectului:
cum ar fi alpiniti legate mpreun cu frnghii de salvare, factorii de decizie
bigness sunt o echip (un cuvnt care nu este menionat n ultimii patruzeci
de ani de polemic arhitectural ).

Bastion

n cazul n care bigness transform arhitectura, acumularea ei genereaz un

nou tip de ora.

Exteriorul oraului nu mai este un teatru colectiv n cazul n care "ea" se

ntmpl; nu exist nici un colectiv "it" a plecat. Strad a devenit reziduu,
dispozitiv de organizare, simpla segment al planului metropolitane continuu
n cazul n care rmiele trecutului se confrunt cu echipamentele din nou
ntr-un impas incomod. Bigness poate exista oriunde n acel plan.

Nu numai c este bigness incapabil de a stabili relaii de cu oraul-alt clasic

cel mai mult, ea coexists- dar n cantitatea i complexitatea instalaiilor pe
care le ofer, ea nsi este urban. Bigness nu mai are nevoie de ora:
concureaz cu oraul; preconfigurat empts ora, sau mai bine, acesta este
oraul. n cazul n care urbanism a generat un potenial i arhitectur
exploateaz, bigness nroleaz generozitatea urbanismului mpotriva
micimea arhitecturii. Bigness = urbanism vs. arhitectur.

Bigness, prin nsi independena sa de context, este arhitectura unul dect

poate supravieui, chiar i exploata, condiia nou la nivel mondial a tabula
rasa: nu grebl inspir din Givens prea des stoarse pentru ultima pictur
de sens; l graviteaza in locatii de oportunist promisiune maxim
infrastructural, aceasta este, n cele din urm, propria sa raiune de a fi.

In ciuda dimensiunilor sale, este modest. Nu toate arhitectura, nici toate

programele, i nici toate evenimentele vor fi nghiite de bigness. Exist mai
multe "nevoi" prea nefocalizat, prea slab, prea unrespectable, prea sfidtor,
prea secret, prea subversiv, prea slab, prea 'nimic' s fac parte din
constelaiile bigness.

Bigness este ultimul bastion al arhitecturii-o contracie, un

hyperarchitecture. Containerele bigness vor fi repere ntr-un peisaj-o
postarchitectural mondial rachetat de arhitectur n modul n care
picturile lui Richter sunt rzuite de vopsea: inflexibile, imuabil, definitiv,
pentru totdeauna acolo, generat printr-un efort supraomenesc. Bigness
capituleaz domeniul post-arhitectur.