Archigram Today: Towards a Ruthless Criticism of Todays Architecture

Eric Lawler

Dr. Deborah Middleton

Ball State University

24 April 2014
Running Head: ARCHIGRAM TODAY 2

Abstract

This paper looks at the work of the avant-garde group Archigram and its context within the

London architectural culture of the 1960s. Archigram stood against the prevailing dogmas of Modernism

and sought to redirect and refocus architecture towards innovation and the inclusion of current

technological advances. Their critical assessment of architecture du jour is then reflected in this paper

upon certain topics within the architecture of the current day and age. A constant criticism of everything

around us is absolutely required for change and progress to occur. As if in a process of manipulated

accelerated evolution, that which is weak or unneeded must be brought to question and either discarded or

altered. This paper argues that architecture is being caught up in distracting phenomena such as the

celebrity culture around starchitects, deceptive use of seductive renderings, and the lack of integrity

within green certification measures. In these critiques, the significance of Archigrams own deductions

come alive again. As is mentioned later, ruthless criticism is necessary for truth to become apparent.

Archigrams legacy is a step-by-step case study in cultural provocation and a subsequent call to action

which this paper is begins to applying to today. This isnt a comprehensive overview of all issues but

merely a small taste; this paper is intended to merely look in depth at Archigrams precedence and follow

up with three case studies of contemporary architectural issues. This paper will act as an initial agitation

to be followed by in depth critiques of all sorts of problems which will, with good hope, serve to change

the course of architectural discourse just as Archigrams provocations did.

Running Head: ARCHIGRAM TODAY 3

Preface

Amid a backdrop of postwar economic booms and the late stages of Modernism, the avant-garde

group Archigram navigated the 1960s English architecture scene with visions of a reignited Modernism,

high technology, and liberated consumers with endless choices. Archigrams imagined cities could walk,

be worn, be thrown out for a newer model, and could even instantly materialize and dematerialize

whenever necessary. Archigram approached architecture with discussions both playfully optimistic and

radically critical. This group was comprised of six young men Peter Cook, Michael Webb, Ron Herron,

Warren Chalk, Dennis Crompton, and David Greene (Sadler, 2002) who collaborated in architectural

publications entitled Archigram. This magazine catalogued their work and ideas, sometimes featuring

other similar minded designers. It sought to redefine the purpose of architecture within a context of pop

culture and high-tech visions of the future. Radical and ahead of its time, their work is almost entirely

graphic and remains unbuilt. For example, Archigram designed and proposed massive modular cities

based on the ability to change anything according to the occupants wishes as one would clothing or

furniture (Cook, 1999). Archigram was interested in giving people what they wanted according to their

needs and desires as a consumer. Modernists seldom asked this question, preferring instead to dictate

users wants and needs on their behalf. Archigram pursued an architectural culture that avoids falling into

dogma (as did Modernism) but maintains the radical exuberance Modernism grew from in the early 19th

century.

Before attempting to critique present day architectural culture, we must understand that the nature

of any successful radical revolution requires constant change and progress; it can never settle down. Karl

Marx introduced this idea of a constant revolution and it was expanded upon by communist revolutionary

Leon Trotsky in his book Permanent Revolution, 1931. In Marxs definition, permanent revolution is a

method for carrying out successful revolution through ruthless demands and critical lack of compromise.

This required a successful ousting of power of the ruling classes followed by similar revolutions in other

nations until economic competition is eliminated and the world enters a new age of ultimate human

equality. However in the case of Archigram, permanent revolution is much simpler. Archigram was
Running Head: ARCHIGRAM TODAY 4

unhappy with how Modernism settled down into a decreed doctrine of the International style (Sadler,

2005, p. 11). The groups avant-gardism came in the footsteps of previous artists reacting to the First

World War in a movement known as Dada, which focused on irrationality, nonsense, and intuition as well

as usage of the collage as their primary medium. Inspired by their work, Archigram adopted the collage as

their primary medium giving their work a feeling of being current through the usage of pop icons and

magazine photos (Sadler, 2005, p. 43). The usage of collage linked them to the avant-garde of the 20s.

The first edition of Archigram

mentioned Italian Futurists along

with Russian Constructivists

(Sadler, 2005, 43) which further

leads the observer to link them

in a continuum of avant-garde

thought, even if it had taken a

fifty year rest. Their continuation

of the avant-garde echoes

Figure 1: Instant City from Archigram's Living City exhibit. Taken from Cook, P., & Marxs call for a permanent
Archigram (Group). (1999). Archigram. New York: Princeton Architectural Press.
revolution not nearly as ruthless. To continue in the nature of this permanent revolution of avant-garde

thought, architecture today must locate and reveal problems in contemporary society. It must apply strong

critique to these revelations in order for their work to have a fundamental aim of redirection and/or repair.

The goal of modern architecture was to define a style characteristic of the age, a style belonging

solely to the new technological era of machines and a style reflecting humanitys new industrial scale.

The development of neo-plasticism, of absolute reduction and abstraction of elements, is well reflected in

the De Stjil movement of the early 20th century in the Netherlands. This movement signified the most

radical break from the past where architecture was reduced to points, lines, and planes and nothing else. It

referenced no past; only a future where they forged their own path rather than looking back to Greece or

Rome for inspiration. They didnt believe any longer that humanitys best moments were in the past but
Running Head: ARCHIGRAM TODAY 5

rather to be accomplished (Colquhoun, 2002). This fundamental nature of opposition and focus on the

future was the beginning of Modernism and was what Archigram sought to rejuvenate. They believed that

fervor for innovation and design should return in the form of architecture based on high-technology and

pop culture. The idea that the early flames of Modernism had to be reignited was what linked Archigram

to this long link of avant-garde thought in the nature of a permanent revolution.

This paper aims to investigate how the ideals of the radical movement can be implemented today

by critiquing common trends in contemporary architecture as Archigram did within the 60s. This paper

will argue that a radical redirection is needed, in the nature of Archigram, to correct rather than bring

back. Today more than ever a critical look into the lessons of the avant-garde is needed. However, a

hologram of Archigram will not do us any good. A hologram merely reflects and directly mimics

something already existing. A diagram of the significance of the avant-garde would be much more

flexible with the dynamic society in which we live today. Diagrams are representational and are able to

exist separate from what they represent. They expand and clarify something for a specific audience.

Avant-garde architecture today should serve as an expansion of the radical culture of Archigram for

contemporary society. Therefore, it is more appropriate that the representational nature of a diagram, not a

mimicking hologram of Archigram, be given a substantial investigation. This discussion is necessary in

order to rescue todays architecture from pressing issues such as over-exaltation of starchitects, the over-

emphasis on the digital rendering, and an uninspiring green movement.

Discussion of Vocabulary

Architectural history and theory require a certain vocabulary which is useful to look at before

diving too much into these dense topics. Archigrams main criticism is of Modern architecture which

makes it necessary to explain what Modernism refers to in this paper. In the 21st century, weve started

to refer to sleek, minimalist designs as modern. This becomes confusing because it has no connection to

the philosophical and theoretical goals of true 20th century Modernism. Minimalism is a different

aesthetic and philosophy. Whenever someone refers to current architecture as modern, theyre either

ignoring the past century of architectural history or merely unaware of their misuse. Modern architecture
Running Head: ARCHIGRAM TODAY 6

began as a thought process in the late 19th century as a sort identity crisis following the industrial

revolution in which cities were growing immensely, technology was advancing rapidly, social classes

were moving further apart, and people were afraid that their traditions and lifestyles were coming to an

end (Colquhoun, 2002). In the 1850s, a movement later known as the Arts and Crafts movement arose in

England. Arts and Crafts was opposed to the Industrial Revolution because they believed it ruined the

quality of hand craft due to the introduction of machines into factories (Morris, 1966). On the other side

of the debate stood the proponents of Industrialization who praised the efficiency and the scale of

possibility brought forth by this technological revolution. It is in this manner of technologys exaltation

that Modernism arises. This Modernism came from the work within De Stjil (The Style), a movement

which praised new machine-based technology, and most importantly the complete abstraction and new

interpretation of form (Colquhoun, 2002). This is where Modernism breaks off from the process of

history and its new definition arises, as historian Alan Colquhuon (2002) describes it, [Modern

architecture is] conscious of its own modernity and [is] striving for change (p. 9). Rather than existing in

the present and reflecting on the past, Modernisms great defining factor is its focus on the future (May,

2013, p. 11). This focus on the future is the main emphasis of historical avant-gardes from whom

Archigram draws influence and guidance.

Mentioned as well are the ideas of indeterminacy and perpetual becoming. These are phrases that

refer to Archigrams push for a dynamic architecture, not fixed or static. Simon Sadler (2005) puts it

perfectly:

Archigrams philosophy of indeterminacy brought to head a long-running, rarely mentioned

conundrum of modernism. Modernism is a contradictory idea, inasmuch as the word modern

implies something that is bang up to date and still in formation, whereas the suffix ism implies

the opposite, a doctrine, a codified method, a style. Archigram would ensure that the ism would

instead stand for a continual state of becoming, the design of the ever new. (p. 91)

This defines both indeterminacy and perpetual becoming. It allows architecture to be open-ended,

free from a fixed state, and free to the possible of change.

Running Head: ARCHIGRAM TODAY 7

In the critiques section of this paper, the term starchitect is mentioned. Its a phrase

coined mostly by the media to denote a specific architect as especially talented and well known.

By combining architect with star, the media turns the architect from a complex intellectual to just

another way simple celebrity. While architects have been treated in similar ways in the past

(Frank Lloyd Wright is the perfect example), the starchitect represents an even deeper

obsession we have today with making distant superstars out of unique and talented people. It

elevates them to a level beyond normal humanity and subjects them to extremely high standards

as well as directs an unnatural amount of attention to their actions, writings, and thoughts.

Todays most well-known starchitects could include Zaha Hadid, Rem Koolhaas, Frank Gehry,

Daniel Libeskind, and Bjarke Ingels.

Discussion of Research

Simon Sadlers Archigram: Architecture Without Architecture (2005) provided an exceptional

overview of the context and history of Archigram. The book had four sections which focused on

Archigrams formation and context, their usage of pop culture, their ideas of indeterminacy and perpetual

becoming, and their teaching and reception, respectively. All of these sections combined into a first-of-

its-kind history of Archigram which makes this text necessary and most helpful for this paper. Radical

architecture is rarely tagged with radical. Radicalism is discussed more widely in political and

philosophical discourse than it is in architectural discourse. The trouble, however, was found in the

difficulty in obtaining strong critique of contemporary architecture. Most of the critique discovered

throughout research covered of modernism, post-modernism, and other movements more than 20 years

old. However, a different group of thinkers other than architectural historians could be referenced for their

approach to critique. For example, voices saying that the green movement isnt enough to avert climate

disaster is not enough come from the lectures of ecosocialists Gloria Mattera, Joel Kovel, and Chris

Williams (Kovel, 2012). The most radical push for change in the social, economic, political spheres of life

come from Leftists of today. In education, Chicago public schools foster a number of activists fighting for

a voice in the privatization of their system and the lack of funds going towards the poorest children
Running Head: ARCHIGRAM TODAY 8

(Jones, 2013). The loudest voices who dont see compromise as an answer are the Marxists and anarchists

who advocate a complete reversal of society and restructuring of life. In fact, a lot of the architects who

started the modern movement in the 20th century were socialists or socialist-sympathetic such as Adolf

Loos, Le Corbusier, William Morris, Henrik Berlage, and Walter Gropius (Colquhoun, 2002). The nature

of Marxs ruthless criticism of capitalism influenced these followers by giving them a precedent for their

criticism of architecture. In the same vein, my research can follow theirs by providing a ruthless criticism

of todays architecture. Its necessary to criticize a movement that seems to making great strides because

this leads to an consideration of its true colors; for example, whether or not green architecture is as good

as it can be. Because it is easy to get caught up in the positive buzz around green architecture, organic

farming, passive heating, and net-zero design its subsequently necessary to criticize it to make sure that

its going along the right path.

Critiques: Starchitects

The cult of personality that surrounds the most successful architects elevates them to celebrity

status and is particularly lethal to the quality of architecture today. The word successful is in quotations

because these architects are often selected as competition winners and their ability to produce visually

iconic or impressive designs. However, quality and depth of thought is not always the main attribute to

starchitect work. It is true that many of these architects rose to fame through their thought-provoking

ideas but often, as is the case with fame elsewhere, the celebrity status brings with it stagnation and

repetition. The main problem with starchitects is that they become a brand rather than an architect-in-

progress. They develop a style that they stick to because its what their clients want. Just like a Burberry

trench is often recognizable without a brand name, architecture develops a style. A Frank Gehry building

will most likely have steel plates looking like fabric. A Zaha Hadid building will most likely look like

some form of an alien starship. A Daniel Libeskind building will most likely be composed of sharp,

imposing shapes regardless of the buildings context environment. Yet this is what the clients want: an

icon. Cities often seek the most interesting skyline because they can use crazy looking architecture as a

tool to lure tourists and visitors to look around and spend money. Therefore, the most common source of
Running Head: ARCHIGRAM TODAY 9

starchitect patronage is from cities and corporations seeking identity and a wow-factor (Ouroussoff,

2004).

Archigram focused on a collaboration between individuals. The most influential member of the

group, Peter Cook, was interested in the group dynamics of other avant-garde groups operating in the 60s

and how Archigram could learn from them (Sadler, 2002, p. 44). Cook was the member who pushed most

for a collective identity that a group of people could contribute to. Archigram, in his eyes, then should

represent the multiple personalities and opinions of its members which challenge each other rather than

settle into an unprogressive state of agreement. The Modernists had a military-like approach to

collaboration which resulted in a master giving orders in order for his grand scheme to be realized. On the

other hand, Cook saw that a band-like approach to architecture would more effectively unite multiple

minds with multiple points of view. The idea of intelligent but unpretentious guys doing their own thing

was the self-image they sought (Sadler, 2002, p. 44). As imagineers of a possible future, their work didnt

involve itself with the limitations of the real world. Their work didnt involve financial studies to entice

developers nor did it project economic gain for its clients. It investigated a future state of architecture that

focused on the needs of its users as well as their own concept of what a future city could be.

A large problem today is that group collaboration often gets reduced to a single name responsible

for grand schemes. It is very important to note that architecture today can no longer be the result of one

persons single dream and hard work because the scale of a projects needs require an immense

collaboration of effort to get the job done. Specialization is required of the members of the firm. There

needs to be engineers, graphic designers, model makers, drafters, writers, photographers, managers, and

principal designers who all rely on each others unique set of skills and ideas to produce a project worth

building. The problem with the concept of starchitecture is that a work of architecture cannot be

simplified as if one person created an entire building but that seems to be the easiest way of grabbing

attention. Lessons must be taken from Archigram and work must be attributed to all members of the

design process. An example of a firm doing just this is REX in New York City. Taken from the

approach page on their website (2014):

Running Head: ARCHIGRAM TODAY 10

We design collaborations rather than dictate solutions. The media sells simple, catchy ideas; it

reduces teams to individuals and their collaborative work to genius sketches. The proliferation of

this false notion of "starchitecture" diminishes the real teamwork that drives celebrated

architecture. REX believes architects should guide collaboration rather than impose solutions. We

replace the traditional notion of authorship: "I created this object," with a new one: "We nurtured

this process.

Their usage of we is an example of how much they emphasize group work. Further on their website, all

work is attributed to the collective we rather than any big-name member. There are, of course, well

known and sought after designers within REX but they dont let the fame shift their focus away from the

production of a high quality architectural design. While it is not necessary to find out whether REX

intentionally took inspiration from Archigrams group organization, it is still important to note a

relationship between the 1960s group and todays architects.

Critiques: Surreal photo-realistic renderings

The rendering has become a necessary tool in selling a project to clients. They often depict a project

within an environment of often pure fantasy with flocks of birds flying between sun flares, hot air

balloons bouncing around the clouds, children laughing and playing in fields of wild grass, and a

monument of a building serving as the focus of all this beautiful, transcendental scene. Effective

renderings communicate to the client what their future building will look like as well as provide an extra

way for architects to visualize what theyre designing. However, oftentimes these renderings are very

labor-intensive and require lots of tweaking until the image conveys exactly what is desired. Also, after

staring at the same rendering for hours and days on end, self-criticism starts to become weak and

ineffective as the person who is working on the rendering loses track of what is an unobservable detail

and what will be the most communicative. After all, the end goal of a rendering is communication, not

absolute photo-realism.
Running Head: ARCHIGRAM TODAY 11

Rendering still remains more of a deceptive tool rather than a completely accurate representation of

what will be built Similar to advertisement, people are more drawn to the spirit of a place than an actual

place. This is shown in studies referenced by

Julia Dorothea in her article in CLOG:

Rendering, Great Weather and Happy People,

2012, which shows that non-architects prefer

realistic renderings to more diagrammatic

pictures. For the non-architect, the consumer of

the image, the rendering represents a mere

snapshot of something that could get built.

Renderings dont provide them with a thought

process or a design strategy or explain how the

architect arrived at that image. The consumer of

the image merely accepts or rejects it as they

will do with any other image. In an age of

Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram where you

Figure 2 - Haiku Tower by Henn Architekten. Rendering with
wandering people, lens flare, and flocks of birds. can either like or move on, architectural

renderings get about five seconds of attention before theyre discarded and forgotten. The hours of work

and design and thought that went into the rendering is absolutely wasted. This is the problem with

renderings; architecture gets reduced to another shallow consumable image devoid of meaning beyond

aesthetics.
Running Head: ARCHIGRAM TODAY 12

Archigrams collages infused their drawings with text and pop images. Their drawings were never

photo-realistic that is, in the 60s definition of the term with high quality hand-drawings and instead

focused on the message that was being sent. They cut and pasted magazine photos, referenced other

peoples work, all for the purpose of

getting a message across. They were

continuing the tradition of the

Dadaists of the early 20th century who

cut up images to represent their views

of pop culture through the materials of

the media (Sadler, 2005, p. 43). This

was done in opposition to the biased

art establishment of the time which

had preference for fine art of paint

Figure 3 - Walking City by Ron Herron, 1964. This image represents Archigrams
use of collage as well as inclusion of pop imagery and text.
and brushes.

Critiques: LEED

The green movement can be critiqued as merely a correction towards common sense in design

rather than a true redirection. The advent of electricity led to an architecture that completely ignored the

traditional methods of natural ventilation, natural heating and cooling, and natural lighting. The new

technology replaced all of it with mechanical systems that regulate the comfort levels automatically. We

have rediscovered these design principles and are trying to place them back into architecture. LEED

(Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) establishes criteria which architects can follow in

order to achieve certification for different levels of sustainable design. These criteria include various

methods of reducing carbon emissions, increasing energy efficiency, reducing energy use, and an overall

reduction in the environmental impact of the project. The highest award given is known as Platinum and

is given to buildings that meet the highest amount of LEED criteria. LEED became the first real incentive

for businesses who werent necessarily concerned about protecting the environment to start making
Running Head: ARCHIGRAM TODAY 13

decisions that made positive environmental impacts (Quirk, 2012). As the LEED green certification

method became more popular, developers stopped treating environmental products as pseudo-science

and took it more seriously because of the new sources of excited investment (Quirk, 2012). However, as

its popularity has increased, it has entered the territory of the trend where it is liked and used not as

often for its environmental impact as it is for its function of labeling a company, group, or individual as

good and progressive.

LEED operates a lot like a video game in which points are earned for specific actions and the

player, or investor, scrambles to achieve them often for the shallow reason of merely getting points. There

is no weight system to the ratings which leads to issues such as the extremely costly redevelopment of a

brownfield (an ex-industrial site) having the same point amount as putting a bike rack on the property

(Quirk, 2012). While encouraging a healthy commute for visitors and employees has its obvious benefits,

the environmental impact of cleaning up a site with hazardous substances is undeniably higher yet its

merely cost-effective for developers to opt for the much cheaper option of a bike rack. As architects,

investors, and developers continue to deal with LEED, their approach may degenerate into an obsessive

clamor for the most points possible with concern only to the most cost effective method to obtain a high

LEED rating and the good PR that will inevitably come with it.

As LEED continues to gain attention as the most used certification method in the US, it begins to

start to be mandated and required by local governments, Federal departments, and businesses (Quirk,

2012). This creates a whole network of bureaucracy that, in order to create fairness and ease of

supervision, further enforce the idea that LEED is a checklist and a massive undertaking of paperwork. At

this point, the focus has been entirely shifted away from a nation-wide project to reduce the built

environments environmental impact and back towards the progressive glory of whoever adopts and uses

it.

In the nature of Archigram, architecture today could take issue with the bureaucratic obstacles

imposed by LEED and go about promoting environmentalism that still contained LEEDs promotion of

green architecture but approached it more radically. Archigram would agree with architects who
Running Head: ARCHIGRAM TODAY 14

envisioned entire net-zero cities and condemn others who were content with small steps rather than large

leaps. They would love to see a city embrace all methods of high-technology that involved alternative,

renewable resource use and restructured lives in support of a more mutually-beneficial relationship with

nature.

Final reflections and opposing viewpoints

Archigram was successful in their attempt to bring back the spirit of the early Modernist avant-

garde. While their actual built works added to nothing, it was their influence that gave their memory its

immortality. Martin Pawley, a well-respected British architectural critic called Archigram Jules Verne

versions of the Industrial Revolution with an appliqu of Pop-aerospace terminology (Sadler, 2012, p.

193) and later expanded on this by saying that it is true that Archigram never built anything, but neither

did Verne ever build the Nautilus to criticize the common idea that architects ideas are only worthwhile

if they can be translated to built forms. The benefit of having no constructed projects is that all critique is

focused on their ideas and theories rather than how successful or not they were at turning theory into

praxis. All they had was the depth of their ideas and this was what they are remembered for. It is nearly

impossible for an architect to secure funding purely for the construction of his or her personal,

uncompromised ideas unless its a project for a family member or themselves. For example,

deconstructivist architect Frank Gehry, who is currently developing plans for the Facebook campus in

Silicon Valley (Johnson, 2014), built his own house in 1978 and was able to do exactly what he wanted

due to the client being himself and his wife (Perez, 2010). Archigrams visions were never able to find the

funding necessary for their realization.

One of the forerunners of Post-Modernist architecture, Denise Scott-Brown, taught and wrote

with a critical eye of Archigram. She considered these anti-modernists as still furthering the Modernist

cause, however, their form just was radically different. Scott-Brown considers their work as mistakes of

another generation with their visions of the space-age, futurism, and machine aestheticisms of the 1920s

(Sadler, 2005, p. 190). This can be understood, since Archigram was mostly idealizing the beginnings of

Modernism and how it turned banal rather than going against the entire movement, beginnings and all.
Running Head: ARCHIGRAM TODAY 15

Scott-Brown also accused the group of giving precedence to their images and collages rather than detailed

thinking that would make their work more realistic (Sadler, 2005, p. 189).

With the very mention of Marx, this topic by nature has differing opinions. It could perhaps be

said that radical architecture is no longer needed, that it was an upheaval of the past, and that the age of

revolution is over, the USSR toppled and capitalism prevailed. It could be said that we are done with

change and are on the path towards free-market perfection. Also, it can be said that experimentation in

design is a waste of resources and that architectural education should allocate its resources towards actual

solutions and focus on itself rather than cross-referencing philosophy, economics, politics, etc. The avant-

garde of Archigram depended on a society of pure guilt-free consumerist capitalism. It depended on a

libertarian capitalism of ultimate economic freedom of choice yet ignored the social issues that went with

the privilege of consumerism (Sadler, 2005, p. 195). However, disposable products and carefree lifestyles

werent accessible to all; there had to be those that toiled in the factories, the plants, and the farms in

order for consumable goods to reach affluent households. Archigram skipped the social structure concepts

and headed straight for a future where everyone was middle class.

Archigrams lessons for today require continuing habit of ruthless criticism of current culture and

society. We must continue to look at our surroundings and push to maintain an outsiders point of view in

order to critique the banal, the normal, and the seemingly unchangeable. They would encourage todays

architecture students to break from conservative practices and push for new methods and visions even if

all their professors are against it. They believed in self-direction as well as the power of a group of

individuals. In order to overcome the problems of today, students must be determined to seek out the

absolute truth and nothing less than it in order to define which direction must architecture manifest itself.
Running Head: ARCHIGRAM TODAY 16

Reference Page

Colquhoun, A. (2002). Modern architecture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Cook, P. (1964). Plug-in City Axonometric. Retrieved from

http://archigram.westminster.ac.uk/img/prj_thumbs/731_medium.jpg.

Cook, P., & Archigram (Group). (1999). Archigram. New York: Princeton Architectural Press.

Cook, P., & Chalk, W. (1967). Amazing Archigram: A Supplement. Perspecta, Vol. 11. Retrieved from

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1566943.

Crinson , M., & Zimmerman, C. (2010). Neo-avant-garde and postmodern: Postwar architecture in Britain

and beyond. New Haven, CT: Yale Center for British Art.

Herron, R. (1964). Walking City In New York. Retrieved from

http://archigram.westminster.ac.uk/img/prj_thumbs/185_medium.jpg.

Kovel, J., Mattera, G., & Williams, Media from Topic: Environment. WeAreMany.org. Retrieved from

http://wearemany.org/topic/environment.

Lang, P., Menking, W., & Superstudio (Group). (2003). Superstudio: Life without objects. Milano (Italy:

Skira.

May, K. (2013). Sci-fi. New York, N.Y.: CLOG.

May, K., & Hout, J. (2012). Rendering. Brooklyn, NY: CLOG.

Morris, W., & In Morris, M. (1966). Collected works. New York: Russell & Russell.

Moussavi, F., & Lopez, D. (2009). The function of form. Barcelona: Actar.

Ouroussoff, N. The New New York Skyline (2004). The New York Times. The New York Times,

Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2004

/09/05/arts/design/05OURO.html?pagewanted=4&_r=1&.

Parnel, S. (2010). The original culture club [Archigram]. Architects' journal, 231(17), 43-45.

Quirk, V. (2012). Where is LEED Leading Us?And Should We Follow? ArchDaily. Retrieved from

http://www.archdaily.com/?p=227934.
Running Head: ARCHIGRAM TODAY 17

Shawki, A., Jones, B. (2013). Media from Topic: Socialism & Marxism. WeAreMany.org. Retrieved

from http://wearemany.org/topic/socialism-marxism.Perez, A. (2010). Gehry Residence / Frank

Gehry. ArchDaily. Retrieved from http://www.archdaily.com/?p=67321.

REX (2014). APPROACH. Retrieved from www.rex-ny.com/approach.

Robert J. (2014). New Images of the Frank Gehry Facebook Campus Released. Business Insider.

ArchDaily. Retrieved from http://www.archdaily.com/?p=489171.

Sadler, S., & Archigram (Group). (2005). Archigram: Architecture without architecture. Cambridge,

Mass: MIT Press.

Steiner, H. (2013). Review of Research Centre for Experimental Practice at the University of Westminster

Archigram Archival Project. Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, Vol. 72. Retrieved

from http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/jsah.2013.72.2.271a.

Trotsky, L., & Shachtman, M. (1931). The permanent revolution. New York: Pioneer Publisers.