Thomas Helmlinger

Rem Koolhaas –
Bigness (or the Metaphor
of the Urban)

A seminar paper.

Technische Universität Wien

Institut für Architekturwissenschaften
Fachbereich Architekturtheorie und Technikphilosophie

Wahlseminar Architekturtheorie (2017S)

Univ.-Prof. Dr. phil. Vera Bühlmann
Dipl.-Ing. Dr. techn. Oliver Schürer
Georg Fassl, MSc.

Author Thomas Helmlinger, Architektur (BSc.), 01227313

Contact thomas.helmlinger@tuwien.ac.at, +43 699 1726 3369
Rem Koolhaas – Bigness (or the Metaphor of the Urban)
Thomas Helmlinger
Introduction
—p. 4

To the Point
Metaphor and antithesis in the works of Rem Koolhaas.
—p. 6

Aligning with Bigness

Stylistic devices and the concept of Bigness.
—p. 10

Plane
Rendering the explicit.
—p. 13

Conclusion
—p. 15

References
—p. 17
 Rem Koolhaas – Bigness (or the Metaphor of the Urban)
Introduction

As perpetually intensifying collective acceleration merges with the all-individu-

al experience of sheer sensory overload, reality is condemned to fading from the
spotlight of perception.
The resulting vagueness of superabundant information assumes its most distinct
shape within the domain of the visual: Much like in an overexposed photograph,
excessive stimulus leads the content of any potential message to converge to the
binarity of everything and nothing—regardless of its initial definition or blur.
Where images impress by the very scope of their directness, words are to be ar-
ranged in minute detail in order to reveal deeper meaning. Leaving quantitative
shallowness demands the shift from image to imagination: What may be explic-
itly expressed by the visual is rendered implicit in written language.

With regard to a generalist, humanist conception of architecture, Rem Koolhaas

is a powerful figure of universality. Originally educated to persue the career of
a journalist—a «profession without discipline»—,1 his willingness to analyse,
question and engage with other terrains has been sought to be transferred into his
subesquent architectural practices ever since.2 Aspiring to achieve nothing short
of the status of a «global expert»3 at OMA, the Office for Metropolitan Architec-
ture based in Rotterdam, his projects have evolved widely scattered over numer-
ous countries and various continents within the past decades, not least because,
according to him, his generation of architects may be considered «the first that
could work almost anywhere in the world».4

1  Cf. Peter Eisenman, Rem Koolhaas: Architecture Words 1: Supercritical. Peter Eisen-
man & Rem Koolhaas, in: Brett Steele (Ed.): Architecture Words (Vol. 1). AA Publications,
London 2010, pp. 11–12.
2  Cf. Eisenman/Koolhaas 2010, pp. 14–16, 29.
3  Cf. ibid., pp. 17–19.
4  Cf. Rem Koolhaas: The Reinvention of the City, in: New Perspectives Quarterly, Fall
2012 (Vol. 29, Issue 4, pp. 58–62). Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions, New
York 2012, p. 60.

4
 Rem Koolhaas – Bigness (or the Metaphor of the Urban)
However, his relentless engagement in an entire cluster of fields related to ar-
chitectural theory, emerging from the universal curiosity of a journalist, as well
as the global scale his architectural interventions are being realised on both ben-
efit themselves from a, likewise, universal and eclectic use of the media when
it comes to communicating and publishing his body of work: Whereas visual
means of representation, such as the diagram, usually serve to transmit specific
existing or prospective architectural conditions to the audience,5 the task of de-
veloping complex discourse about his œuvre—unlike the «tenuous relation with
information about the world» he attests to contemporary architects collective-
ly6—almost exclusively falls to written text.

On multiple levels, this present paper aims at dealing with the correlation be-
tween the implicit and the explicit in the writings of Rem Koolhaas, primarily
focussing on his essay Bigness (or the Problem of Large)7.
Proceeding from To the Point, an introduction to the principal stylistic devic-
es—metaphor and antithesis—employed in his written works, their key role
in verbalising, and aligning with, the concept of Bigness will be examined in
the same-titled, subsequent chapter. Eventually, Plane will discuss in what way
these very figures of implicitness are brought together in a single discourse—a
metaphor for Bigness itself—in order to generate, to render, explicit meaning.

5  Cf.Eisenman/Koolhaas 2010, p. 14.

6  Cf.ibid., p. 24.
7  Bigness (or the Problem of Large) was first published in: Rem Koolhaas/Bruce Mau/
Jennifer Sigler (Ed.): S,M,L,XL. The Monacelli Press, New York 1995.

5
 Rem Koolhaas – Bigness (or the Metaphor of the Urban)
To the Point

By the wide range and the global impact of his publications, Rem Koolhaas
has consistently proven to have a—natural—affinity for language as a medium.
Apart from employing it, by its nature, as a means of communication, especially
his most recent œvre is studded with a variety of remarks on the essence of lan-
guage itself: From reproaching mankind with having «launched a new language
that straddles unbridgeable divides like a fragile designer's footbridge»—a «pro-
active wave of new oxymorons» such as «life/style», «reality/TV» or «health/
care»,8 through to criticising that language «stakes claims, assigns victimhood,
preempts debate, admits guilt, [and] fosters consensus» instead of being used
to «explore, define, express, or to confront»,9 he even considers possible that,
in terms of understanding urban spaces, «we developed a new illiteracy, a new
blindness»10.
In the fashion of the latter, language as such is also frequently used as a metaphor
for architectural expression: His essay Generic City further paraphrases urban
structures as «the writing of the city», stating that they «may be indecipherable,
flawed», which, however, «does not mean that there is no writing».11 The «tex-
ture of canned euphoria» in Junkspace is, according to Rem Koolhaas, «woven
through» by a «language of apology»,12 whereas «globalisation turns language
[itself] into Junkspace»—the «collective bastardization of English» being «our
most impressive achievement» given that «we can make it say anything we
want, like a speech dummy».13 By virtue of those acts of «retrofitting of lan-
guage, there are too few possible words left», so «our most creative hypothesis

8  Cf. Rem Koolhaas: Junkspace, in: October Magazine, Spring 2002 (No. 100, pp. 175–
190). The MIT Press, Cambridge 2002, p. 183.
9  Cf. Koolhaas 2002, p. 186.
10  Rem Koolhaas: Generic City, in: Rem Koolhaas/Bruce Mau/Jennifer Sigler (Ed.):
S,M,L,XL. The Monacelli Press, New York ²1997, p. 1254.
11  Koolhaas 1997, ibid.
12  Cf. Koolhaas 2002, p. 179.
13  Cf. ibid., p. 186.

6
 Rem Koolhaas – Bigness (or the Metaphor of the Urban)
will never be formulated, discoveries will remain unmade, concepts unlaunched,
philosophies muffled, nuances miscarried».14 The term «masterpiece», as an ad-
ditional example, is referred to as a «semantic space that saves the objects from
criticism, leaves its qualities unproven, its performance untested, its motives
unquestioned»15.
In The Reinvention of the City, Koolhaas describes formerly distinct regional
architectural tendencies as «languages [that] have disappeared and [that] are
subsumed in a larger and seemingly universal style», comparing the process to
the «disappearance of a spoken language»16 and stating that each of the cultures
concerned «is not trying to resurrect old language, but is interested in defining
and asserting its uniqueness again».17
Eventually, the characterisation of Manhattan as «the 20th century's Rosetta
Stone»18 in his manifesto Delirious New York ranks among the most cited meta-
phors in the works of Rem Koolhaas.

Beyond the semantic field of language, the use of metaphors deriving from other
domains runs through his publications like a common thread that predominantly
serves to outline abstract or concrete architectural concepts.
While in Toward the Contemporary City—a collection of excerpts from an in-
terview first published in L'Architecture d'Aujourd'hui—, contemporary cities
are claimed to be in the need of being transformed into «a premature homage
to a form of modernity»,19 in his essay The Terrifying Beauty of the Twentieth
Century he remains sceptical towards the pursuit of that need in the case of Rot-
terdam, accusing local urbanists of «overestimation of the extant» and criticis-

14  Cf. Koolhaas 2002, p. 186.

15  Ibid.,p. 184.
16  Cf. Koolhaas 2012, p. 61–62.
17  Cf. ibid., p. 61.
18  Rem Koolhaas: Delirious New York. A Retroactive Manifesto for Manhattan. The Mo-
nacelli Press, New York 1994, p. 9.
19  Rem Koolhaas: Toward the Contemporary City, in: Design Book Review, Winter 1989
(No. 17, pp. 15–16). California College of Arts and Crafts, Berkeley 1989, p. 15.

7
 Rem Koolhaas – Bigness (or the Metaphor of the Urban)
ing that «the faintest hint of an idea is tracked with the obstinacy of a detective
on a juicy case of adultery».20 When speaking on the future role of European
countries in the field of architecture during a seminar at Rice University School
of Architecture, Koolhaas described Holland as «nothing but a burned-out skel-
eton of a culture that was once ambitious, critical, and devoted to a kind of
modernism»21—an argument that later recurred in both more radical and more
comprehensive terms in Junkspace, where the act of «reading a footnote under
a microscope hoping it would turn into a novel» is presented as a cause for the
«disappearance» of architecture in the twentieth century.22 Recently emerging
super-urban clusters in China, on the contrary, are defined as «Scape» in How
China Will Inhabit its Future, an interview published in New Perspectives Quar-
terly—they are believed to embody «pervasive, generic conditions punctuated
by an event here or there, possibly architecture».23

Architectural practice has always been inextricably linked with the visual.
In written language, enhanced visuality—explicit vividness—may be generat-
ed by imagination: In the same way as linguistic signs underlie the dichoto-
my of signifiant and signifié—signifier and signified, term and individual men-
tal image—as introduced by Ferdinand de Saussure in Cours de linguistique
générale,24 straight information, on a greater scale, can be vividly paraphrased
by the metaphor, each appearance revealing distinct individual notions that con-
tribute to sharpening the overall understanding—the total picture.

20  Cf. Rem Koolhaas: The Terrifying Beauty of the Twentieth Century, in: Jacques Lucan
(Ed.): OMA. Rem Koolhaas (pp. 154–155). Princeton Architectural Press, New York 1990,
p. 155.
21  Cf. Rem Koolhaas: Rem Koolhaas: Conversations with Students, in: Sanford Kwinter
(Ed.): Architecture at Rice (Vol. 30). Princeton Architectural Press, New York ²1996, p. 50.
22  Cf. Koolhaas 2002, p. 175.
23  Cf. Rem Koolhaas: How China Will Inhabit its Future, in: New Perspectives Quarterly,
Spring 2014 (Vol. 31, Issue 2, pp. 100–102). Center for the Study of Democratic Institu-
tions, New York 2014, p. 101.
24  Cf. Ferdinand de Saussure: Cours de linguistique générale, in: Tullio de Mauro (Ed.):
Ferdinand de Saussure. Course de linguistique générale. Grande Bibliothèque Payot, Paris
1972, pp. 97–103.

8
 Rem Koolhaas – Bigness (or the Metaphor of the Urban)
Not unlike dot after dot is meticulously engraved on a copper plate in order
to render an image, Rem Koolhaas resorts to isolated, precisely and carefully
worded—yet, by definition, still implicit—statements in his written works; a
phenomenon Bart Verschaffel, Professor of Theory of Architecture and Archi-
tectural Criticism at the University of Gent, once described as the «pointillistic
writing of Koolhaas»25.

Where the metaphor is the incising tool of pointillistic rendering, the antithesis
provides the surface.
Sometimes coupled with metaphorical expression, sometimes apart, anthitheses
in the œvre of Koolhaas each illustrate a full range of possibility in their respec-
tive contexts: In Imagining the Nothingness, Koolhaas states that «where there
is nothing, everything is possible», whereas «where there is architecture, nothing
(else) is possible».26 The urban reconstruction of Berlin is equated with the futil-
ity of «keeping brain-dead patients alive with medical apparati».27 Junkspace, in
the same-titled essay, is defined as «the residue mankind leaves on the planet»,
as opposed to space junk that «litters the universe».28 In an interview published
in Perspecta, Rem Koolhaas speaks on the «strange prejudice that says you can-
not both think and do architecture at the same time».29 «Scape»—in How China
Will Inhabit its Future—is described as «neither city nor rural landscape, but a
post-urban condition»,30 and the Chinese countryside is said to be «becoming
less and less the counterpart and more and more and more the complement of
the city».31

25  Bart Verschaffel: Reading Rem Koolhaas, in: Architectural Histories (No. 1, pp. 1–3).
Ubiquity Press, London 2013, p. 2.
26  Cf. Rem Koolhaas: Imagining the Nothingness, in: Jacques Lucan (Ed.): OMA. Rem
Koolhaas (pp. 156–157). Princeton Architectural Press, New York 1990, p. 156.
27  Cf. Koolhaas 1990, p. 156.
28  Cf. Koolhaas 2002, p. 175.
29  Rem Koolhaas: Rem Koolhaas, in: Perspecta. Famous (Vol. 37, pp. 98–105). The MIT
Press, Cambridge 2005, p. 100.
30  Cf. Koolhaas 2014, p. 101.
31  Cf. ibid., p. 102.

9
 Rem Koolhaas – Bigness (or the Metaphor of the Urban)
Aligning with Bigness

On the contrary, the idea of a particular condition implying a binary urban land-
scape—an «archipelago of architectural islands»32, where infrastructure and for-
mer public space are turned into «highly charged nothingness»33, «conceptual
Nevadas»34 and «residue, organizational device»35 in contrast to the «urban»36—
had first been unveiled in 1976 in the context of a suppositious project for the
reconstruction of the city of Berlin:37 In order to maintain urban «density [...]
without recourse to substance» and «intensity without the encumbrance of ar-
chitecture», A Green Archipelago envisaged the «reinforcement of those parts
of the city that warranted it», while «those parts that did not», as a matter of
principle, would have been destroyed.38 In that theoretical Berlin, a methodology
composed of two «diametrically opposite actions»39 would thus have generated
an urban tissue characterised by a binary set of elements—a «model of urban
solid and metropolitan void»40—; an idea that, almost twenty years later, was
elaborately re-introduced in the theoretical approach to Bigness.

Despite these striking parallels, one fundamental distinction voids the analo-
gy between the scenario outlined in A Green Archipelago and the Problem of
Large: Whereas, in Berlin, «architectural islands floating in a post-architectural
landscape of erasure»41 would have been deliberately created out of an explicit
spatial conception, Bigness already—implicitly—«exists»42.

32  Rem Koolhaas: Imagining the Nothingness, in: Jacques Lucan (Ed.): OMA. Rem Kool-
haas (pp. 156–157). Princeton Architectural Press, New York 1990, p. 157.
33  Ibid.
34  Ibid.
35  Cf. Koolhaas 1997, p. 514.
36  Ibid., p. 515.
37  Cf. Koolhaas 1990, p. 157.
38  Cf. ibid.
39  Ibid.
40  Ibid.
41  Ibid.
42  Cf. Koolhaas 1997, p. 502.

10
 Rem Koolhaas – Bigness (or the Metaphor of the Urban)
Emerging from a domain «beyond good or bad»43, Bigness may therefore no
longer be binarily verbalised by a singular property or a series of qualities it
does, or does not, acquire. As of now, implicit characterizations of Bigness oscil-
late within a cluster of varied semantic fields—a pool of miscellaneous concepts:
Bigness, through impersonations, is defined as «impersonal».44 It is featured
in architecture of a certain scale45, it is a «hyper-architecture»46—yet «it repre-
sents the city»47 itself; «it is itself urban»48. In contemporary Europe, Bigness is
claimed to be commonly reacted to by both «dismantlement and disappearance»
of the urban tissue.49 It may serve as a property of built architecture,50 while,
at the same time, embodying «a condition almost without thinkers, a revolu-
tion without program»51. It is assigned to «quantity rather than quality»52, while
featuring a series of qualities itself: Although it aspires «perpetual intensity»,
Bigness «also offers degrees of serenity and even blandness»,53 transforming
the city «from a summation of certainties into an accumulation of mysteries».54
Bigness «destroys», but its disruptive power does not hinder it from equally rep-
resenting «a new beginning».55

While metaphorical expression is based on a panoply of ideas, a wide range of

concepts each structurally related to a single common reference, Bigness em-
bodies plurality itself. It is the panoply, the range—an inverse metaphor:
Bigness is the antithesis to the metaphor.

43  Cf. Koolhaas 1997, pp. 501–502.

44  Ibid., p. 513.
45  Cf. ibid., p. 495.
46  Ibid., p. 516.
47  Ibid., p. 515.
48  Ibid., p. 514–515.
49  Ibid., p. 505–506.
50  Cf. ibid., p. 495.
51  Ibid., p. 499.
52  Ibid., p. 511–512.
53  Ibid., p. 512.
54  Ibid., p. 501.
55  Ibid., p. 511.

11
 Rem Koolhaas – Bigness (or the Metaphor of the Urban)
In spite of its explicitly quantitative nature56, Bigness can neither be measured
nor assigned to a scale. It is apparent solely within the relative, it occurs beyond
the measurable; still, it is itself the scalarity of urban expansion—the ruler for
the transformation of architecture as a discipline:

«One hundred years ago, a generation of conceptual break-

throughs and supporting technologies unleashed an archi-
tectural Big Bang. By randomizing circulation, short-circuiting
distance, artificializing interiors, reducing mass, stretching di-
mensions, and accelerating construction, the elevator, electric-
ity, 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 con-
ceived, with a parallel potential for the reorganization of the so-
cial worId—a vastly richer programmation.»57

Regardless of its architectural concept, «the size of a building alone embodies an

ideological program».58 When architecture enters the domain of Bigness, quality
is obtained by quantitative accumulation, while—at the same time—it is sub-
tilised and rendered amoral by the sheer extent of its physical representation.59
Where it develops, Bigness is omnipresent without being all-embracing;60 it is
self-sufficient in its raison d'être.
What is implicit in the qualitative becomes explicit in the quantitative.

The semantic space between two opposing notions is to antithetic phrasing as the
measuring scale is to the definition of Bigness: Inherent in its very concept, yet
not at all a reference for the comprehension of its nature.
The antithesis is a metaphor for Bigness.

56  Cf. Koolhaas 1997, p. 499.

57  Ibid.,pp. 498–499.
58  Cf. ibid., p, 499.
59  Cf. ibid., pp. 501–502.
60  Cf. ibid., p. 516

12
 Rem Koolhaas – Bigness (or the Metaphor of the Urban)
Plane

In the same way as Bigness—as the image of an urban «accumulation of myster-

ies»61—can exist anywhere on the metropolitan plane,62 its very essence may be
rendered visible on an—imaginary—semantic plane.
Encompassing two Cartesian axes of unidimensional implicit meaning, the lin-
ear spectra of both metaphorical and antithetic phrasing are merged in one and
the same area of explicit tension: that of the Whole and the Real.

Plotting the semantic field between thesis and antithesis—the Whole—on a

horizontal axis, while assigning the scope of metaphorical paraphrasing—the
Real—to the vertical direction, the information contained in each implicit state-
ment may be uniquely located on the resulting coordinate system of imagination.
Whereas, on a qualitative scale, isolated implicit messages are to the total picture
as isolated architectural spaces—«incompatible fractals of uniqueness»63—are
to the concept of Bigness, it is the «summation of certainties»64 that draws a
distinction within the quantitative: The denser the accumulation of autonomous
architectural parts, the Bigger the building;65 the more extensive the flow of im-
plicit information, the higher the definition of explicit meaning.
If the very essence of Bigness were a curve—or, perhaps, rather a straight
line—within the plane of the Whole and the Real, Bigness (or the Problem of
Large) would provide an entire point cloud of implicit content, a whole family
of implicit values—fragments of meaning that still «remain committed to the
whole»66—that would incessantly converge to, yet never equal, the very sense of
the concept: Point by point, it would contribute to rendering the explicit.

61  Koolhaas 1997, p. 501.

62  Cf. ibid., p. 514.
63  Ibid., p. 506.
64  Ibid., p. 501.
65  Cf. ibid., pp. 499–500.
66  Ibid., p. 500.

13
 Rem Koolhaas – Bigness (or the Metaphor of the Urban)
Bigness relies upon the quantitative.
Within the scope of its abstract concept, meaning is rendered explicit by an ev-
er-accumulating multitude of implicit statements on the imaginary plane of the
Whole an the Real: The higher the quantity of punctual—«pointillistic»67—con-
tent, the higher the quality of the graph, the image, the definition of its essence.
Its physical manifestation is composed of isolated architectural particles con-
glomerating in urban «hyper-architecture»68—as opposed to the void—on the
metropolitan plane: The denser the cluster of fragments of uniqueness «commit-
ted to the whole»69, the more urban the architectural space itself.
Finally, its creators are not immune from being subject to the need for quantity
either: Like «mountain climbers tied together by life-saving ropes»70, architects
ally in order to cope with the newfound condition of Bigness in the field—that
is, the entire discipline—of architecture. The bigger the team of its makers, the
more architecture is rendered «impersonal»71.

Bigness is a summation, a wide range of implicit concepts each structurally re-

lated to a single common reference.
Yet, Bigness is the reference for the range; it is both the unit and the scale, the
point, the graph, and the plane. It is self-sufficient in its raison d'être.
Bigness is «ultimate architecture»,72 a metaphoric architecture—the antithesis
to architecture:

It is itself a metaphor of the urban.

67  Verschaffel 2013, p. 2.

68  Koolhaas 1997, p. 516.
69  Ibid., p. 500.
70  Ibid., pp. 513–514.
71  Ibid., p. 513.
72  Ibid., p. 495.

14
 Rem Koolhaas – Bigness (or the Metaphor of the Urban)
Conclusion

What is implicit in the qualitative is rendered explicit in the quantitative: Beyond

a certain critical mass, the accumulation of implicit information tends to acquire
explicit meaning.

In his writings, Rem Koolhaas not only frequently refers to the nature of lan-
guage itself, but also extensively resorts to metaphors and antitheses in order to
impart abstract ideas, each implicit paraphrase orbiting its original concept of
reference. Initially fragile, the thereby created total image undergoes a process
of perpetual enrichment—a «pointillistic»73 way of mental visualisation.
Referring to an explicitly implicit concept, his essay Bigness (or the Problem of
Large) contains an entire cloud of implicit characterisations: Metaphorical ex-
pression links a wide range of concepts to a single common reference. Yet, Big-
ness is itself the range—it is, manifest as a plane, the antithesis to the metaphor.
At the same time, the semantic space between two opposing—antithetic—ideas
represents a scale similar to that of size used to implicitly define Bigness. Still,
in spite of being inherent in its very concept, measurement does not at all lead to
the comprehension of Bigness. The antithesis is a metaphor for Bigness.

Implicit in isolation, both metaphorical and antithetic phrasing may generate

explicit meaning when merged within a common area of tension—that of the
Whole and the Real: An imaginary semantic plane comprised by one horizontal
Cartesian axis representing the semantic field between thesis and antithesis—the
Whole—, as well as the range of metaphorical phrasing—the Real—assigned to
the vertical direction, allows for each implicit statement to be contextualised by
uniquely being located on the coordinate system of imagination.
In the same way as the «accumulation of mysteries»74 of architectural fragments

73  Verschaffel
2013, p. 2.
74  Koolhaas 1997, p. 501.

15
 Rem Koolhaas – Bigness (or the Metaphor of the Urban)
tends to shift from isolation to urbanity, the resulting point cloud of implicit
definitions of the Problem of Large thus perpetually converges to what would be
the graph of the very essence of Bigness: Implicit by its nature, it contributes to
rendering the explicit.

Rem Koolhaas translates into action what Brett Steele, director of the Architec-
tural Association School of Architecture, refers to as the «gravitational capacity
to form, shape, and bend architectural minds» inherent in «architecture words»:75
Employing written language—despite his versatility in dealing with visual me-
dia—as a primary means of communication in his œvre, while also making use
of its potential to implicitly transmit ideas through eloquent choice of vocabulary
and elaborate use of structure, he has not only formed, shaped and bent architec-
tural minds, but transformed the discipline of architecture as a whole.
He has overcome the shift from image to imagination.

The accumulation of isolated statements equals implicit phrasing.

The accumulation of implicit text equals Bigness.
The multiplication of Bigness explicitly equals the city.

Bigness is a metaphor of the urban.

75  Cf. Eisenman/Koolhaas 2010, Preface (printed on the front cover).

16
 Rem Koolhaas – Bigness (or the Metaphor of the Urban)
References

Eisenman, Peter/Koolhaas, Rem: Architecture Words 1: Supercritical.

Peter Eisenman & Rem Koolhaas, in: Steele, Brett (Ed.):
Architecture Words (Vol. 1). AA Publications, London 2010.
Koolhaas, Rem: Toward the Contemporary City, in: Design Book
Review, Winter 1989 (No. 17, pp. 15–16). California College of
Arts and Crafts, Berkeley 1989.
Koolhaas, Rem: Imagining the Nothingness, in: Lucan, Jacques (Ed.):
OMA. Rem Koolhaas (pp. 156–157). Princeton Architectural Press,
New York 1990.
Koolhaas, Rem: The Terrifying Beauty of the Twentieth Century,
in: Lucan, Jacques (Ed.): OMA. Rem Koolhaas (pp. 154–155).
Princeton Architectural Press, New York 1990.
Koolhaas, Rem: Delirious New York. A Retroactive Manifesto for
Manhattan. The Monacelli Press, New York 1994.
Koolhaas, Rem: Rem Koolhaas: Conversations with Students, in:
Kwinter, Sanford (Ed.): Architecture at Rice (Vol. 30). Princeton
Architectural Press, New York ²1996.
Koolhaas, Rem: Bigness (or the Problem of Large), in: Koolhaas,
Rem/Mau, Bruce/Sigler, Jennifer (Ed.): S,M,L,XL (pp. 494–516).
The Monacelli Press, New York ²1997.
Koolhaas, Rem: Generic City, in: Koolhaas, Rem/Mau, Bruce/Sigler,
Jennifer (Ed.): S,M,L,XL (pp. 1248–1264). The Monacelli Press,
New York ²1997.
Koolhaas, Rem: Junkspace, in: October Magazine, Spring 2002 (No.
100, pp. 175–190). The MIT Press, Cambridge 2002.
Koolhaas, Rem: Rem Koolhaas, in: Perspecta. Famous (Vol. 37, pp.
98–105). The MIT Press, Cambridge 2005.
Koolhaas, Rem: The Reinvention of the City, in: New Perspectives
Quarterly, Fall 2012 (Vol. 29, Issue 4, pp. 58–62). Center for the
Study of Democratic Institutions, New York 2012.
Koolhaas, Rem: How China Will Inhabit its Future, in: New
Perspectives Quarterly, Spring 2014 (Vol. 31, Issue 2, pp. 100–
102). Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions, New York
2014.
Saussure, Ferdinand de: Cours de linguistique générale, in: Mauro,
Tullio de (Ed.): Ferdinand de Saussure. Course de linguistique
générale. Grande Bibliothèque Payot, Paris 1972.
Verschaffel, Bart: Reading Rem Koolhaas, in: Architectural Histories
(No. 1, pp. 1–3). Ubiquity Press, London 2013.

17
Vienna, July 2017—Thomas Helmlinger