/

Published by The University of Michigan

A. Alfred Taubman
College of Art:hnecture + Urban Planning

,.

1999 Raoul Wallenberg Lecture

Megaform as Urban Landscape
_ Kenneth Frampton

,.

HT
371
.F724
ISBN: 1-891197..()H 1999

\
 .ur, ') (' ,.
I.
I"

Kenneth Frampton
Published ro mmmtmora~e tht• Raoul 1\'allonl><·r•
Megaform as Urban Landscape
,\lrmnrial lc< tur~ !(iwn h} K~rmeth l'rampron ar the
College on FebruarY r!. H19<l·

Editor· Brian Cartrr

De<ign: Carl~ Sw1< k~rath
Trpc>cl in .\luiden7.C;rmr<k .md 8.1-krrcill•·
Primed and bound in thr t:nitrd l.tlc>
I. B:X r-891197·08-8

l: Copyri2h1 t9CI9
I he L' niYersity ol ~l irhrg;m .\ . .\Jfrcd Taubnldl1
Collr~~ of .\rchitctture - l rba n Plannin~

and Kenneth Frampton. -'''" York.

The L'ni,·crsiry of ~ l ithigan

.\ ..\lfn:d T auhman Collel(e
of .\rchitectn rc T L'rban Plannine
2000 Boni.,tcd Boule\ ard
.\nn .\rbor. ~lichiga.n
~8 r og->ntig

l ' .\

/3~ 76+ 1300 tel

734 763 2311 1:1.,

ww"\\ .laup.umirh.cdu

The Univers rty of Mich igan A. Alfred Taubman C ollege of Architecture + Urban Planning
 13

Megaform as Urban Landscape

:\s architect and urbani t . "·e need to remind our-ekes

a to the destiny of \\·auenberg·s life. !ir-t becau e he ,,·as a
distingu i heel, if unpro,·en, archi tect and -econc!Jy becau e
of the indi p utably ethical character of his actiow. Ir i to
the lasting credit of Sweden that \\·allen berg ,,·a~ able to
a\·e so many l i,·e~ through that in ecure neutral space
afforded by the S"·edish D elegation in Budapest. There
i linle demonstrable link bet\,·een \\'allenberg· diplomatic
courage and his cho en profe ion. saYe perhaps for the
potemial role of the ethical in the pursuit of both. It is
a story of exceptional heroi m ,,·ruch has a mythic and
somber tone due to his ine~qJlicable and still unresolwd
disappearance at the end of the ,,.at·.

Since 1961 ,,·hen the French geographer J ean Gorrmann

first employed the term megalopoli to allude to the
nm-rhea tern ~eaboard of the C nited State . the world
population bas become increasingly dense with the result
tha t mo t of us no,,· Jiye in ome form of continuow
urbanized re!!ion. O ne oN:he ~radoxical consequence of
this population hift is that today " ·e are largely unable to
project urban form with any degree of confidence. neither
a a tabula rasa operation nor as a piecemeal aggregation to
be achie,·ed through such de\ice a zoning code
maintained oYer a lono- period of time. T he constant
expansion of the autoroute infi·asu·ucture throughout the
,,·orld continue to open up increasing tract of former
ao-ricultw-alland to suburbat1 ubdi,·ision. Despite this
endles suburbanized dcwlopmem throughour the world
and mo t particularly in :'\on h .-\.merica, there remain the

occasional capital city " ·here ome kind of mban planning
proce sis till being . ignificantly maintained uch as H elsinki
or the recent refmbishing of Barcelona which i yet another
example of an exception to the megalopolitan norm.
In the main. ho\\·ewr, the urban future tend to be projected
largely in terms of remedial operation as these may be
applied to existing urban cores or. ,,;th less cenainry, to
selected pan of the merralopoli . ~Ieanwhile. the urbanized
region continue to con olidatc its hold m·er Yast areas of
land a in the Rand tadt in the ~etherland or the T ob.·yo-
H okkaiclo corridor inJapan. These urbanized regions are
subject to sporadic waw of urban expan ion that either
e calate out of control or emer imo periods of -ragnation. It
is a predicamcm that confi·onts the urbani t ,,·ith an all but
impossible task. one in ,,·hich ci,ic interwntion has to be
15
capable not only of su. raining a cnse of place but al o of
-erYing as an effecti\·e catalyst for the funher dewlopment
of the region.
Owing tO the dissolution of the city a a bounded domain.
dating from the mid-nineteenth century. architect"' haw
long ince been a"·are that any comribution they might
make to the urban form would of neces ity be extremely
limited. Thu re ignation is already implicit in Camillo
ine· remedialtu·ban su·ategy of 1889. In his book. Cit)"
Planning. k cording to A.rcisric Principles. he auemp ted w
respond to the ·· pace-endlc nes' ,. of the \ "iennese
Ring.masse by reconunending the redefinition of the Ring
in tenm of bmmded form. iue "·a~ e,·idemly disturbed by
the fact that the main monumems of the Ring had been
built as free-standing object and he recommended
enclo ing them ,,·ith built fabric in order to establish
relation hip imilar to those that had once existed in the
medie,·al city. such a~ that between the pan is and the
ca th edral. ,. ~
Inspired b\· iue · re,·i ion ism. I han· coined the term
megaform in order to refer to th e form-<ri,ing potencial
of certain kind of horizonral urban fabric capable of
effecting :,ome kind of tOpographic rran fonnation in the
megalopolitan landscape. l t ha to be admitted at the our·et
tha t thi term may read as being ynonymou \\ith the term
megastruclllre. as this wa· fir t coined in the 1960. . ln my
,-ie,,·. the t\\·o terms may be dirferemiated from one a nother
in term· of the relati,·e continuity of their form. Thu . while
a megaform may incorpora te a mega trucrure.
a mega rrunure is not nece ·arily a megafom1 .

One may illustrate thi distinction by comparing the

Centre Pompidou in Pari , ,,·hich is urely a megastructure.
to Arthur Erickson· Robson quare de,·elopment in
\"ancou,·er "·hich is ulrimatcly a megaform. This is largely
due to the way in " ·hich it eontinuou ly tepped layered
form erYe to modulate and un~· rhe existing urban fa bric
of downtown \ "ancou,·cr. Thi particular example a! o
happen to haYe been enriched by an exceptionally fertile
collaboration between it architect. .\rthur Erickson,
a nd rhe land cape architect. Cornelia Oberlander.
18 19

lt 'l'l'lll' that our capacit\ to imagine megafonm. ma\ "·ell

ha\ e originated "ith our first cxperientc:- of tl1c \1·orld a~
'l'l'll fi·om rlw air. Thi,, on hi.<> 0\1 n admi-,.,ion. was tlw

catalyst behind Lc C:orbu,ier'" Plan Obu f(>r .\lgier-, of

1q31 that mb directly impircd h~ the Yolc,mic to p01;raphy
of R io de J am iro "hich he firq ~UIYe~ed from the air
in 1CJ2CJ. T hi, ""eeping panorama led him ro ima~ne a
rominuott-- w·han fom1 in ,,·hich one could no longer
di,niminate bet\\een the building and the land~cape .
.-\ corollar~ to thi~ topographic approm:h "a~ LO treat
th e built fabric a<> a form of artificial ground. upon" hi( h
and \\ithin '' hich the occupant 1mu.ld hl' fiee to build in
'' ha ten·r "·a~ he ct\1 fit. Hence-. while po tulatillg; the
contit1tt.ir~ of the mega fo rm. Le Corhusic·r left its
inter.,ritial fabric open and acce..,sible to popular ta. te.
In it:> failure to conform to any receiwd urban model.
the Plan Obm "as hardly a fea<.iblc proposal Ii·om either
a productiH' or a cultural standpoint. I t W<b totally
remon·d. letu' 'a~. fro mjo-;eph tubben·, codification
of regu]aliLcd urban Spa~e as thj, had betn Tt forth in
hi~ book Dit !)tadtrbau of 1890. :\'or did it owt· anything
to tlw peru11eter block typc. a. thi" "·mild bc applied to
urban extemions from around I 890 to 192-t ,md of
'' h ich Berlage ·s . \m~terdam outh plan or 191.:> is a
prime example .. \ t the ~ame tit11e neithc1 did it conform
to the Zeilcnbau ro1' hou~e model "·hich was adopted
in the \\'ei.tnar R epublic and el rwhert> from around
192-t om,·ard .
 20

For our purpo e , the megaform may be defined a the

di playing the follo,,i.ng characteristic : 1 . \ large form
extending horizontally rather than ,-enically. 2 A complex
lonn ,,·hich. unlike the me!:{a tructme. b not nece arily
articulated into a "eric~ of srrucrural and mechanical .;;ub-,eb
a ,,-e lind for example in the Centre Pompidou. 3l .\ lorm
capable of inOecting the exi ring urban landscape a found
becau e of it tron!:{ topographical character. -1- .\ iorm
that i not free tanding bur rather in inuare icelf a a
continuation of the sw-rouncling topo({raphy, and Ia t but
nor lea ·t, .) a form that is oriented to,,·ard~ a densification
of the mban fabric.

Beyond the den e historical core. a me[{aform may be

identified a an urban nexus et ,,i.thin rhe ..space-endle ne
of the me~alopolis. Henri Ciriani' concept of unc piece
urbaine a fir t formulated in his o called Barre a I\ larne
or .:\ois y I complex. realiLcd in :-.l ame Ia \'allee in 1980.
certainly ~ecms to ha,·e been concei,·ed along rhe~e line~
and omethin~ imilar may be claimed for Rafael :--.Ioneo
and :--.Ianuel de Sola :--. Iorales· L'illa Block as realized in
Barcelona in 199 7.

:<:.- . • -
I •
- - . ..
I
-
§'
I
I
22

The idea of megaform i" al"o implicit a~ a ~u·ate~y in

\ "irror-io Gregotti" concept of the anrhrogeographic
landscape as thi." is set fonh in his hook. Ilterritorio di
archircrrura o[ 1966. Drawing on the "·ork of the German
geographer Friedrich Ratzcl. "ho ftr~t coined the term
anthrogeographic. Gre~otti ,,-a5 able to e\·olw a tcnitorial
approach to urban design that. amon!/; llli :\eo-Rationalist
colleague.... put him in a cla~:> apart. \\nile not opposing;
the :\eo-Rationalist project of reconstructing the
neoclas ·ical European cit-y along traditional. typological
lines as hypothc;;ized by . \Jdo R o...~i. Leon Krier et al..
Gregotti ,,·as more intent on responding to the challenge
of the megalopoli, at a regional scak at a scale tha t ,,·a
closer to that of Le Corbmier"s Plan Obus ,,·hich he
recoQ;nizecl as a precedent. Hence hi Zen housing scheme
for Pale11110 of 1965 may be seen as combining the
Zeilenbau pattern of\\'eimar with the perimeter block
approach of .-\msterdam. H is scheme for the ·cniYersity
of Florence de igned f\,·o vear. later ,,·as much more
territorial \\ith it- lonQ," blocks running out inro the
agrarian landscape. Thi approach took on an e\·en more
expansi\"t' geographic dimension in his propo al for the
CniYer ity or Calabria of 1973. where the .. spine"' of the
uni,·ersitY cut. aero:;:, ft,-e hilb between a take-off fi·om
the re~onaJ autorome and a railroad srarion. Partially
realized. tbi infra tructw·e remains a canonical piece
in a much as it is borh ordered and yet open to random
deYelopment. Blocks " ·ere designed to be freely arrached
to the spine ,,ithout compromising it ability to impilu{e
on the land. cape at a panoramic ' cale.
 24 25

..
.~
.....

If one looks for the or igin of the megafonn in the hi tory There ,,·ere of cour e other German architect in this period
of the l\Iodem ~!oYement one tencb to fmd it in .:'\onhern who "·ere to embrace a imilar topographic strategy- abO\·e
Europe rather than the ~Icditerranean. One fir L all Erich l\ fendel ohn. " ·ho e project for A.lexanderplatz,
encounter it in Bruno Taut' concept of the ··city crown'" Berlin of 1927 rise out of the existing treet fabric like a
a thi appears in his book Die Lad1.krone of 1919. Thi dynamic force. The megaform seem to be an el]lbryonic
become manifest in the ensuing decade in the German presence in alma tall of ~Icndelsohn· work from his
cult of the big building form a it appear_ in the "ork d.iminmi,·e Ein rein Tower in Pot dam of 1920 to hi
of a number of Expressionist archi tects of the 1920s. commercial center for H aifa of 192-:1- and hi heroic
including uch figures as H an charoun. H ugo H aring. H ada ah H o pita.! projected for ~Iount corpu in 1935.
Fritz H oger and Han Poelzig. One finds in these The megaform wa al o e\·ident in the "·ork of Austrian
architect a predispo ition for creating large, dynamic architect, Loi_ \ \"elzenbacher. abo,·e all in his competition
urban entities in oppo ition to the dematerialized spatial for enu~· for Berlin H azelhorst hou ing of 1928.
d;11amics of the t\\·emieth ccmury a\·anr-garde. One thinks
of such canonical "·arks as Han Poelzig"s H ouse of
Friend hip projected for Istanbul in 19 16. H ugo H aring·.
Gut Garkau of 192+. Fritz Hoger's Chilehaus in H a mburg
of 1925 and H ans Scharoun · Brcslau \ \"erkbund
exhibition building of 1929. In the case of Poelzig'
I tanbul project. one i truck by the " ·ay in " ·hich the
distant ilhouette of the building rise diagonally out of the
horizontal profile of the city. o that it a ume. the fom1
of an artificial escarpment. replete " ·ith hanging gardens.
 27

. \mom~ Scandinm i,m architcn-;. the one "ho lie\ do~e't ro

thi' German tradition i..,. \h·ar . \ alto. <b i~ most l'\·iclem
perhap' fi·mn hi~ Baker Dormitory. completed on the
edge of the Charlc' R.iwr in Cambridge. ~ [as~ach w,ens
in 1~..J...J.. Hm,·e,·cr ,, perennial topographic ~yndrome i_,
manife~t in .-\alro·-. "ork throughout hi-; marure l<ln'cr.
from the ··rented-mountain·· he projected for the
\ ·ugcJ,,·eidplatz ports Cemer in \ 'imna in 1953 to the
Pen,ion' lnstitutt· realized in H ebinki in 19j6..-\ ,imilar
•-tre~-. upon megafom1 i~ al-;o cYident in hi:, prupo,al of the
mid-,ixtie~ for a ne\\· cuhural di,trict in the T ooloo area
of H eb,i.nki ,,·herein a tt' tTact'd autoroute system
rransf(mn<. the 1110J})holo~ of the center. .. ening a' a
topographic link and a dynamic binder bet\\·ecn a 'cries
of cultural building~ lining t.he lake and the m<~or rail
head emcring the cit~.

.
v
,
t"'--)--
...
 omething approaching a megaform trategy may also be
found in the ,,·ork ofTearn X. abO\·e all perhaps in j acob
Bakema's Bochum Uni,·ersiry propo al of 1962. hi plan
for T el thiv of 1963 and his Pampa Plan for Rotterdam
of 1965. Both Bakema and the British architects .-\li on
and Peter rnirhson seem ro ha,·e regarded the auroroute
infrastructure as the ole elem ent which could be
depended upon ,,·hen projecting the future of urban form.
This accoun ts for the Smith ons· Berlin Haup tadt
Competition entry of 1958. The megaform theme also
play a role in the work of Ralph Er kine. abO\·e all in
II his ,·appa,·aar a propo a] for Lapland of 1963 and in his
I later Byker \\"all hou ing complex completed in 198 1

I
I
at 2\e\\-ca tle in En,.land.

T o my knO\dedge the tetm megaf01m a. oppo ed to

I' mega trucrure is fu· t used rather coincidentally by
Fumihiko :\Iaki and ~lasara Ohta ka in their e ay ·'Some
Thought on Collecti\"C Form·· of 1965. They inn·oduce
the term \\·hen \\TILing an appreciation of Kenzo Tan,.e's
T ok·yo Bay Project of 1960 to the effect that:

··One of the most inrere ting de,·elopment of the

megafonn has been uggested by K enzo T ange in
connection \\ith the T okyo Bay Project. He presents a
propo al for a rna s-human cale form ,,·hich include a
merrafom1 and discrete. rapidl) changing. functional unit-
which fit within the large r frame,,·ork. H e reason that
horr-Ji,·ed item are becoming more and more shorr-li.Yed
and the cycle of change is hrinking at a corre ponding
rate. On the other hand. the accumulation of capital ha
made it po ible to build in large scale operations . .. "
 30

..
.Al'r
·-...

!'or :\ [.tki and Ohtaka. the nwgafi.mn COJKl'pt depended

upon d1C' idea that chaJH!;t' "ould orrm Jt,., rapid ly in
~ome realms than other~ . On thi' ha~i~. they inlrodurcd
tilL' idea of !!,TO up fonn. "ith the notion th.n a podium
maY ht' i.n'>ertcd into an urb.m fabric in order to prO\·idc
f(n· .a long term , LabilitY while the ,rrunme~ on ih ~urfiKe
would hl: ~ubjecr lO a fa::.ter cydc or change and
replacement. Thi~ concept ,,,1~ exemplified at the time
in their joi.m propo,aJ!or the hit~juku area of I okyo
in "hich the~ propo~ed building a poditun a bow the
c..;hinjuku u·ansit terminal. ,,·hik at the 'ame time
introducing ne'' ~hopping facilitir' at Q,Tade "ith
parking beneath and rather random. me-dium ri;;e
office$ and re,idential "tructtu·e-, ahon'.

.... !)

:\Iaki\ <;ub equent ''ork has conu·ibuted ro the theme of

rhe megafom1. Like the ··city-crown·· project' ofJorn
L·u:on. it i a fom1that generallY manife't' ir.elfat t\\ 0
le,·el~ . .,o that "hile it emphasiz~s the importance of the
podium/earthwork. abno'>L a a precondition. it abo
depend" on the roof,mrk a~ an clement that i" e <:e ntia! to
the hill-lik<.> character of the fmal form. a "e {i..nd thi~ in
Bruno Taut·s ,·ision of the ··city-crO\m:· TI1i' double
paradi!QTI of earth\\ ork/ roof\,·ork first fi.1lh- emerge, in
:\laki"s Ft\jisa\\·a G)lllna ium of 1980 and.rea pp;ars
in his T okyo ~Ietropolitan Gymnasium of 1985 and in
hi~ :\Ia ka hari Com·ention Ccnrer, Chiba of 1989.
 The Ticine e :'\eo-Rationali~t architects of the earlY
·e\-entie al o gra\itated tOwards the megaform. Tllli is
particularly u·ue for the urban project de ·igned by ~ Iario
Botta and Luigi nozzi. abo,·e aU their ··,·iaduct·· block ~· .

t',J!~ '\
propo al for a ne"· admini tration cemer in Perugia
of 197 7 and their air rights project fot· the Zurich rail
terminal of 1981. Perugia i particularly imeresting
in thi regard for. like the aforementioned L'IIla Block
in Barcelona, it posited a long orthogonal structure
contain ing a flexible <;pace-form " ·ithin. One end of tllli
··,·iaduct"· ,,·as fed b~ parking silos that were connected to
II the hill town of Pcrugia by a teleferico.

II .\ dhering to a similar format. the project for the Zw·ich

tenninu de"igned b~ Bona and nozzi not only denoted

II"
the line of the buried • ihl RiYer. but also prmi.dcd ne"
ticketing facilitie~ while being connected to a large multi-
<;tory parking garage built o,·er the rail u·acks entering the
I tation. Th.i propo al \\·ould haYe re,·iralized the rail
nen,·ork by linking it directly to the road infra uucture.
I 'dille at the . ame time maintaining the old tcrminu and
restoring a trace of the origi.nalLOpograph). namely.
a u·ibutary tO the Limmer that "·a coYered OYer b)
the railhead in the nineteenth centun·.

i
I
l'
 35

Larg-e building fonns are particularly e\·ident at an urban

calc in the " ·ork of Rafael :~do n eo. from hi Roman
:\ luseum erected in :\Ierida in 1986 to hi .\ wcha tation
completed in :\ Iadrid in 1992 and hi. rccem propo. al for
t,,;n audiwria on a podium o,·erlooking the seafront in
an ebastian. In each imtancc. the morphology of the
tructure !ri,·es a particular innection to the urroundin'S
topography. In :\Iadrid. the hypo~tylc of the nc"· high-
peed train hed lides into the rear of the old station in
such a '' ay a to render the 0\·erall form b~iblc O\Tr a
I
I much ,,·ider area . .\Iegaforms areal o in e,·idence in the

!I \\'Ork of a number of Catalan architect. including E tc\·cn

Bonell and Francese Riu . ,,·hoe \ 'elodrome d' Hona
I
'
built in the \'all d'H ebron neighborhood of Barcclona in
1986 establishes a particularly pO\H~rful landmark in the
I midst of urban chao.. H ere i. the condition of a bounding
ring of auxiliary space enclosing the elliptical form of the
bicycle track ,,;thin.

I
iI
l'
In his archery building for the 1992 Barcelona O lympics.
the Catalan architect [nric \ l iralle desig;ned a building-
\\ hich i:- extremely scnsiti\-c to the la ndscape and which
herom(" the landscape. In his ~cheme for the !g;ttalada D c
Cemetery. realized in a disu ·ed quan: and datin~ !i·om
the 5ame year. it i difficu lt to sa) \\·hether this is a
building. a . cries of buildin~. the rit y of the dead or the
land cape. It i o m uch a landscape fom1 that it i:, difficult
to a) \\·here landscape end-; and bu ilding; beg;im. \Iiralks
ha~ alway striwn to g;i\"C hi architecture a topographic
character. one that either animates a Oat ~itc or fuse'
it with pre-existing hea,·il) contoured form. Clearly
landform as a radical re haping of the ground may
be used to im pan hape to a terrain that \\·auld c
othen\·ise be tOtally formless.

A
 39
38

One may object that the megaform approach gi,·e ·

suftlcienr atten tion to the transport infra trucwre or,
conH~rsely. that the phy ical form of the city i of little
consequence in a telemat.ic age . .-\ lrernatiwly, one may
claim that urban culture in a cla ical -en e can ,onh·.
be recon tinned ~pologically. or. com-crsely. tl1at the
traditional context of the historical city is no longer
perrin em. Each of the-e polat·ized positions eem ro be
some,,·hat e,·a i,·e to the extent that they fail to confrom
the re pon ibili~· of gi,·in(T at1 identifiable hape or
inflection to tl1e late modern me~lopoli ·.

Gi,·en the ruthle form of moropian de,-clopmem that

are currently transforming ,·ast tracts of the .-\sian
continent. " ·e are a(Tain reminded that citie can no longer
be realized as coherent entities according to the dictate
of ome ma ter plan. nor can they al"·ay be de,·eloped
in cLJwrally sign ificant " ·ays on an incremental ba ·i~.
\\nile thi Ja-r may haYe akay been theca e. whar has
changed dramatically in ~e la;lt iifty year is the rate
of technological change and the rapaci~· of dc\-clopment.
occurring at a speed and cale '' hich totally outstrip.
anything that urbanized ocie~· had experienced in rhe
pa t. ln addition to tlli . '' e ma~ note that in many pans
of the "·orld the land i no longer significantly producti,·e,
that is to ay. it i no longer u ed a a ite for either
agricultural or indu trial production. Instead there is
a noticeable tendency to reduce rhe ground it elf ro a
com modi~· through the inteJTelated proces es of touri m.
lat1d ~peculation and the global expan. ion of the eni cc
industry. Cnder these conditions. late capitalism eems
reluctant to commit itself to any form of land cttlcment
that \\'Ould be con i tent \\·ith the production of
coherent ci,ic form.
 40
Thus ,,-e may conclude that architects can only imen·ene
urbani tically in a n increa ingly remedial man~wr and
that one dfenin· in trument for rhi i the Iaro-e building
program that may be rendered a a megaforn~ - as an
element '' hich due to its size. comem and direction ha ·
the capacity to inOecr the ~urrounding land cape and g iw
it a particular orientation and identil\·. I belie,·e that uch
form are capable of returnin~ u to ~ time ,,·hen the
prime object of architecture "·a not the proliferation
of freestanding objects but rather the marking of ground.
..-\s \ 'iuorio Gregotti remarked, the origin of arch itecture
re ides in the creation of a miCJ·oco mos. H<:> put~ it:
..Before tran fonning a uppon inro a column. a roof into
a t~mpanum. before placing tone on tone. man placed
the tone on the ground to recognize a ite in the mid t
of an unknown uni,·erse: in order to rake accotmt of it
and modify it. .. ··
I ha,-e attempted to trace the recunence of the m egafonn
a a uni0ing em-ironmentaltrope in twentieth centurY
architecuu·e and ci,·ic d esign in an effort to ugge t th~t
it may be one of the only form al legacie. that remain
a,·ailable for the reali tic mediation of the random
megalopoli as an iterated form. Clearh- nor a ll the
examples I ha,·e cited are pitched at th ~ arne cale or
ar an eq ual lew] of ab traction nor do they posse s the
same potential feasibil ity. Despite the e ,·ariations.
they all tend to blur in different " ·ay the com·entional
differen tiation between architectur~ and land cape. Like
canal . rail\\·ay cutting . a utoroute . dyke~ and other
41
artificial cartl1" orks. they all ha\T the potential of
gathering up the comin~ent landscape around them b~
,·irtue of their antl1rogeographic ~tatus. so much ~o that
theY maY. at some juncture. appear to merge "itl1 the
!!TO~nd ~r alternati,·eh to become. through their.
~opographic presence.· the ~tatus of bein~ a landmark.
.-\ certain .. kinetic hmizomality.. i almo~t a precondition
for the emergence of such form . . and in thi regard it
i important to obsetYe that free-standing hie;h-rise
...tructme . for all their ri,·al potcmial a landmark:-.. do
not ana in the ~ame anthroo-eographic Latus. tulle. s they
happen to be of tl1e same height and rhythmically linked
in a compelling ,,·ay at grade. \\ 1Ule this may seem tO be
a pre. cription wn:{ing o n f01mali m. it hould be e,·ident
that the arbitrary horizomal packaging of the pro!?;ram.
irrespecti,·e of c~ment. i · not de irable. It is essential that
our horizontal megafonns en·e as ci,ic microco m
and that the,· function as identifiable pace_ of public
appearance ~,·ithin the uni~er al, e,·er·expand.~ng com~~·;t
of .:-. Iehin \\'ebber· .. non-place urban realm. Hence 1t
i not o difficult to adumbrate the programmatic type
that eem to ha,·e the potential of eno-endering such form .
. \. ide from the unlikd~ pro. peer of being able to achiew
extended areas of fo,,·-ri e. high-density hou ing. one
thinks. in no particular order. of shopping malls. air
terminal . n·an port interchange . hospitals, hotels, sport
facilities. anclwu,·er ities a etie of type-form in fact
th a t till haYe a certain currency. not to ay urgency.
within the ever-expanding domain of the megalopoli .
 42

r.

In an addrc· in 1983, Yi ttorio Gregoni a erred lhat,

·The origin of architeCLme i not the p1·imiti\·e hut, but
the marking of ground. ro e tabli h a co mic order around
the surrounding chaos of nature:· .:\o\\· we haw made a
nc\1· narme - this technological urbanized region which
is the nc\,. chao - but a architects and urbanist \1·e
till hm·e the ame ta k.

K ennelh Frampton