Saturday, October 24, 2015

Men's Bag Seasson 2015 Tas Pria untuk musim 2015

Trend 2015 untuk tas pria sekarang ini tidak melulu hanya backpack, briefcase, atau messanger bag. Namun sekarang sudah banyak pula pria yang menggunakan tote bag.

Istilah tote sendiri berarti membawa (di ambil dari kata tate). Dapat ditelusuri ke abad 17an pada saat itu tidak banyak yang membahas fokus tentang sebuah tas, namun mulai marak sekitar tahun 1940-an di Amerika dimana mereka merilis LL Bean Boat Bag pada tahun 1944
http://blog.llbean.com/files/uploads/2014/03/p_0325_blog1.jpg
LL Bean Boat Bag
Karena penggunaan tote bag ini lebih memudahkan saat dibawa berpergia daripada mereka harus membawa koper dan semenjak itu tote bag menjadi budaya utama. Bonnie Cashin merupakan pioneers utama dalam desain ready-to-wear dimana dia merilis tote bag yang dia beri nama Cashin Carry Tote Bag. Kemudia Kate Spade mengubah budaya di Amerika dengan membuat tote bag sebagai sala satu fasion item yang penting.

Dan tidak hanya Kate Spade, beberapa brand ternama di bawah juga ikut meramaikan desain tote bag pada tahun 2015 terkhususkan untuk kaum pria, antara lain Burbery, Prada, Carryall, Bottega Venneta, Fendi, Louis Vitton dan seterusnya. Brand papan atas ini sering kali mengeluarkan rancangan tas pria dengan edisi khusus (limited edition) contohnya Prada mengeluarkan tas dengan bentuk kotak, seperti tas belanja dari kertas tapi terbuat dari kulit, dan berwarna merah maroon dan biru tua, warna ini didapat dengan teknologi printing pada kulit.

Burberry

The Carryall In Camouflage Canvas Check

36 x 18.5 x 42cm
    68% jute, 32% cotton with calf suede and leather trim
    Lining: 100% viscose
    Made in Italy


The Carryall in Tiered Suede Fringe

36 x 18.5 x 42cm
100% calf leather
 Lining: 100% calf leather
 Made in Italy

Fendi


Bag Bugs Handbag

35 x 37,5 x 14 cm
Composition: 60% Cotton, 22% Polyester, 
18% Synthetic Resin, 100% Calfskin Leather


Selleria Tote

37 x 35 x 10 cm
Composition: 100% Calfskin Leather, 
Tag: Silver 9 Gr.

Louis Vuitton


Cabas Jour

13.0 x 14.6 x 5.1 inches
Damier Cobalt exterior with leather trim
 and microfiber lining.
Palladium finished brass metallic pieces 


Grigori Tote

14.2 x 13.4 x 3.5 inches
Taiga cowhide leather body and trim
Silver color metallic pieces
Fabric lining

Tods

Tod's Large Tote Bag37 x 35 x 18 cm, handles: 22 cm
Item crafted in suede
Magnetic snap fastening
Double central stripe
Made in Italy






Nendo's Architect Bag for Tod's

Desainer Oki Sato dengan studio nya Nendo merancang tas yang diperuntukkan bagi para arsitek, tapi ini juga bisa dipakai bagi desainer lainnya. keunggulan rancangan tas dengan brand Tod ini adalah system lipatan dimana tas ini dapat menyesuaikan ukuran tas yang disesuaikan dengan ukuran kertas baik itu A4 maupun A3. secara umum sehari hari bentuk dasarnya kotak seperti tote bag yang lainnya. Pada posisi dilipat, sisi dalamnya dapat diselipkan dokumen gambar yang dapat digulung. 





Image via dezeen

Coach


Manhattan tote in military 
wild beast print leather

30 x 31,75 x 14 Cm
Printable pebble leather
Unlined

RIP and repair Manhattan tote in mixed materials

30 x 31,75 x 14 cm, handles : 23 cm
Printable pebble leather
Unlined

Salvatore Ferragamo



Prada

Camouflage print nylon tote 
with Saffiano leather trim

36.0 x 38.0 x 20.0 cm
Detachable adjustable nylon shoulder strap

Saffiamo Cuir leather tote

35.5 x 35.5 x 7.0 m
Polished steel hardware
Leather name tag 

disiapkan oleh BPA research department for budi

 

Nusa Wood Tower, Durban south Africa by Budi Pradono Architects




Transforming Nusantara architecture to Wood tower

Wood tower is designed to transform the ‘Nusantara’ architecture, by using traditional methods, of wooden house like a shipbuilding method that has existed since hundreds of years in several islands of Nusantara, and spread on thousands of islands in Indonesia. In each island has its own technique but the system adopted has the toughness to defend themselves from earthquakes, typhoons and even tsunamis.
In this proposal the basic techniques that combine traditional and makes a system such as a
honeycomb structure that is able to stand ten floors.

Site Analysis










Concept



Program

At its mass composition around the structure that connects opened in the middle so that it becomes void that align with communal space program and commercial on the ground floor.


Recidences Unit Configuration


Unit Layouting Concept

The basic concept of the unit is that each unit is made from several modules each module itself is provided with the plumbing utilities but it all depends to the tenants whether they want to use it or not.

Schematic diagram for the provided utilities in the building
Units Configuration

The units will be provided empty with no rooms in order to let the tenants to explore the layouting possibilities by them self this concept also helps to provide an affordable living space.

Following are the available unit types with some layouting alternatives




Interior
With open plan the interior building systems will grow such as organisms, by relying on a toilet and pantry, which will grow following the needs of each occupant.

Utility
In one module are arranged in vertical honeycomb can be filled with a pair of lift, so in this building consists of 4 lifts, while the other modules can be either continuous emergency staircase from top to bottom.



Wood Tower as a social housing
Wood Tower as social housing that provides flexibility for users to form the space they want. In addition to the wooden structural system which is certain, good sanitation system by providing toilet and kitchen on each of its units as one integrated system basis, the rest in the form of an open plan that provides flexibility for the user unit to build their own a space.

One system consists of a honeycomb structure of the wood with an area of ​​each system strrukturnya is 20 m2; There are three types of dwelling with an area of ​​40m2 each (2 x module), 80m2 (4 x module), and 100m2 (5 x module)


Wednesday, October 21, 2015

Kekinian dan Masa Depan dalam praktek Arsitektur oleh Budi Pradono,

Kekinian dan Masa Depan dalam praktek Arsitektur[1]
disampaikan dalam seminar Forsight, di UAJY, 19 Mei 2015
Budi Pradono[2]


Latar Belakang

Dalam kesempatan seminar ini yang diselenggarakan oleh Jurusan arsitektur Universitas Atma jaya Yogjakarta, saya diberi tema yang cukup sulit untuk diterjemahkan, temanya “forshight” dalam tema itu mengacu pada pandangan pandangan arsitek pada masa depan, dimana pandangan tersebut harus mengacu pada masa lalu dan masa kini.
Menjadi praktisi arsitek adalah sebuah pilihan. Menurut survey yang dilakukan baik itu di kampus-kampus terkemuka di seluruh dunia, maupun sekolah arsitektur yang ada rata-rata hanya dua persen saja dalam satu angkatan yang benar-benar menjadi arsitek atau arsitekpreneur, yang membuka kantor arsitek sendiri maupun bersama-sama dengan koleganya. Sisanya menjadi banker, pengusaha yang masih berhubungan dengan dunia arsitektur misalnya membuka kantor developer, menjadi kontraktor, menjadi animator, maupun menjadi supplier bahan bangunan. Patut diakui profesi arsitek merupakan profesi yang unik, keren tetapi melelahkan, kita harus mencurahkan segala energy dan pikiran kita pada pekerjaan ini, baik dilakukan secara normal seperti orang kantoran kebanyakan atau super serius yang mengharuskan kita lembur demi mencapai deadline waktu. Sejak kita kuliah adalah saat dimana seleksi alam itu dimulai. Setiap mahasiswa dituntut untuk memiliki passion yang kuat, semangat yang membara dan juga cinta… sehingga berhari-hari lembur pun dilakukan dengan gembira. Kembali kepada ema yang ditawarkan jadi kalau saya harus merunut masa lalu masa kini dan masa depan tentu saja ini menjadi autobiografi yang menarik, menjadi referensi bagi para mahasiswa.



Pemahaman Sejarah

Penting sekali bagi setiap lulusan arsitektur mempelajari sejarah, mata kuliah ini yang diberikan hanya 2 sks nyatanya sangat berguna, sebagai alat untuk mendefinisikan dirinya sendiri ketika akan lulus. Kita bias melihat bahwa semua arsitek besar masa kini merupakan arsitek yang berhasil menemukan keunikan / keunggulannya dari yang lain. Keunggulan itu diperoleh karena pemahaman sejarah, karena latihan ( Zaha hadid perlu 20 tahun untuk kalah dalam mengikuti berbagai kompetisi didunia, tetapi tetap konsisten dengan metode nya dengan strategi perancangannya baginya kompetisi adalah exersize yang tiada henti. Dari studio nya yang kecil di London, sekarang dia memiliki 400 karyawan yang mengerjakan rancangan bangunan di seluruh dunia.) yang kedua adalah banyak melihat, kita yang tinggal di Indonesia bias iri karena terlalu sedikit contoh rancangan bangunan internasional dengan kualitas A ada di Indonesia. Hal ini dimaklumi karena ilmu arsitektur masih terlalu baru untuk ukuran Indonesia, seperti kita ketahui lulusan arsitek pertama dari ITB Indonesia, adalah pada tahun 1958. Dalam rentang waktu itu hingga kini para arsitek Indonesia belum mendapatkan tempatnya karena situasi politik dan pemerintahan yang memandang itu hanya sebelah mata. Masa keemasan arsitek Indonesia adalah masa jaman presiden pertama RI, karena di saat awal kemerdekaan itu Soekarno ingin membangun Jakarta agar setara dengan kota –kota metropolitan di duina. Tetapi setelah era Soekarno yang menyelenggarakan banyak kompetisi bangunan public, selama 30 tahun kita dikendalikan oleh penguasa yang otoriter
 yang kurang paham pada tatanan arsitektur. Tentu saja selama itu pula arsitektur yang dianut adalah arsitektur barat kapitalistik. Itu adalah masa-masa dimana terjadi boom minyak bumi dan sepanjang jalan sudirman Thamrin dibanjiri bangunan box kaca yang generic, inilah hadirnya international style.  

Saat saya menyelesaikan study arsitektur tahun 1995 dan kemudian menimba ilm dengan bekerja di berbagai Negara selama kurang lebih 10 tahun.  Saya merasakan hadirnya orde reformasi setelah orde sebelumnya tumbang. Pada masa itu hingga sekarang kita mendapatkan gempuran informasi yang begitu cepat, massif dan bombastis, gempuran gempuran itu sebenarnya bagian dari globalisasi dan penyetaraan persepsi. Sosial media tumbuh pesat yang menyebabkan menipisnya batas geografis seseorang. Sosial media yang tumbuh subur menjadikannya mediator bagi pertukaran gambar/ image ke seluruh dunia. Pertukaran ini menyebabkan arsitektur telah direduksi menjadi komoditas yang hanya dilihat dari image / tampaknya saja, tetapi pemahaman yang mendalam tentang bagaimana bangunan itu terbangun menjadi sangat kurang, konsep dalam berarsitektur telah direduksi hanya sebagai kulit luar tanpa arti.


Arsitektur Moderen

Tonggak sejarah arsitektur modern dicanangkan oleh Le Corbusier (1887-1965) pada tahun 1931, ketika dia dengan semangat membara meluncurkan sebuah buku klasik berjudul “Towards A New Architecture”  : salah satu argument dari Corbu adalah tentang arsitektur atau revolusi: The history of Architecture unfolds itself slowly across the centuries as a modification of structure and ornament, but in the last fifty years steel and concrete have brought new conquest, which are the index of greater capacity for construction, of an architecture in which the old codes have been overturned. If we challenge the past, we shall learn that “styles” no longer exist for us, that style belonging to our period has come about; and there has been Revolution.[3]
Corbu juga mengingatkan bahwa Architecture has nothing to do with the “styles” argument ini tetap relevan hingga saat ini.

Tonggak berikutnya adalah buku karya Rem Koolhaas “Delirious New York: Retroactive Manifesto for Manhattan (1978)  sebuah buku wajib bagi arsitek maupun mahasiswa arsitektur di seluruh dunia dalam buku ini Rem Koolhaas menyatakan  "The City is an addictive machine from which there is no escape"
 aspek kunci dari arsitektur yang Koolhaas perkenalkan adalah"Program": dengan munculnya modernisme di abad ke-20 "Program" menjadi tema utama dari desain arsitektur. Gagasan Program melibatkan "tindakan untuk mengedit fungsi dan aktivitas manusia" sebagai dalih desain arsitektur: dicontohkan dalam Form follow Function, pertama kali dipopulerkan oleh arsitek Louis Sullivan pada awal abad ke-20. Gagasan ini pertama kali dipertanyakan di Delirious New York, dalam analisisnya arsitektur bertingkat tinggi di Manhattan. Sebuah metode desain awal yang berasal dari pemikiran tersebut adalah "cross-pemrograman", memperkenalkan fungsi tak terduga dalam program ruang, seperti menyediakan trek lari di gedung pencakar langit.[4]

Tonggak berikutnya adalah buku Rem Koolhaas :S,M,L,XL setebal 1376 halaman
Buku yang diterbitkan tahun 1995 menggabungkan esai, manifesto, buku harian, fiksi, perjalanan, dan meditasi di kota kontemporer. Hampir sepuluh tahun Karya karya Rem Koolhaas di OMA yang gagal terealisir ditampilkan dalam buku ini sebuah implementasi dari hasil riset buku yang pertama, merupakan interpretasi dalam Manhatannisme, banyak istilah yang kemudian menjadi umum dalam istilah arsitektur seperti Biggness dan urbanisme.


Arsitektur dalam praktek pada firma BPA

Pada praktek arsitektur yang saya jalankan dan dalam mengantisipasi kemajuan dalam informasi teknologi dan dalam mengantisipasi perubahan cara bertinggal, urbanitas yang baru sehingga disadari perlu adanya firma rsitektur dengan kerangka riset yang kuat. Budi Pradono Architects (BPA) berdiri tahun 2005, didefinisikan sebagai firma arsitektur yang berbasis riset.[5] Hal ini memberikan output yang luas baik di bidang perancangan urban, bangunan privat, maupun bangunan kebudayaan dan komersial. Sebenarnya basis penelitian ini memberikan kesempatan yang luas agar BPA dapat selalu berinovasi dengan begitu karya-karyanya merupakan sesuatu yang benar-benar baru sehingga ke depannya dapat menggoreskan sejarah arsitektur di Indonesia. Dari sisi perancangan juga diharapkan dapat menjadi global karena mereduksi batas geografis suatu Negara, diharapkan ke depan dapat menjadi bagian dunia yang lebih luas. BPA karena berfokus pada perubahan lifestyle masyarakat kontemporer. tentu saja bersentuhan dengan kehidupan masyarakat dunia terkini, hal inilah yang menyebabkan analysis-analysis pada perubahan masyarakat ini yang akan menentukan rancangan sehingga rancangan-rancangannya menjadi sangat spesifik. Dalam presentasi kali ini saya akan menjelaskan metode dan sekaligus rancangan-rancangan terkini, yang terdiri dari beberapa studi kasus; proyek arsitektur ini semuanya memiliki beberapa pendekatan yang berbeda-beda, namun juga memiliki garis merah yang sejalan antara lain adalah pendekatan programming dan diagraming yang dapat diimplementasikan pada setiap study kasus. Perbedaan mendasar dari setiap proyek adalah karakteristik lokalitasnya atau konteks. Dengan begitu ramuan arsitekturnya adalah perkawinan antara programming dan konteks tempatnya atau the spirit of place nya.



[1] Disampaikan dalam Seminar arsitektur di Universitas Atma Jaya Yogjakarta, 19 Mei 2015
[2] Budi Pradono (1971), anggota IAI professional, principal architect pada Budi Pradono Architects [BPA], firma arsitektur berbasis riset, direktur JADUL (Jakarta Digital Urban Lab), saat ini ditunjuk sebagai curator untuk pameran Austellung 70’s bad di Sciltach, Jerman 2014-2015, ditunjuk sebagai advisor pada pengembangan industry creative bidang desain dan arsitektur antara Indonesia dan UK 2014-2015,
[3] Le Corbusier, Towards A New Architecture, 1986, hal 7,
[4] Delirious New York: A Retroactive Manifesto for Manhattan, New York, Monacelli Press, 1994; Rem Koolhaas, et al, originally published by Oxford University Press 1978, New York: Monacelli Press 1995), dalam buku tersebut Rem Koolhaas dengan rinci menceritakan bagaimana program yang terus berubah secara dinamik mengisi tower-tower di dalam grid yang tidak berubah

[5] BPA adalah singkatan dari Budi Pradono Architects, PT: Firma arsitektur berbasis riset yang didirikan pada tahun 2005. Sejak tahun 2005 berturut-turut mendapatkan penghargaan Emerging architecture award-UK, Cityscape Awards, Dubai, Silver Interach medal dan honorary diploma , Bulgaria (2007& 2009), WAF, World Architecture Festival, Barcelona (2008), World architecture Community, Barcelona (2009), dan IAI awards (2011& 2012), Karyanya juga terpilih dipamerkan pada Venice Architecture Biennale, Italy (2014), Jakarta Contemporary Ceramic (2014), dan Bamboo Biennale (2014)

Delirious New York by Rem Koolhaas reviewed by Carrie Bayley

Reviewed by Carrie Bayley

“Manhattan is the arena for the terminal stage of western civilisation... a mountain range of evidence without manifesto”, Koolhaas observes, and so begins his retroactive manifesto, a scripted chronology of the stages of Manhattanism, its’ permutations and lasting legacies; notably the culture of congestion, Manhattans own “metropolitan urbanism” and revolutionary lifestyle. Through his optimistic narrative “Delirious New York”, Koolhaas, a former screenwriter, sets about investigating the underlying and ironic truths of Manhattan, from the first signs of architecturally applicable technologies, through the great crash and to the present day, 1978. Through a pragmatic approach in understanding external factors and a series of case studies, he documents the reoccurring elements and themes in New York’s development and decline that make it “a theatre of progress” and “the capital of perpetual crisis”. This focuses in particular on the skyscraper as a product of the physical manifestation of Manhattanism on the grid, along with the relationship between this density-focused architecture and the culture of congestion.

At a time where New York had gained a reputation as “a graffiti-covered, crime-ridden relic of history”, Koolhaas, then the recent founder of OMA and visiting lecturer at Eisenman’s Institute for Architecture and Urban Studies in New York, begins to assess and promote what it took to make the capital of invention the ideal precedent and, therefore, what it would take to regain its rightful place on the world stage. He is reconstructing the “perfect Manhattan” so that it’s monumental successes and failures become more evident and it is by selecting New York as the focus of his first major work that Koolhaas sets a foundation for his career.

Split into five distinct “blocks”, an anthology covering “Coney Island, The Skyscraper, Rockefeller Center … Europeans ” and a fictional appendix, each with further component parts, the book acknowledges its affiliation with the Manhattan grid as “a collection of blocks whose proximity and juxtaposition reinforce their separate meanings”. In 1807-1811 “the final and conclusive” plan for Manhattan was made, resulting in the 2028 blocks of the grid to which Koolhaas pays a particular critical focus, labelling it an “artificial domain planned for nonexistent clients in anticipation”, a negative symbol of the short-sightedness of commercial interests with no regard for interaction between fragments or spontaneity. It is with an ever-growing population in a “metropolis of rigid chaos” that the skyscraper then becomes inevitable, forcing an upward extrusion of the grid to maximise profit, often without regard for the art of designing buildings. With the introduction of the 1916 zoning law comes a level of control on the cities scale explosion, without being too restrictive and therefore unintentionally providing a basis for intelligent architectural invention. “The metropolis needs/deserves its own specialized architecture”. When, through his work and with several other architects, Hugh Ferris investigates, but doesn’t solve, the true issues of Manhattan, focusing on the unexplored potential of zoning law, he famously creates the first concrete image of the “mega village” and later the “Ferrisian Void”. “Manhattanism is conceived in Ferriss’ womb”.

From Manhatta to Manhattan, the continuous experiment begins with its discovery by the Dutch in 1609, a link with the Europeans that continues through the rise and fall of the enterprise. “Manhattan is a theater of progress...the cyclical restatement of a single theme: creation and destruction irrevocably interlocked”, a quote which applies to many other scenarios throughout the text. An overview of Manhattans answer to the Crystal Palace introduces the reader to invention as a public spectacle, isolated from direct confrontation with reality. This is further explored in the section “Coney island: the technology of the fantastic”, a resort for the testing of ideas, social experimentation and surrealism in the form of reality. “ A resort implies the presence, not too far away, of a reservoir of people existing under conditions that require to escape occasionally to recover their equilibrium” and to survive as a place offering contrast from the reality shortage in the city, Coney contrasts the natural with the supernatural. To give an idea of scale, the infrastructure and communications networks contained within Luna Park are far superior and more energy consuming that most contemporary American cities. When the centennial tower arrives “it also offers an additional direction of escape: mass ascension”.

Through the accidental and planned inventions of its three parks, infrastructure is created to meet the demands of it’s overtaxed system and, becoming less popular the more people it attracts, Coney island develops bizarre and outrageous technologies, concepts and urban scenarios that eventually become applied in a normal context as the focus shifts to Manhattan. This establishes an urbanism based on the technology of the fantastic- defining completely new relationships between site, program, form and technology. As it is sent crashing back to reality after fire, that even its well-practised fire-fighter cast can’t extinguish, Coney meets its downfall. More ironically, it is proposed that the land should be turned into a public park, becoming a model for the modern Manhattan of grass, exactly what it was providing an alternative to. But the precedent doesn’t work second time around, the testing ground has to adapt with the times. Where Coney Island is the testing ground for the skyscraper, Manhattan then continues to be a testing ground for urbanism. And who is to argue that Manhattan wasn’t the inventor of these things? If not, Koolhaas is very convincing.

The inception of the culture of congestion and the technologies developed, notably the elevator and steel, facilitate the rise of the Manhattan skyscraper, “born in instalments between 1900 and 1910”. This represents the meeting of three breakthroughs, “the reproduction of the world”, “the annexation of the tower” and “the block alone”, each defined separately by Koolhaas “before they were integrated into a ‘glorious whole’”. As the demand for office space rises in an emerging metropolis with a restrictive grid, created there is a need for the production of an unlimited number of virgin sites in a single location, each with it’s own destiny outside of the control of the architect. Koolhaas describes the “ideal performance of the skyscraper” in its initial stages as a concept, existing in 1909, as 84 disconnected virgin sites stacked on top of each other- “a new form of unknowable urbanism”. As models of this descent manifest themselves within the grid, so presents itself one of Manhattans most intense themes- “a city in a building”. As the concept of the 100th floor approaches and the skyscraper becomes even more the product of an architecture by economy and with it comes what Koolhaas terms “Lobotomy”, that is, “less and less surface has to represent more and more interior activity”, a container for undetermined interior activity rather than the expression of that externally, a still relevant scenario characterising today’s urban fabric. At the point where the 1916 zoning law is introduced, the culture of congestion becomes an enterprise, an indication of the culture of the 21st century. “Congestion itself is the essential condition for realising each of these metaphors in the reality of the grid”.

Koolhaas explains a “summary of the phases of Manhattans urbanism, featuring all the strategies, theorems, paradigms and ambitions that sustain the inexorable progress of Manhattanism”. Portrayed in the creation of the Waldorf Astoria hotel and the Empire State building, “a skyscraper surpassing in height anything ever constructed by man”, is the conversion from virgin site to skyscraper in 150 years, an example of what he terms an auto monument. The problem at the beginning is simply that it isn’t a skyscraper and should become one in order to reap the financial harvest permitted by the 1916 law. There is no room for nostalgia. The Empire State is the last manifestation of Manhattanism as pure and thoughtless process, the climax of subconscious Manhattan and the first example of what was to come.

Through a description of the life of the Rockefeller Center we begin to understand Koolhaas’ intentions. By this point, he has introduced key characters and themes which are optimised in the creation of the Rockefeller Center, a city within a city exemplifying the financial viability of the skyscraper and representing congestion on all possible levels. As a hybrid building, the building isn’t assigned a hierarchy, nor does it follow a specific typology, but parts of the mountain are assigned to necessary functions, what Koolhaas terms the “the vertical schism, which creates the freedom to stack such disparate activities directly on top of each other without any concern for their symbolic compatibility”. To fit a brief “the center must combine the maximum of congestion with the maximum of light and space”, an achievable target given the great depression of the 1930’s which represented time to think, “an enforced break in the frenzy of production”, and for the principals of the center to become more idealistic than commercial. It is described as “a masterpiece without a genius”, a result of the work of the associated architects, formed in part during the crash and proof for Koolhaas of the advantages of architecture by committee. “There is at least one idea for each of its 250million dollars”. “Rockefeller Center is the fulfilment of the promise of Manhattan. All paradoxes have been resolved. From now on the metropolis is perfect.”. It promises a significant contribution to the city planning of an unfolding future.

The end is marked with the invasion of the Europeans who come to “reclaim” Manhattan and adapt it to their own needs. “A tourist returns from foreign unrecognisable” and so did the skyscraper once it had been to Europe”. Through a bizarre cross fertilization of misunderstood rhetoric, American pragmatism and European idealism have exchanged ethos”. A particular emphasis on Dali and Le Corbusier represents Koolhaas’ apparent aversion to Le Corbusier. Where Dali does not attempt to tamper “with its physique”, Le Corbusier “proposes literally to destroy it” and in doing so first attempts to disprove the existence of the city as machine before he can create his own alternative where there is no place for the technology of the fantastic only business, the result being the anti skyscraper. After a “worldwide journey of paranoia” Corbusier brings the Radiant city, a theoretical metropolis in search of location and the anti Manhattan, to New York. But the scheme possesses no metaphor and by proposing to literally solves congestion and kills it, so creating the urban non event New York’s own planners have always avoided, a result of excluding of the factors that have built the Ferissian mountain. In the late thirties Manhattanism is waning. Post-war architecture is the accountants’ revenge on pre-war businessmen’s dreams. The formula “technology + cardboard = reality” created in the early days of Coney Island has retuned to haunt Manhattan, the result being not “peeling white paint but disintegrating curtain walls of the cheap skyscraper”. “Through its amnesia, Manhattan no longer supports an infinite number of superimposed and unpredictable activates on a single site; it has regressed back to the clarity and predictability of univalence- to the known.”


In a fictional conclusion, Koolhaas demonstrates a series of four ironic, speculative and hypothetical projects for New York which encompass all the themes in the book and are “an interpretation of the same material”. With the story of the pool, the last metaphor raises its head, representing the new influx of designers escaping to the freedom of New York but who will inevitably find it destroyed when they present themselves as scriptwriters for the New York stage.