mapping the real

as I mentioned,

Every individual has its own imagination of its environment. Two different people have two different pictures of the same environment. But there are common proper ties of these pictures. My aim is to filter these common properties and to find a language how we can also use our environment.

The dwelling, an imaginary house. Or: leave being different to me!
What are the conclusions? Just as the ideal average dwelling is a fiction that relies on a societal average, dwelling itself cannot be planned – neither in terms of utilization, nor in terms of meaning. This refers neither to loft types nor zero-forms. Quite the opposite, in fact: we are talking about a form beyond the form, one that permits not only different interpretations but provokes them, so that the dwelling can be realized through a process of appropriation.

If we had to come up with an architectural imperative to express this, it would have to be this formula: give me a wealth of possibilities and leave the “being different” to me.

In urban space, too, there is a tendency for the clear-cut separation of functions to disappear and merge into dynamic forms of radical “mixed” utilizations: artificial heterotopias where pleasure, dwelling, working, a vast number of scenarios and events co-exist without really having much to do with one another (although they will team up if it is opportune): floating rhizomes whose existence we are not even sure of and that we might just talk into being. The concepts of dwelling, working and urban space are experiencing an anticipatory re-evaluation as hybrids that wear away the boundaries between buildings and the surrounding cities, and are thus also able to generate public spaces and contributions to everyday urban life.