The Right to be Meaningful

An analysis, problematization and conclusion on the interrelationship of meaning, the spectacle and the right to the city.

Keywords: Meaning, Semiology, Experience, Globalization, Practices, Right to the City

1. Introduction

In stark contrast to earlier symbolism, nowadays architects are following a trend in which architecture facilitates novel experiences. In this essay I aim to outline this process in the context of globalization by combining two theoretical traditions: new phenomenology and critical theory. The two traditions intersect at the juncture that is the main focus of this essay: the meaning that is ascribed to architecture and how this has changed under the force of globalization. The essay is divided into three parts: analysis of the change in meaning; why the change in meaning is relevant; and lastly, how architects could counter this change in meaning. First, the thesis describes a shift in meaning under the forces of globalization in the industrialized world. This shift in meaning is the shift from architecture motivated by extrinsic meaning towards architecture motivated by intrinsic meaning. The extrinsic explanation of meaning is formed by signals, such as indexes, icons or a symbol (Atkin, 2010). The intrinsic explanation of meaning is shaped by the connection between the self and the universe. We understand what something means without outside interference (Jencks (1969). These two explanations of meaning by Charles Jencks (1969) are further elaborated on in this paragraph. In these analyses I combine different theories to describe the changes that the notion of ‘meaning’ has gone through. The theory described in “Semiology & Architecture” by Charles Jencks (1969) is combined with the work of Hans Ibelings (2002) and Marc Auge (1995). In their books they explain the effects of globalization on architecture, from postmodernity to supermodernism in the 20th century. I argue that in postmodernity the extrinsic explanation of meaning was most important. This is now changing because of globalization towards an architecture where through intrinsic novel experiences the extrinsic explanation of meaning has gone into overdrive. Secondly, in this section I describe that the trend towards architecture ascribed with intrinsic meaning instead of extrinsic meaning is significant. The paragraph describes how the intrinsic explanation of meaning leads to some architectural objects becoming an object of consumption. A book that has regained some interest over the last few years is The Society of the Spectacle (1967) by Guy Debord’s (Frayseé, 2017). With this book a critique on architecture becoming experience for consumption is furthered beyond a purely postmodern stance, and well into our contemporary era. The shift towards an architecture for consumption fits within a pattern that is described in the article Consumer City (Gleaser et al, 2000). In this article the authors show that cities which are doing well economically are not the places with the highest level of production, but the places with the highest level of consumption (Ibelings, 2002). Through a selection of examples this thesis shows that architecture is expected to play a significant role in the creation of a city that wants to enlarge its level of consumption. The problem here is that architecture facilitates, accelerates and enables the city as a machine for consumption, and becomes the central focus in this creation by providing the visitor with a novel intrinsic experience. Furthermore, through this process, which is an effect of globalization, the right to the city (Harvey, 1973, 2008) is consistently denied to those without capital. Thirdly, this thesis searches for a counter against the effects of globalization that create the shift towards an architecture of consumption. We need to do this to make sure the meaning that is ascribed through architecture is inclusive and does not interfere with the right to the city we have to democratize the participatory design process. Within the current social economic system, global capitalism, planning and development are actually further strengthening the capitalist relations (Petrescu, Trogal; 2017) and are therefore producing more architecture for consumption. Therefore architects need to create authentic places with room for contrast, tension or deviation in contrast to the carefully curated space for consumption (Ibelings, 2002). In the book The Social (Re)Production of Architecture Petrescu and Trogal (2017) highlight different theories and practices for a post-capitalist world. In chapter two Schneider argues that we need to find ways of acting otherwise by taking control of spatial production collectively through knowledge and action. The underlying issues, ownership and distribution of power, have to be addressed to counter the forces of globalization and bring back authentic life to architecture.

2. Architecture and Meaning

Over the past 200 years there always have been architects who searched for the essence of architecture at a fundamentally human and experimental level. Furthermore, the experience of architecture was consistently considered as an essential means to architecture (Bordeleau, 2008, p. 79). Anne Bordeleau (2008) describes in the essay An Indexical Approach to Architecture that the fact that phenomenology begins with the individual’s relation with the world has attracted criticism. However, Bordeleau concludes there is always the danger of losing sight of phenomenology’s primary object: to describe a common ground for meaning and action (2008, p. 79). This raises the question: How can we explain meaning as rooted in the individual human relation to the world? In this section a shift in the explanation of meaning in architecture is discussed. Within the context of globalization it is relevant to analyse the influence the supposed dissolvement of borders has on this shift in meaning. Therefore, in this chapter meaning is defined and further elaborated on. By understanding the basics of semiotics, by Charles Sanders Peirce, the concepts by Jencks become clear. In his books Pierce identified three links between the signified and signifiers. These are the icon, the index and the symbol. The icon has an actual physical resemblance to the signified it is referring to. The index has a direct relation to the signified it is trying to evoke. The symbol has no direct relation to the signified other than that society has chosen that this certain signifier signifies this particular signified (Atkin, 2010). Charles Jencks described his explanation on meaning in architecture through semiology. In the chapter “Semiology & Architecture” from the book Meaning in Architecture (1969) he explains how we cannot simply speak of meaning as one thing that we all know or share. The conclusion Jencks points out is that each use of meaning is different from any other and the particular case has to be understood from the context. Further on, Jencks starts to focus on architecture and how meaning is ascribed to it. He describes a process of how a building transforms from a physical object to a meaning inside the mind of the observer. Jencks names three stages in this process: perception, conceptualization and representation. These three steps are based on the semiotic triangle (triangle of reference) popularized by Ogden and Richards’ book the Meaning of Meaning (1923). In these three steps Jencks describes that the observer sees the building, has an interpretation of it and then describes it using, probably, words. With this three-step acknowledgement of the process of the development of meaning Jencks (does not aim to claim more) describes directly how this does not prove anything more than connections or correlations between these three elements. “The main point of the semiological triangle is that there are simply relations between language, thought and reality. One area does not determine the other, except in rare cases, and all one can really claim with conviction is that there are simply connection” (Jencks, 1969). Jencks deduces this to three elements that create architectural meaning. He states that in much of architecture there is the reliance on form, a function and technic. Here Jencks reduces the power of the architect in the ascribing of meaning to the form. However, the understanding of this meaning is still dependent on the translation of the perception of the observer to the conceptualization the observer. Thus, to explain this translation Jencks identified two types of meaning, the intrinsic and the extrinsic explanations of meaning. In the following paragraphs I will explain the intrinsic and extrinsic explanations of meaning. The intrinsic explanation of meaning is based on the direct connection between the self and the universe. This means that we understand what it means without outside interference. Jencks (1969) uses several examples to illustrate this. For instance, he describes the jagged line, intrinsically meaning activity. Or the flat line, intrinsically meaning inactivity. Further, he names Le Corbusier as one of the architects promoting this explanation in the form of Purism. Jencks (1969) explains that in this type of design the environment leads to certain architecture to become more favorable because of its inherent quality and endurance with the experience of humans. The extrinsic explanation of meaning relies on the link between the signified and the signifier being not inherent to the objects themselves but to the concepts we have attributed to them. The example Jencks (1969) provides here is the red stoplight. For instance, in most cultures intrinsically we wouldn’t stop at bright red light. We only stop because of the meaning we have ascribed to the red light: stop. This explanation of a fundamental theory of meaning can offer us understanding in the meaning of contemporary architecture. Specifically, the architecture that is produced in the present-day with globalization as a context. In the book Non-places (1995) Marc Augé describes the consequences of globalization. In the introduction to the second edition Augé defines three trends that are coupled to globalization. Firstly, big cities are defined by their ability to import and export people, products, images and messages. The supposedly historic city centres are becoming increasingly attractive to tourists from all over the world. Secondly, in general people’s homes have become borderless through computers and their screens. Thirdly, through the same screens the individual can live in a new environment without actually being dependent on their physical surroundings. These three trends are described by Augé as a ‘triple decentring. Augé (1995) further elaborates that this “triple decentring”, also known as globalization, has corresponded with the vast extensions of spaces for circulation, consumption and communication. The architecture created with the intrinsic explanation is part of this “triple decentring”, because it provides spaces with these three specific functions for the global tourist. To further elaborate, as one might think the goal of contemporary globalization is a world without frontiers, Augé explains this is currently not the direction globalization should be taking. He states three matters to reflect on. First, there is in effect an ideology of globality without frontiers that presents itself in human activity all around the world. Second, the current globality consist of networks that create homogenization and exclusion. Thirdly, the ideal, egalitarian world may come through the recognition of frontiers instead of their abolition (Augé, 1995). These three matters correspond with planetary extension of the so-called free market and technological networks of communication and information. Augé reflects on this correlation by highlighting the growth of two types of awareness to these three matters. We become more aware of the bad way we treat our fragile planet and our awareness of wealth inequality is growing. In this reflection Augé highlights two large problems in contemporary society: The ecological planetary destruction and the growing wealth inequality. The architecture of the intrinsic explanation of meaning plays a small role in the facilitation the correlation that Augé describes. Thereafter, Augé describes (1995) that the erasure of frontiers is brought to centre stage by technology and the management of space. Through these technologies we are connected to more people more often without having to be in the same room. The space for circulation, consumption and communication is expanded around the world. This ensures the presence of these networks is prominently visible and therefore the frontiers become invisible. Through this creation of a world network of global cities, their histories and the cities themselves become a type of entertainment, mainly for the global tourist (Augé, 1995). In the eyes of Augé (1995) this shift to a world without frontiers has significant effects for architecture. In this new network of global cities, the global has a certain prominence over the local of the city. This means that architects started to create architecture that conforms to this new system. Now so called “starchitects” design a prominent building upon request of the city that wants to participate in this global network. This building will function as proof of being wired into the network. This wire into the network is shaped by architecture that is created to provide a novel experience, through the intrinsic explanation of meaning, and thus facilitates the issues highlighted by Augé. Augé immediately touches upon one of the downsides of this process. Sometimes the projects refer to the particular geographical or historical context of its surroundings. However, these projects are quickly captured by the invasion of tourists who come from all over the world to consume a novel experience. Hans Ibelings, elaborates on this in his book “Supermodernism” (2002). As tourism is based upon a novel experience, tourism was founded on the uniqueness or/and specificity of a certain place. Major attractions that cause this uniqueness function as identifiers of the place. However, after a magnitude of influx of tourist this particularity begins to erode (Ibelings, 2002). At the time the place attracts a certain critical mass of tourist, a process is started whereby places become increasingly similar and interchangeable. These places often acquire the same kind of hotels, restaurants and other forms of amusement. As described by Augé (1995) the amount space for circulation, consumption and communication is growing. Therefore, the large influx of tourist seeking a novel experience become a problem, because the places this phenomenon creates only offer temporal benefits to the city. Therefore this phenomenon is not productive for actual residents of the city. Besides this type of space growing, Ibelings (2002) further elaborates on global tourism. Through the example of (the Blur Building by Diller + Scofidio, Expo.02) Ibelings illustrates the issue of this yearning for novel experiences. He describes it as “Burgeoning tourism” (Ibelings, 2002, p. 147). This building is “the perfect example of the tendency to approach everything, including architecture, in a touristic fashion, the main aim being to give people an opportunity to sample and undergo an atmosphere.” (Ibelings 2002, p. 147). What Ibelings describes is how nowadays people in the rich parts of the world not only behave as tourist when on holiday. They also behave as a tourist in their everyday life. They do not want to be doing or show their daily running of the household and prefer the unindustrious life. Ibelings (2002) sees the clearest examples of this way of life in the residential complexes that incorporate swimming pools, golf courses, or even entirely foreign cultures. At the start of this chapter I described the intrinsic and extrinsic explanations of meaning by Jencks (1969). The works of Augé (1995) and Ibelings (2002) have described how globalization, the disappearance of frontiers, has been shaping global tourism. They have described its effects on architecture and society. Therefore, I argue that the change architecture has gone through, from an extrinsic theory to an intrinsic theory of meaning has been caused in large effect by globalization and now further enables this globalization. Furthermore, by constantly aiming to provide novel experiences in the context of global tourism, people have shifted back. Sharing the intrinsic experiences as an extrinsic symbol is now commonplace. Architecture that supplies people with novel experiences to consume is now prevalent in many big tourist attractions in the world, thereafter people share these experiences as a symbol of prominence or wealth (online). Through this showing off, the experiences are less and less novel, but not less attractive. To capture and profit of the global tourism industry cities world-wide commission buildings designed by starchitects. These buildings need to provide the tourist with an opportunity to consume a novel experience that they are able to share (online). In the next chapter I will explain why architects should seek to counter this development in meaning ascribed to architecture.

3. Yearning for Novel Experiences

We have now established that the current environment, under the influence of globalization, contains a growing amount of places for circulation, consumption and communication. The question is: Why is this a bad trend? Of course, there are also positives to this growing amount of so called Non-Places (Augé, 1995). These places can be of great importance to people, for instance by offering employment or providing particular services that are in high demand. However, the underclass is victim to the alienation from the city these places create. In this chapter I will explain why architecture created for those three themes is not beneficial for contemporary society. By referencing theories of Guy Debord (1967), analyses of the presentday economic situation of large cities and critical theory of Harvey (1972, 2008) the arguments against this architecture for consumption are constructed. Guy Debord was part of the Situationist International, a group of artist, writers and social critics “that aimed to eliminate capitalism through the revolutionization of everyday life” (Pallardy, 2021). The Situationist International believed that after World War II consumer culture became dominant and that a society organized around such consumption induced boredom while shaping peoples desires in ways that could only be fulfilled through the purchase of consumer goods. The Situationist International, influenced by Marxism, dadaism and surrealism, developed methods of critique that articulated both the repression of consumer culture and liberating practices that could demolish this type of society (Pallardy, 2021). In the book The Society of Spectacle (1967) Debord explains his view on society. Debord describes how society, that is dominated by modern conditions of production, presents life as an immense accumulation of spectacles. However “the spectacle” is not just a collection of images, it describes the social relation between people (Debord, 1969, p. 7). In part 17 Debord elaborates how through the functioning of the current organization of the economy “the spectacle” can transform human fulfilment from being into having and further into appearing. This means that, instead of people defining value by what they are, people define value by what they have. Furthermore, people start defining this value by what they appear to have to others. This transformation is parallel to the shift in the explanation in meaning of architecture and the consumption of novel experiences described in the previous chapter (Debord, 1969, p. 10). Ibelings (2002) describes in his book Supermodernism exactly how this society of the spectacle is integrated the global tourism industry. He emphasizes that calling tourism an industry is not exactly correct, tourism does not produce anything in a traditional sense. It is geared, just like contemporary architecture, to the consumption of experiences. By looking into the article Consumer City (2000) written by Edward Gleaser, Jed Kolko and Albert Saiz we see how this aligns within a global trend. Cities that have the highest level of consumption tend to do better economically. The authors describe that firms are becoming more mobile, which means the firms do not experience the frontiers they used to experience. Besides, they find empirically that high amenity cities have grown faster than low amenity cities. Additionally, urban rents have risen faster than urban wages, which suggest the demand for living in the city has gone up with reasons beyond higher wages. Finally, the rise in reverse commuting confirms this trend towards consumer cities. Ibelings (2002) adds that cities designed with the tourist gaze have a certain aversion. The reason for this is that these places are in fact experienced as if devoid of authentic life. The lack of contrast, tension or any form of deviation produces a monotonous environment. The environment is a carefully constructed spectacle, which is exactly what Debord described in his book (Ibelings, 2002, p. 155). David Harvey provides in his book Social Justice and the City (2008, [1973]) a clear understanding of the process that facilitates the creation of the architecture that is devoid of authentic life. He argues that the question of what kind of city we want cannot be separated from that of what kind of social ties, relationship to nature, lifestyles, technologies and aesthetic values we desire (Harvey, 2008 [1973], p. 315). The right to the city is much more than the individual liberty to access urban resources. According to Harvey the right the city is a common right since the transformation of the city is dependent on the exercising of the collective power. He further adds that the right to the city is the most precious yet most neglected of our human rights. In this book Harvey explains how this, the right to the city, is consistently denied to people who are part of the underclass in a capitalist society. He argues that through the process of development of the city, surpluses are created and that these surpluses end up in hands of very few (Harvey, 2008 [1973], p. 315). He then explains that this is an international phenomenon (Harvey, 2008 [1973], p. 320). In the Guardian (30th April 2015), Chris Michael describes the conclusion raised above exactly. In an article about the Bilbao Effect, he looks for an answer to the question: does it do enough for the city’s local residents? He first highlights through an interview with a member of another European city council how other cities want to copy the supposed positive effect of the Bilbao Guggenheim Museum by the architecture office of Frank Gehry. Secondly, the article goes on to talk with grass-roots cultural organisation ZAWP. ZAWP is the type of cultural organisation that in large cities like London and New York would be praised. The organisation is a collective of young and creative virtuoso who use empty buildings to put on plays, gigs, artistic interventions or even cafes. The frustration with the city’s policies becomes clear through a quote: “The Guggenheim put our city on the map, no question. But you also can’t get anything supported here unless it’s topdown.” The organisation does not feel supported and had to wait 20 years to get any funding. The article ends with a warning to other cities aiming to replicate the Bilbao Effect: “those cities around the globe hoping a brand-name museum will save them should be watching carefully.” To conclude this analysis and problematization, we have established that architecture plays a significant role in the development of cities and their global tourism industry. Architecture with the intrinsic explanation of meaning has become the provider of novel experiences so that the city becomes an attractive place to consume. This is the result of the amplification of the society of the spectacle, that consistently offers novel experiences, finds it origins in further expanding globalization of capital. The constant denial of the right to the city to the actual residents is distilled in the architecture’s aim to provide one novel experiences after the other. Therefore, the problem is that architecture becomes the signifier of the denial of the right to the city. Architects should aim to counter this effect because they facilitate this denial through their work. Therefore, a question arises: what could architects do to restore the right to the city for ordinary residents?

4. Meaningful to the Public

In this chapter I describe the goal architects should have based on the problem stated above. Architects are the authors of their own projects, therefore they have the power to ascribe meaning to their projects. As we have seen in chapter one architects can lean into one of two fundamental types of meaning, the intrinsic and the extrinsic. The goal of architects could have is to restore the right to the city for the inhabitants of the particular city. The right to the city is restored when, just like Harvey explained, social ties, relationship to nature, lifestyles, technologies and aesthetic values we desire are integral part of the design process and outcome. As described earlier in this thesis the denial of this right to the city is a layered and complex problem. Therefore, architects are not the only actors in the design process that should aim towards this goal. For now this thesis focusses on the behaviour of the architect to achieve this goal. In this formulation of the method to achieve this goal I will use a broad definition of what an architect is. I believe an architect is almost always a team of creative people with the ability to give shape to space. However their ability is not only that, the architect also has the ability give shape to the process that creates this shape. So, architects could aim to restore, foster and facilitate the right to the city, but how should they do this? In this part of the thesis I aim to describe methods that offer architects this ability. One might assume that participation is the logical next step in the process to restore the right to the city, however this could in fact produce the opposite. In the book Inclusive Urbanism (Wende, et al, 2020), Rachel Keeton, Nelson Mota and Ekim Tan have researched participatory workshops as a tool for building inclusivity in New Towns in Africa. In this research they reflect upon the experiences they had with this method in three different types of workshops created as an alternative to top-down planning in Africa. Their research “concludes that participation from stakeholder groups that would normally be marginalized from the planning process (such as current residents, temporary users, and resident of adjacent unregulated communities), can offer new insight to planning and inform more inclusive New Towns across the continent” (Wende, et al, 2020, p. 283). This could be the first step to regaining the right to the city for a large part of the affected residents in the city. However, this method does not yet address the issue of the meaning that is ascribed to the architecture. It should not be the goal of the architects to use participation as the meaning itself, that they ascribed to architecture. Architects should aim towards a process where the meaning that is ascribed to architecture is developed collectively. Within the process that Keeton, Mota and Tam describe the actors have a greater influence than before, however they still lack the fundamental aspects of control over the production and utilization of the surplus created by the development (Harvey, 2008 [1973], p. 328). An enhancing perspective is proposed in the book The Social (Re)Production of Architecture (Petrescu and Trogal, 2017). In this book the authors curated 24 essays of leading thinkers and/or practitioners to discuss the right to the city. In this part of the essay I refer to several of these authors to form a method of ascribing meaning to architecture that is inclusive and does not infringe on the right to the city. In the second chapter of their book, Tatjana Schneider outlines the fundamentals of the right to the city and refers extensively to the work of Henri Lefebvre (1991) and Friedrich Engels (1892). She distils in her text the difference in social production and the social appropriation of production. She describes how Engels saw the development in the modes of production. Through social production the end product can be made collectively, but the capitalist control the means of production and therefore does not serve the public good. In contrast, the social appropriation of the means of production could be the transformation into public property and therefore could serve the public good (Petrescu and Trogal, 2017, p.43). In Porto Alegre, a city with around 1,5 million inhabitants, there is an interesting model in practice. The city’s budget is attributed through new democratic participatory assemblies (Wright, 2010). While these assemblies are not created to ascribe architectural meaning this model could be applied by architects to create productive architecture with meaning for local residents. In this model, popular assemblies attribute the city budget by neighbourhood. Aside from this, there is an assembly for questions that need to be addressed with the entire municipality, this assembly is formed by representatives chosen from local assemblies (Wright, 2010). The elected government still has responsibility to ensure this form of self-governance is not only utilized by those from socio-economically privileged backgrounds (Schinkel, 2012, p.12), but also by those less well to do socio-economically. To work towards a solution to the problem statement we have to take a step back to architecture and the intrinsic and extrinsic explanations of meaning. Architecture with the intrinsic explanation of meaning has become the provider of novel experiences so that the city becomes an attractive place to consume. This is the result of the amplification of the society of the spectacle, that consistently offers novel experiences, and finds it origins in further expanding globalization of capital. This process is actually unproductive because these novel experiences offer too little for the local residents and focus mainly on the capitalisation on growing global tourism. The often neglected right to the city of the actual residents is distilled in architecture’s aim to provide one novel experience after the other. To make sure the meaning that is ascribed through architecture is inclusive and does not interfere with the right to the city, we have to democratize the participatory design process. The process should be appropriated as public property and can therefore serve the public good. In the creation of this public participation process important steps need to be taken to ensure that the local residents are accurately represented in the process. Factors like participant selection, location, organizers and goals could influence the outcome (Wende, et al, 2020). Aside from this, the participants should have actual democratic power and access to the process (Wright, 2010; Schinkel, 2012). The architect has the power to shape this process and is therefore the designated actor to facilitate in this process. The participants choose the meaning or meanings that are ascribed to architecture. This could become something symbolic and extrinsic or phenomenological and intrinsic as long as this meaning or collection of meanings is fundamentally a product of the community. Inherent to these processes are the contradiction and friction that create tension and contrast in the environment, these qualities will be visible in the final outcome and bring back authentic life to a monotonous city.

5. Sources

Atkin, A. (2010, 15 November). Peirce’s Theory of Signs (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/peircesemiotics/#BasSigStr Augé, M., & Howe, J. (1995). Non-places. Verso. Debord, G., & Knabb, K. (1967). Society of the Spectacle. Black & Red. Frayssé, O. 2017. Guy Debord, a Critique of Modernism and Fordism: What Lessons for Today? In: Briziarelli, M. and Armano, E. (eds.). The Spectacle 2.0: Reading Debord in the Context of Digital Capitalism. Pp. 67–80. London: University of Westminster Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.16997/book11.d. License: CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 Glaeser, E. L. (2000, 1 juni). Consumer City by Edward L. Glaeser, Jed Kolko, Albert Saiz :: SSRN. SSRN. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=237462 Harvey, D. (2008, [1973]). Social Justice and the City. University of Georgia Press. Henri Lefèbvre. (1991). The Production of Space (1ste editie). Wiley. Ibelings, H. (2002). Supermodernism. NAi Publishers. Jencks (1969) Meaning in Architecture by Charles Jencks (419ES) — Atlas of Places. (1969). Atlas of Places. https://www.atlasofplaces.com/essays/meaning-in-architecture/ Michael, C. (2015, 30th April). The Bilbao Effect: is “starchitecture” all it’s cracked up to be? A history of cities in 50 buildings, day 27. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/apr/30/bilbao-effect-gehry-guggenheim-historycities-50-buildings Ogden, C. K., & Richards, I. A. (1923). The Meaning of Meaning. Routledge. Pallardy, The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica. (2021). Situationist International | international organization. Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Situationist-International . [06-04-2021] Petrescu, D. (2017). The Social (Re)Production of Architecture (1ste editie). Taylor & Francis. Schinkel, W. & Raad voor de Leefomgeving en Infrastructuur. (2012, augustus). Essays Toekomst van de stad. https://www.rli.nl/sites/default/files/u21/rli005- 1_wtk_essays_toekomst_van_de_stad_def.pdf Wende, W., Nijhuis, S., Mensing-De Jong, A., & Humann, M. (2020). Research in Urbanism Series 6 - Inclusive Urbanism (1ste editie). TU Delft. https://doi.org/10.7480/rius.6 Wright, E. O. (2010). Envisioning Real Utopias. Verso.