This article was downloaded by:[Lorch, Richard]On: 12 April 2008Access Details: [subscription number 790465784]Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Building Research & InformationPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713694730

Design for flexibilityN. John Habraken

Online Publication Date: 01 May 2008To cite this Article: Habraken, N. John (2008) 'Design for flexibility', BuildingResearch & Information, 36:3, 290 - 296To link to this article: DOI: 10.1080/09613210801995882URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09613210801995882

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article maybe used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction,re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expresslyforbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will becomplete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should beindependently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with orarising out of the use of this material.

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Lor

ch, R

icha

rd] A

t: 11

:57

12 A

pril

2008

Design for £exibility

N. JohnHabraken

Towards aResearchAgendaTatjana Schneider and JeremyTill

Flexible Housing, Architectural Press,UK, 2007; ISBN 978 075 068202 2

It takes courage to devote a book to the concept offlexibility in architecture. Words like ‘adaptability’,‘flexibility’, and ‘polyvalence’ have multiple and oftenoverlapping meanings that make it virtually impossibleto come up with a vocabulary acceptable to everybody.

Confusion in terminology is typical for architecturaldiscourse. Other professions – those of medicine, lawor engineering, for instance – define themselves by aprecise vocabulary employed for internal communi-cation. Architects take pride in coining their ownwords to describe the world as they see it, aiming topromote a personal or tribal vision.

In the introduction to their book, Tatjana Schneiderand Jeremy Till discuss the issue of terminology thento decide to use the term ‘flexibility’ to cover theentire range of possible design decisions that aim toloosen rigid functionality. One therefore finds, amongtheir many examples, Auguste Perret’s famous Rue

Franklin apartments in Paris (1903) – where physicallyeverything is fixed, including bathroom and kitchen,but none of the other rooms seems functionally deter-mined – as well as the entirely empty territoriesoffered the user by the brothers Arsene-Henry in theearly 1970s.

That sensible approach successfully highlights aproblem peculiar to contemporary architecture: thedesire among architects to recognize the spontaneousvariety of user preferences and the unpredictability offuture use.

A broad expositionMore than 160 projects are documented of which morethan 70 are given a page each for ‘case studies’. I foundquite a few instances that were new to me but noted aWestern slant in the selection. The extensive Japaneserecord on flexible housing is poorly represented,about which more below.1 But the authors’ selectionof examples approaches completeness in a moreimportant sense: designers inclined to ‘go flexible’will find it difficult to come up with an idea that isnot already present in this book.

The book’s title is somewhat misleading in that thecontents are entirely about the design of flexiblehousing and not about the broader interaction of inter-disciplinary influences that shape it. Within that limit-ation, the first two chapters sketch the larger context.We are first introduced to major motivations leadingdesigners to address flexibility such as the rise of therestricted and minimal dwelling in modern times, theindustrialization of housing, and the movementtowards user participation.

Next, the case for flexible design is made. Here as wellthe authors are very well informed and mention most ifnot all relevant views and instances from various parts

BUILDING RESEARCH & INFORMATION (2008) 36(3), 290–296

Building Research & Information ISSN 0961-3218 print ⁄ISSN 1466-4321 online # 2008 N. John Habrakenhttp: ⁄ ⁄www.tandf.co.uk ⁄journals

DOI: 10.1080/09613210801995882

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Lor

ch, R

icha

rd] A

t: 11

:57

12 A

pril

2008

of the world,2 but the narrative, as far as I could checkit by personal knowledge, is superficial. We hear, forinstance, that house builders worldwide benefit fromplanned obsolescence in housing production by wayof inflexible plans, but it is not mentioned that it istechnically much easier to modify the balloon-framedsuburban house in the US as well as the timber-framed one in Japan compared with the apartment orrow house in Europe built in masonry or reinforcedconcrete. Nor do we hear in this context that homeowners will change their houses no matter what, evenwhen the latter are functionally determined whenbought, because ownership is empowerment; whileunits for rent tend not to be adapted to a user’swishes even when technically flexible. As a promoterof Open Building, I raised eyebrows when readingthat apparently the:

history of Open Building . . . suggest[s] thedangers of allowing technical issues to over-determine the design of housing at the expenseof an original intent to create housing thatempowers the user . . .

(p.48)

as if technical innovation implies abandonment of userempowerment or that trying to facilitate such empow-erment technically is to be frowned upon. It also doesnot clarify much first to cite criticism by a third partyand then add that it is probably unfairly given(p. 47). Lapses like this in an overall sensible expositionshow how an attempt to cover a complex subject bythat many references in just about 20 pages requiresdisciplined editing.

Further chapters look upon the available selection ofexamples from the perspective of design: the organiz-ation of space and material each are reviewed and afinal ‘manual’ summarizes the many ways flexibilitycan be provided, such as by external addition, internaltransformation, or the combination or subdivision ofterritories.

All in all, a designer who is new to the subject is serveda full plate, including much that can help to avoid thefirst handful of mistakes.

The wide range of information, both historical andmorphological, that Schneider and Till provide is con-veyed in a clear and relaxed prose, devoid of jargon.The authors do not hesitate to give an opinion,usually sensible and illuminating, but they do notseek to provide the reader with criteria or guidelinesby which to find a way in all this evidence. Theapproach is descriptive, not analytic. It reminds oneof a design studio conversation, focused on ideas ofform, and somewhat removed from a more complexworld.

Questions arisingSchneider and Till expose, but do not probe. Obviousquestions that might be asked after perusing the vastamount of evidence offered remain unanswered. Forexample, why is it that, after more than a century ofattempts by architects to design with flexibility inmind, the issue is still marginal to the profession atlarge? Which of the many design ideas thus documen-ted had some broader or more lasting impact on theway housing is done in the world? What theories andideologies have been advanced attempting to framethe topic? If, for practical reasons, such questionsmay best be addressed separately elsewhere, some rec-ognition of their validity and some reference towardsanswers might have helped the sceptical reader tostay with the subject.

Most importantly, however, for a book about design,one would like to know in what way flexibility mightinspire the making of a new architecture. Is it simplya social service some of us feel morally bound topursue, or does it imply a new and challenging kindof architecture? This question is not raised in thebook either and there is no sign that the authors seean architectural perspective.

Taking such questions seriously also helps to find outhow further study and experiments can advance thecause of flexibility. As always, questions lead toresearch, in this case not only for the architect, butalso for other professional parties involved in housing.

To begin with the matter of the architectural pro-fession’s involvement in design for flexibility, or lackthereof, consider the wide array of architects men-tioned by Schneider and Till, some well known, whoall aspired to a new way of doing housing design.The long list, spanning about a century, may give theimpression that flexibility has always been a seriousoccupation for the profession, but the opposite istrue. Of the few practising architects who actuallybuilt a career on doing flexible housing, only AviFriedman and Frans van der Werf are found in theindex. Lucien Kroll in Brussels certainly also belongsto that short list, but does not feature in the book.Neither do Tatsumi and Takada in Kyoto who, forseveral decades, proposed and implemented their‘Two Step Housing’ approach. Others, like NabeelHamdi and NicholasWilkinson in the UK, did an influ-ential project after which user participation sub-sequently dominated their entire career, but removedthem from architectural practice. I must have missednames that could be added to the exceptions, but over-whelmingly the examples documented in the book areone-off cases, done by architects who managed to gettheir flexible project built, but then moved on, flexi-bility remaining marginal to their careers as it hasbeen for the profession at large.

Review

291

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Lor

ch, R

icha

rd] A

t: 11

:57

12 A

pril

2008

The good reason for this lack of engagement is that thepursuit of flexibility is a risky and cumbersome affair. Itdepends heavily on the cooperation of other parties inthe process and is therefore difficult to implement. Theten architect’s offices that initiated the SAR (the Foun-dation for Architect’s Research) research foundation,who paid for its research in the 1960s and 1970s andtook pride in its mission and publications, neveracted in their own practice along the lines our researchadvocated. They sensibly did not want to jeopardizetheir business.

The bad reason for keeping flexible housing at arm’slength was that, when participation came to the fore,many architects resented the idea that users wouldmake design decisions. And many still do. I rememberemotional reactions from colleagues, ostensibly infavour of participation, who, when pressed, finallyblurted out that users could not be allowed to makedesign decisions. Of course, user involvement, likemotherhood, cannot be criticized, so the arguments putforward against flexibility in public debate tend to beabout costs, technical difficulties, and also the notionthat dwellers are incapable and in need of guidance.

In this context, Schneider and Till perceptively notetwo opposite tendencies among those who actuallydid design for flexibility. Architects prepared to letgo, seek to provide a context that stimulates unforeseenresults of user action. Others attempt to build in con-straints intended to steer the user towards a ‘good’result.

A sense of being invaded in their domain of expertise isshared among other professions involved in housing.3

We are all the product of a culture, already morethan a century old, in which the exclusion of theinhabitant is regarded unavoidable and efficient. Inthat culture we only need to agree among ourselvesabout what is to be done. A common methodology isapplied: The design of any housing project beginswith the floor layout. Once these are known, every-body can do their part: consultants can design structureand services, builders can calculate, bankers can assessfinancing, developers can figure marketing. Without apredetermined floor plan the familiar system ofmutual accountability and cooperation is destabilized.As a result, the indignation at infringement of expertterritory is exacerbated by anxiety: One is asked tooperate in an unknown world where responsibilitiesshift and risk mounts.

Developers and owners taking initiativeIndeed, what is there to gain by embracing flexibilityand re-educating oneself for another methodology?But times change, and while the limitations of currenthabits and conventions become more evident, a new

generation of professionals appears willing to exploremore promising terrain. This is demonstrated inrecent projects all of which, unsurprisingly, wereinitiated by developers and owners of real estate.(These projects are not mentioned by Schneider andTill, presumably because they became known afterthe due date of their manuscript.) Avi Friedman andWitold Rybscynski may have been the first to introducesuccessfully a systemic and flexible new house type thatfound its way in the market,4 but as architect/aca-demics they may turn out to have been the exceptionrather than the rule.

The city of Helsinki, for instance, called a competitionfor Open Building design. Sato Developing Co. builtthe first two buildings of the winning scheme, whichwas designed by Architect Esko Khari in combinationwith Tocoman data processing group.5 All units weresold, executed within budget, and completed in time,yielding a profit. As a result, Sato offered Khari andTocoman an open-ended contract for several such pro-jects each year.

In the Netherlands, Lingotto Developers6 took theinitiative to build a multi-function building in whichboth residential and commercial uses can find spacein any desired proportion. They recovered the extracosts for making space flexible by selling the emptybuilding to a client who saw advantage in exploiting it.

Frank Bijdendijk, Director of the Amsterdam housingcorporation Het Oosten, concluded that internalflexibility makes long-term investment feasible.Construction for an entire city block formed by nine-storey-high buildings will start this year. Eventually,more than 40 000 m2 of interior space will also berented out and filled in by the leaseholder for whateverfunction is fancied.

In Moscow, with the rise of a wealthy class, buyers ofexpensive apartments instantly had their new homesgutted to have an architect of their own choice designthe interior to their taste. Appalled at this waste ofcapital, developers asked their architects to design‘empty buildings’, blissfully unaware of any precedent.Today, thousands of units have been built that way(Lorichev and Goldhorn, n.d.).

If developers and owners of real estate are the newpioneers in flexible residential construction, they werepreceded as such by their peers in commercial realestate. In the US and increasingly in Europe, officebuildings are designed with empty floors to be fittedout by tenants who hire their own architects and fit-out companies. Similarly, no shopping centre will bebuilt without offering free space to retailer occupants.

Finally, governmental bodies begin to take initiative aswell. Already cited was the Open Building competition

Review

292

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Lor

ch, R

icha

rd] A

t: 11

:57

12 A

pril

2008

called by the Helsinki municipality. A month ago, thetown of Almere in the Netherlands concluded an over-whelmingly successful competition on flexible build-ings for private home ownership among developersand housing corporations. The seven winners frommore than 60 entrants each committed themselves toaround 150 units each.

The building department of the canton of Bern inSwitzerland decided on the separation of a ‘primarysystem’ from a ‘secondary system’ for the building ofan intensive-care hospital. First, a design competitionwas called for the primary system and only after thewinning scheme was under construction was a secondcompetition held for the fit-out. This abrupt reversalof habitual procedures caused problems that tooktime to be ironed out, but the initiative caught theattention of major architectural firms specialized inhospital design in Europe and the US. Project timecan be reduced if the design of the interior can bedone while the base building is being erected, and inthe long run alterations will be less costly.7

In 1994, Osaka Gas Co. initiated what is know as theNEXT21 project in which a flexible building containsindividually designed dwelling units.8 Schneider andTill mention its many technical innovations (p. 106)but, in the context of flexibility, its major impact wasthat, after many years of open-building experimentsin Japan and an enthusiastic public acclaim of thisproject, the government finally embraced the principleof separation of levels of control. Ministerial blessingof ‘SI building’ (skeleton infill), as it is known, stimu-lated innovation in areas other than in hardware,such as jurisprudence and financing. At the time ofwriting, a government-sponsored drive is afoot topromote the idea of the ‘long-term building’ by wayof a competition on an urban scale. A 200-year build-ing lifetime (!?) is mentioned and the SI approach willbe mandatory.

Architectural challengesAlthough architects cannot take the initiative, they toomust develop an expertise in this new game. Some freshapproaches are indicative of what that might mean.Bijdendijk9 argues that without the love and pride ofits users, a building is not assured of a long life evenwhen the requirement of flexibility is met. To earnthe love of its inhabitants, a building need not necess-arily meet standards fashionable among architects.But it need not be in conflict with them either. Bijden-dijk’s choice of architects10 proves that he does not rec-ommend a retro architecture or a pandering ofmediocrity. He declares himself inspired byNew York City’s Soho warehouses with their neo-clas-sicist cast-iron facades, occupied in various ways forcenturies already. It is no doubt debatable what an

architecture loved by its inhabitants must mean, butthe requirement unmistakably connects architecturewith the quality of everyday environment.

Between urban design and individualdwellingTwo more opportunities for a new architecture can bementioned. Both flow from the consideration that aflexible building is not an empty skeleton, but an archi-tectural environment shared by individual tenants. Forthe distinction between ‘fit out’ or ‘infill’, on the onehand, and the ‘flexible building’, or the ‘support’, orthe ‘base building’, on the other, the primary criterionis control, not hardware. To make this point in theearly days of Open Building, I drew a cross over LeCorbusier’s famous picture of a skeleton for theDom-i-no house (Habraken, 1966) (Figure 1). Thisact puzzled Schneider and Till (p. 166), but under-standing it is crucial if one wants to bring the userinto the housing equation. The purpose of design forflexibility by whatever name is to enable individualcontrol in an otherwise collective environment. Theconcept of distribution of control, therefore, is at theroots of flexible architecture. By itself such a distri-bution is not new. Analogy with urban design is com-pelling. The urban designer controls the shaping ofpublic space and seeks to make an inspiring contextfor architects doing the buildings. In the same way aflexible building creates an environment for individualsettlement the design of which is done on yet a lowerlevel of control.

The flexible building, properly understood, becomes acollective form performing between urban space andindividual inhabitation. As such, it has not yet inspiredthe profession. The ubiquitous commercial office build-ing is still considered an unfinished building rather than

Figure 1 Maison Dom-Ino by Le Corbusier, image # FLC/ADAGP,Paris and DACS, London 2008. An altered version of thisillustration was used in the ‘Three R’s for housing’ (Habraken,1966) with the caption ‘A Support is not a Skeleton’ to emphasizethat the author’s concept was not a technical but one of thedistribution of design control.

Review

293

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Lor

ch, R

icha

rd] A

t: 11

:57

12 A

pril

2008

the continuation of urban fabric in another way. Possi-bilities, created by a longer life span, for higher initialinvestment in public interior space and other publicamenities have not yet been explored. This is remark-able because, freed from a senseless cobbling togetherof floor plans, architecture can return to what italways was good at: the making of public environment.For the architect the separation of control is a liber-ation, not an encroachment.

Two designers of residential flexibility fully grasped thepotential for a new architecture that mediates betweenurban design and individual dwelling. ‘I want to dothree dimensional urban design’ Yoshitika Utida, thechief architect for the already-mentioned NEXT21project told me when showing his plans. Consequently,he invited thirteen other architects to do the houses inthe environment he had designed. Schneider and Tillmention the project’s systems approach but do notnote this distribution of design control among archi-tects which makes the NEXT21 project truly ofinterest (Figure 2).

When asked to design the ‘dwelling of the future’,Utida took his Osaka client team to visit the Molenv-liet project near Rotterdam done fifteen years earlierby Frans van der Werf (p. 291). For Frans, a‘support structure’ was not a building but a means

Figure 2 Corner view of the Osaka Gas experimental housingproject NEXT21 (1994). Yoshitika Utida, chief architect, andcolleagues note the public roof garden and small private‘gardens’ as part of the units. Note too the anodized aluminiumfacade system which allows adaptation to the interior layout ofthe units; the panels can be dismounted from the inside withoutexterior scaffolding. Photograph: OsakaGas.

Figure 3 Molenvliet housing project in Papendrecht, theNetherlands, by Frans van der Werf, architect (1974).Drawing of the project as itwas built which was only a small part of the continuous structure intended to form an urban fabric.Courtesy Frans van der Werf.

Review

294

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Lor

ch, R

icha

rd] A

t: 11

:57

12 A

pril

2008

to form a continuous three-dimensional urban fabric.He wanted to deploy a single structural and architec-tural principle at a neighbourhood scale. It shapesmajor streets giving access to public courtyards,while other courtyards offer space for gardens. TheMolenvliet project as built is only a fragment ofthat initial competition entry, but it remains a com-pelling demonstration of the flexible building’s poten-tial for shaping the extended urban fabric. Where, forBijdendijk, the unit’s flexibility allows long-terminvestment, for Van der Werf internal flexibility,including facade parts, enables urban-scale continuitywithout uniformity. Van der Werf’s project is stillvisited by flexibility devotees as a demonstration ofwhat the future may hold (Figure 3).

The distribution of design controlThe third architectural challenge to be mentioned alsorelates to the distinction between domains of control.Where should the flexible building stop and inhabita-tion’s domain begin?

Each of the projects shown by Schneider and Till drawsthe line in its own way, but that variety only reflectsarchitect’s preferences. We lost our bearings herebecause professionals cannot determine the true bound-ary among themselves. Design control must first be del-egated before the correct balance can be found by trialand error and post-occupancy research. Moreover,there will be not just one solution. In today’s worldthe answer may vary with place and circumstances.

Several decades of Open Building experimentationhave taught, however, that, at the very least, bath-rooms and kitchens must be under full user control.As industrially produced durable goods they haveentered the millennia old tradition of human settlementonly recently, somewhat in the way the car entered theworld’s historic road network.

Given that first separation, how much fixed material, inthe form of columns and walls, should be found in adwelling unit? The range between the proposals ofPerret and the brothers Arsene-Henry, as noted above,is still wide open. Today, pre-stressed floor slabs makeit easy to build large empty spaces, thus maximizingthe use of fit-out material. In the early days of rampantmass housing it was considered axiomatic that flexibleparts were more expensive and had to be limited innumber. Perfectly flexible solutions were achieved withsmall span bays and a good deal of load-bearing wallsin each unit. Architecturally shaped human size dimen-sions need not be in conflict with freedom in a user’ssettlement, and can stimulate user decisions.

A similar question applies to the design of the facade.To what extent must it express inhabitation and to

what extent must it help shape outside public space?This is a cultural issue as well. Georgian Londonerswere quite happy behind monumental communalfacades, while the burghers of the Dutch republicwanted each house to have its own. Here, too, long-term user feedback must teach us.

A research agendaIt is to be regretted that the commendable compilationby Schneider and Till does not draw attention to thesearchitectural challenges and opportunities. This couldhave stimulated research and experimentation byarchitects. But the redistribution of control, impliedby the concept of flexibility, is not only of architecturalimport. It invites adjustment of method for all partiesinvolved in housing, and as such opens new avenuesfor research. It suggests, for instance, a dedicated resi-dential fit-out industry, delivering and installing thedwelling unit’s fit-out as a single product. This indus-try-to-be has a potential comparable with the auto-mobile industry. Separation between fit-out andcollective building also asks consultants on utilitysystems to reconsider how main lines are best distribu-ted in the flexible building to feed and drain a dwell-ing’s territory at the boundary of which the fit-outcontractor will take over and distribute lines to kitch-ens and bathrooms. Because the durable part of ahousing estate will shift towards a much longeruse-life, the division of design control is of interest tothe economist as well. Whereas the flexible buildingbecomes a truly long-term investment for collectiveuse, the fit-out is more in league with durable consumergoods like the motor car. (An installed fit-out kit,apparently, costs about as much as the occupant paysfor a car.) New financing mechanisms are called for:long-term mortgage service on one side of the divide,short-term bank loans on the other. A sound legal fra-mework for the separation of control must be workedout as well. All such issues are in need of closer study.In recent decades various ad-hoc suggestions have beenmade in the directions suggested here, but the field for acomprehensive research agenda is wide open.

N. John Habrakenwww.habraken.comhabraken@xs4all.nl

ReferencesHabraken N.J. (1966) ‘Three R’s for housing’ Forum, 20(1); bi-

lingual reprint, Scheltema & Holkema, Amsterdam.Kendall, S. (1995) Developments Toward Open Building in

Japan, report on a study in June 1995, Meiji University,Department of Architecture, Tokyo.

Lorichev, E. and Goldhorn, B. (n.d) ‘The Free Plan, Russia’s shell-and-core apartment buildigns’, Project Russia, 20.

Review

295

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Lor

ch, R

icha

rd] A

t: 11

:57

12 A

pril

2008

Endnotes1There is a long track record of flexible design in Japan, in termsof both user participation and technology, initiated by publicagencies as well as private companies. The approach is pragmaticand much less encumbered by ideology than is the case in Europe.Professor Katsuo Tatsumi and his younger colleague, MitsuoTakada, have for several decades advocated what they call‘Two Step Housing’, which has produced a number of projectsover the years. The Japan Housing Corporation, a semi-govern-mental institution for subsidized middle-class housing, has con-sistently experimented with the same idea. Professor StephenKendall, in a report titled Developments Toward Open Buildingin Japan (1995), mentions some 17 recent or ongoing initiatives.In the last ten years after the influential NEXT21 project wasbuilt, a spate of other projects has been done.

2The search for a new professional methodology replacing thatbased on predetermined floor plans, which was SAR’s (the Foun-dation for Architect’s Research) major research agenda item, isnot mentioned at all. SAR was founded in 1965 by ten architectsoffices to investigate the implementation of the ‘Support–Infill’ idea.

3Only recently I found myself in a conference of professionalexperts in the business of housing, when someone mentionedthe need for more user participation. The response was one Ihave heard for half a century: ‘let’s first deal with the shortageof houses before we address user participation’. I could notresist raising my hand and ask: ‘Can you tell me what you haveto gain from an end to the housing shortage’. After a painfulsilence, the moderator of the meeting asked: ‘Prof. Habraken,are you accusing us of a conspiracy?’

4At my request, Avi Friedman e-mailed me the following: ‘Of theGrow Home (which I designed with Witold Rybcsynski) by con-servative estimate some 10,000 units have been constructed in the

Montreal area by various private builders. The Next Home whichI designed alone as part of a research project and which we con-structed on our university campus was also adopted by builders. Iestimate the number of built units at 1000’.

5Arabianranta (Arabian Shore) competition 2001. The winningproject was completed in 2005. There were two differentsupport structures and 80 apartments; SATO Development Co.,Esko Kahri & Co. Architects, and ToCoMan Group cost, data,and Internet consultant: PlusKoti Arabian Kotiranta, PDF/Adobe Acrobat – htlm version.

6Multifunk project, Lingotto real Estate, 2005; concept by BobJansen, President and CEO, design ANA Architecten (http://www.lingotto.nl).

7GiorgioMacchi,Director of the BernKanton (provincial) BuildingDepartment, has decided tomake the distinctionbetween a primaryand secondary system general policy in his department.

8Osaka Gas Next21 project 1993, supervised by Yoshitika Utidawith Kazuo Tatzumi, Mitsuo Takada and Seiichi Fukao, and exe-cuted by Shu-Koh-Sha Architectural & Urban Design Studiounder Shinishi Chikazumi.

9Bijdendijk calls his flexible buildings ‘Solids’. His contribution toOpen Building theory lies in his emphasis on the building’s ‘lova-bility’ as a precondition in conjunctionwith full interior flexibilityfor its long life. An English language book by him is expected tobe published this year (http://www.solids.nl/).

10The eleven-building, 40 000 m2 project for which constructionwill start in 2008 is designed by Ditmar Eberle, Baumschlager &Eberle (http://www.baumschlager-eberle.com). An earlier‘Solids’ building in Amsterdam is under construction; it wasdesigned by Tony Fretton.

Review

296