A produção arquitetônica de Rem Koolhaas e seu Office for Metropolitan Architecture pode ser considerada, sem o risco de se incorrer em exageros, uma das mais influentes do fim do século XX e início do século XXI. Figuras influentes da arquitetura contemporânea passaram por seu escritório e trabalharam sob sua tutela, diversas publicações dedicam edições inteiras às suas obras e seu reconhecimento internacional torna-se incontestável após ser laureado em 2000 com o prêmio Pritzker. Apesar do reconhecimento, o caminho que Koolhaas trilhou junto a seu escritório desde sua fundação, em 1972, até as primeiras obras concluídas e o reconhecimento da crítica especializada, em 1992, é relativamente desconhecido, com a maior parte do material disponível dispersado em periódicos diversos. Percebe-se também que publicações que analisam projetos do OMA tendem a abordar a obra através de seu valor simbólico ou sócio-econômico, com uma tendência a relacionar diretamente a biografia de Koolhaas e seus textos às formas produzidas. Esta dissertação tem como objetivo organizar, sistematizar e categorizar informações sobre as duas primeiras décadas de produção do OMA—1972 a 1992, coincidindo com o período abordado por Koolhaas em seu tomo S, M, L, XL. Através da análise formal dos projetos, com ênfase nos diferentes tipos de estrutura utilizados em projetos ao longo da carreira do OMA, pretende-se elucidar a transformação das estratégias projetuais do escritório e reiterar a presença da tradição moderna nos projetos de Koolhaas. / Rem Koolhaas and his Office for Metropolitan Architecture projects can be considered, without the risk of exaggeration, one of the most influential body of works of the end of the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st. Influential professionals in contemporary architecture worked at the office and learned from Koolhaas’s teachings, several magazines dedicate entire issues to his works, and his international recognition became indisputable after he was awarded the Pritzker Prize in 2000. Although Koolhaas and his office were internationally recognized, the path that led to this recognition-from its foundation in 1972 to its first works being built and subsequent success with specialized critics in 1992-is relatively unknown, with most of the available material being spread out among different magazines. It is also noteworthy that the critics who analyze Koolhaas’s work projects tend to approach the work through its symbolic or socio-economic value, with a tendency to directly relate the biography of Koolhaas and his texts to the forms of his designs. This dissertation aims to organize, systematize and categorize information on the first two decades of OMA’s production — from 1972 to 1992, coinciding with the period covered by Koolhaas in his book S, M, L, XL. Through a formal analysis of his works, focusing on the different types of structure utilized in projects throughout the years, this dissertation intends to clarify the office’s transformation of design strategies and reaffirm the continuation of the modern tradition present in Koolhaas’s work.

Au cœur du débat qui anime la conception urbaine, la frontière entre les interventions des paysagistes et celle des urbanistes est marquée par des questions de concurrences et de complémentarité (Champy, 2000, Donadieu, 2012). Autour des années 2000, plusieurs balises semblent marquer un « tournant » favorable au croisement disciplinaire. Il s’inscrit dans un mouvement général initié dès le milieu des années 1960 (Estienne, 2010). Il matérialiserait ce que certains avaient énoncé comme « l’alternative du paysage », en faveur d’un sub-urbanisme (Marot, 1995, 1999, 2006), et ce qui pourrait être aujourd’hui identifié comme un « urbanisme de révélation » (Fromonot, 2011). Au cœur de la conception urbaine, quels échanges animent l’interface mise en jeu entre l’urbanisme et le paysage ? La thèse prend corps sur l’analyse d’une séquence urbaine : trois projets lillois qui se succèdent sur un territoire et durant un quart de siècle (1989-2013) : Euralille 1, Euralille 2 et Saint-Sauveur. Dans ce récit, le travail met en évidence les relations qui marquent les travaux réalisés à la fois par les urbanistes et par les paysagistes. Le regard est principalement porté dans les étapes préalables d’assemblages des concepts mobilisés pour construire le projet. La recherche prend corps par une étude de traces, et mêle exploration des documents produits par les concepteurs et analyse des discours formulés. Les travaux proposent une caractérisation des échanges opérés au cœur de l’interface synaptique entre l’urbanisme et le paysage, et ouvre le débat sur la sollicitation du travail du paysagiste ou de la pensée du paysage dans la fabrique de la ville contemporaine. / In France, some urban design general discussions focus on the border between the projects made by the urban designer and the one made by the landscape architects (Champy, 2000): between concurrency and complementary (Donadieu, 2012). In the 2000s, we can give a mark on a movement involved in some disciplinary crosses, between landscape and urban design. It takes place into an historic development of the landscape architect profession since the late 1960s (Estienne, 2010). Others observe what they call sub-urbanism (Marot, 1995, 1999, 2006), or “urbanisme de révélation” (Fromonot, 2011). In urban design practices, what kind of exchanges can lay out the interface between landscape and urbanism? This thesis analyses a local urban sequence, one territory in the city of Lille made by three projects over a quarter of a century (1989-2013): Euralille 1, Euralille 2, Saint-Sauveur. The investigation highlights the relations in the works made by the landscape architects and the urban designer. The analysis looks mainly on the opening works and designs, and study as much as graphic documents produced in the studios than the discourse logic associated to the projects. The work shows the exchanges that could organize the synaptic interface between urbanism and landscape design or planning. It opens directions for the consideration of the landscape architect work and the landscape thinking method, in the development of our contemporary cities.

A produção arquitetônica de Rem Koolhaas e seu Office for Metropolitan Architecture pode ser considerada, sem o risco de se incorrer em exageros, uma das mais influentes do fim do século XX e início do século XXI. Figuras influentes da arquitetura contemporânea passaram por seu escritório e trabalharam sob sua tutela, diversas publicações dedicam edições inteiras às suas obras e seu reconhecimento internacional torna-se incontestável após ser laureado em 2000 com o prêmio Pritzker. Apesar do reconhecimento, o caminho que Koolhaas trilhou junto a seu escritório desde sua fundação, em 1972, até as primeiras obras concluídas e o reconhecimento da crítica especializada, em 1992, é relativamente desconhecido, com a maior parte do material disponível dispersado em periódicos diversos. Percebe-se também que publicações que analisam projetos do OMA tendem a abordar a obra através de seu valor simbólico ou sócio-econômico, com uma tendência a relacionar diretamente a biografia de Koolhaas e seus textos às formas produzidas. Esta dissertação tem como objetivo organizar, sistematizar e categorizar informações sobre as duas primeiras décadas de produção do OMA—1972 a 1992, coincidindo com o período abordado por Koolhaas em seu tomo S, M, L, XL. Através da análise formal dos projetos, com ênfase nos diferentes tipos de estrutura utilizados em projetos ao longo da carreira do OMA, pretende-se elucidar a transformação das estratégias projetuais do escritório e reiterar a presença da tradição moderna nos projetos de Koolhaas. / Rem Koolhaas and his Office for Metropolitan Architecture projects can be considered, without the risk of exaggeration, one of the most influential body of works of the end of the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st. Influential professionals in contemporary architecture worked at the office and learned from Koolhaas’s teachings, several magazines dedicate entire issues to his works, and his international recognition became indisputable after he was awarded the Pritzker Prize in 2000. Although Koolhaas and his office were internationally recognized, the path that led to this recognition-from its foundation in 1972 to its first works being built and subsequent success with specialized critics in 1992-is relatively unknown, with most of the available material being spread out among different magazines. It is also noteworthy that the critics who analyze Koolhaas’s work projects tend to approach the work through its symbolic or socio-economic value, with a tendency to directly relate the biography of Koolhaas and his texts to the forms of his designs. This dissertation aims to organize, systematize and categorize information on the first two decades of OMA’s production — from 1972 to 1992, coinciding with the period covered by Koolhaas in his book S, M, L, XL. Through a formal analysis of his works, focusing on the different types of structure utilized in projects throughout the years, this dissertation intends to clarify the office’s transformation of design strategies and reaffirm the continuation of the modern tradition present in Koolhaas’s work.

A produção arquitetônica de Rem Koolhaas e seu Office for Metropolitan Architecture pode ser considerada, sem o risco de se incorrer em exageros, uma das mais influentes do fim do século XX e início do século XXI. Figuras influentes da arquitetura contemporânea passaram por seu escritório e trabalharam sob sua tutela, diversas publicações dedicam edições inteiras às suas obras e seu reconhecimento internacional torna-se incontestável após ser laureado em 2000 com o prêmio Pritzker. Apesar do reconhecimento, o caminho que Koolhaas trilhou junto a seu escritório desde sua fundação, em 1972, até as primeiras obras concluídas e o reconhecimento da crítica especializada, em 1992, é relativamente desconhecido, com a maior parte do material disponível dispersado em periódicos diversos. Percebe-se também que publicações que analisam projetos do OMA tendem a abordar a obra através de seu valor simbólico ou sócio-econômico, com uma tendência a relacionar diretamente a biografia de Koolhaas e seus textos às formas produzidas. Esta dissertação tem como objetivo organizar, sistematizar e categorizar informações sobre as duas primeiras décadas de produção do OMA—1972 a 1992, coincidindo com o período abordado por Koolhaas em seu tomo S, M, L, XL. Através da análise formal dos projetos, com ênfase nos diferentes tipos de estrutura utilizados em projetos ao longo da carreira do OMA, pretende-se elucidar a transformação das estratégias projetuais do escritório e reiterar a presença da tradição moderna nos projetos de Koolhaas. / Rem Koolhaas and his Office for Metropolitan Architecture projects can be considered, without the risk of exaggeration, one of the most influential body of works of the end of the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st. Influential professionals in contemporary architecture worked at the office and learned from Koolhaas’s teachings, several magazines dedicate entire issues to his works, and his international recognition became indisputable after he was awarded the Pritzker Prize in 2000. Although Koolhaas and his office were internationally recognized, the path that led to this recognition-from its foundation in 1972 to its first works being built and subsequent success with specialized critics in 1992-is relatively unknown, with most of the available material being spread out among different magazines. It is also noteworthy that the critics who analyze Koolhaas’s work projects tend to approach the work through its symbolic or socio-economic value, with a tendency to directly relate the biography of Koolhaas and his texts to the forms of his designs. This dissertation aims to organize, systematize and categorize information on the first two decades of OMA’s production — from 1972 to 1992, coinciding with the period covered by Koolhaas in his book S, M, L, XL. Through a formal analysis of his works, focusing on the different types of structure utilized in projects throughout the years, this dissertation intends to clarify the office’s transformation of design strategies and reaffirm the continuation of the modern tradition present in Koolhaas’s work.

Dissertação (mestrado) - Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Paraná, Curitiba, 2008 / Bibliografia: f. 96-101 / Dois paradigmas são fundamentais na cidade contemporânea: as inovações tecnológicas como indutoras da configuração urbana e uma escala global mais forte do que a escala local. Apesar de marcantes na constituição urbana contemporânea, esses dois paradigmas / Two major paradigms underpin some conceptual ideas of the contemporary city:technological innovations and the relations between the global and the local scales. However, both paradigms could be tracked down to the beginning of the twentieth century, and f

(résumé en français)<p><p>Le diagnostic de Rem Koolhaas sur les métropoles actuelles montre une ville générique, sans fin, sans identité, sans passé, sans rues, la seule activité qui reste est le shopping et la condition « in-transit » devient universelle. À cette analyse manque une partie très importante, la condition biopolitique de la métropole, qui expliquerait plusieurs des caractéristiques de ce Junkspace, comme le fait qu’il contient la possibilité de résistance face au générique.<p>À la lumière de ce constat et suivant les directions de pensée que Gilles Deleuze et Félix Guattari ouvrent dans Mille Plateaux, cette thèse propose d’identifier les intervalles témoignant de la dimension biopolitique du Junkspace au travers d’une mobilisation de la théorie des agencements comme hypothèse pour la théorie architecturale et urbaine. Le postulat général est que ces intervalles seraient des territoires entre-deux qui fonctionneraient comme des laboratoires d’agencements témoignant d’une pratique architecturale politique redéfinissant le rôle même de l’architecte. <p>Trois axes de recherche sont déployés. Le premier interroge la pertinence d’une pensée architecturale en termes d’agencements dans le contexte des transformations actuelles des territoires. À la suite d’un croisement avec la pensée de Deleuze et Guattari l’architecture se comprend dans son processus d’agencement et réagencement. Le second axe interroge la dimension biopolitique du Junkspace identifiant les points critiques de ses agencements et évaluant le paradoxe de l’entre-deux. Le troisième axe met à l’épreuve le potentiel des territoires entre-deux de créer des opportunités pour de nouvelles configurations spatiales.<p><p><p>(english abstract)<p><p>Rem Koolhaas’s diagnostic of the modern metropolis shows a generic city with no end, no identity, no past, no streets where the only activity remaining is shopping and the « in-transit » condition is becoming universal. An important part is missing from this analysis: the biopolitical condition of the metropolis, that could explain a number of Junkspace’s characteristics, like the fact that it contains the possibility to resist the generic condition. <p>In the light of this review and in accordance with the philosophical directions that Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari draw in A Thousand Plateaus, this research intends to identify the intervals witnessing the biopolitical dimension of Junkspace by rallying the assemblage theory as hypothesis for the architectural and urban theory. The general postulate is that these intervals are in-between territories functioning as laboratories of assemblages that show a political and resistant architectural practice redefining the very part of the architect. <p>Three lines of research are deployed. The first one questions the relevance of an architectural assemblage thinking in the context of the current territorial transformations. Operating a crossing with Deleuze and Guattari’s thought, architecture is understood as a process of assembling and re-assembling. The second line of research is questioning the biopolitical dimension of Junkspace identifying the critical points of its assemblages and evaluating the in-between paradox. The third research line is testing the in-between territories potential to create opportunities for new spatial configurations. <p> / Doctorat en Art de bâtir et urbanisme / info:eu-repo/semantics/nonPublished