GETTING OFF THE
G R O U N D
ERIK BAKKEN
1
INTRODUCTION
STANDING ARCHITECTURE
Arguably, the most fundamental way in which architecture can leave the ground is through standing.
This method of leaving the ground has been a consistent option in the designer’s repertoire since civilization necessitated building on unstable ground
conditions.
From Southeast Asian vernacular stilt houses, built
over volatile rivers, to the Hudson Yards towers, contemporary skyscrapers built over reclaimed coastal
patches of land, architecture that stands both anchors and distances itself from the ground. A salient
example of the theory of standing architecture is Le
Corbusier’s Five Points of architecture. One of these
points, which specifies pilotis as a way to separate
building and ground, takes the stance that denying
the ground will facilitate systems of life that are tied
to the ground plane. Le Corbusier sees rejecting the
ground as a way of optimizing its properties, from
human circulation to plant growth. Much of the motivation for standing architecture came from innovations in aerospace technology.
In 1967, the song “Up, Up and Away” was released
by The 5th Dimension, a vocal pop group from Los
Angeles. Hot on the heels of similarly-themed songs
like Frank Sinatra’s “Come Fly with Me” and Mary
Poppin’s “Go Fly a Kite”, “Up, Up and Away” reflected
the cultural zeitgeist of the aerospace age; off the
ground was the place to be. The song set the stage
for landmark events in world history, such as the
moon landing of 1969 and the construction of the
world’s tallest skyscraper, the Sears Tower, in 1970.
The world was obsessed with racing to reach the
highest heights. The song’s chorus is as follows:
The invention and optimization of the airplane allowed for movement that was unhindered by the
complexity and clutter of systems on the ground.
Architecture echoed humanity’s escape from the
ground by often rejecting its roots in the ground and
standing up, aided by new technologies of steel and
concrete. Yet as any airplane must touch down, so
does standing architecture. But by minimizing the
physical connection between construct and ground,
architecture explores fascinating possibilities for
how it can rise above the ebb and flow of ground
systems. Perhaps rising above the ground is the ultimate form of optimization, whether through plane
or car, yet it brings up questions of what architecture loses when it leaves the ground, even only at the
scale of a few feet. In volatile climates, the ground
is the most thermally consistent place to build. For
theaters, the ground provides acoustic insulation.
Thus, it seems standing architecture, with all its potential for uniformity and a laissez-faire attitude, is
inherently unsuitable for many programs and climates: much like a bus pass is often more practical
than an airplane ticket.
Up, up and away
My beautiful, my beautiful balloon
The world’s a nicer place in my beautiful balloon
It wears a nicer face in my beautiful balloon
We can sing a song and sail along the silver sky
For we can fly, we can fly
Is the world a nicer place off or away from the
ground? The world seemed to think so in 1967. This
cultural drive to escape life on the ground motivated advancements in not only aerospace fields, but
in architecture, which could be used as a tool to
break the connection between person and ground.
Yet, getting up from the ground is not the only way
to get away from it. Thus, it is valuable to examine
the history of architecture that rejects the traditional understanding of ground, both to understand the
motivations and effects of this position. Through the
analysis of speculative and built architecture that
stands, juts, swims, walks, and flies, this exhibition
seeks to explore how we have come, and, how far we
have left to go.
2
5 Points. Le Corbusier, Towards An Architecture
Corbusier, Le, and Frederick Etchells. Towards a New Architecture. Connecticut: Martino Publishing, 2014.
Tung, Truong. “Research and Development for House-building in Vietnam.” Habitat International
9, no. 2 (1985): 79-84. doi:10.1016/0197-3975(85)90011-6.
“Hudson Yards Retail Podium.” Tutor Perini. Accessed May 04, 2019. https://www.tutorperini.com/
projects/mixed-use-retail/hudson-yards-retail-podium/.
3
JUTTING ARCHITECTURE
FLOATING ARCHITECTURE
Jutting architecture seeks to elongate the horizontal,
creating pseudo-ground conditions that are elevated above the true ground plane. Usually cantilevering
out horizontally, these structures seek to create new
splices of ground up in the air.
The air isn’t the only viable option for rejected the
traditional relationship between the built and the
ground; floating architecture navigates maritime
strategies for architecture. Trading land for sea,
floating architecture often rejects ground as a way
to prioritize the complex properties of water or in the
absence of land.
Methods of jutting have consistently been used in
architecture, often echoing natural forms of the cantilever, such as tree branches, rock outcrops, and insect termitaries. The architectural conversation on
jutting architecture is largely structural; it takes a
high level of expertise to design structures that not
only reject the ground by building up, but out as well.
But the motivations and effects of the cantilever’s
relationship to the ground is also vital to their understanding, particularly because there is nearly always
something beneath the jutting frame of a cantilever.
Architecture, it its traditional sense, is clearly unsuitable for the water. Yet with around 71% of the world
covered in oceans, and that percentage rising due to
global warming, water’s surface is often preferable
to the ground’s surface. Building on a volatile liquid
as opposed to a sturdy ground creates many challenges for architects, the most fundamental being
the question of fixed or free.
Fixed aquatic architecture usually creates a stable
framework atop water’s surface, a pseudo-ground
on which to operate as one would on standard
ground. Free aquatic architecture is untethered to
the ground, instead prioritizing the flexibility offered
by being able to easily float in any direction.
This type of architecture both rejects and fundamentally changes the surface of the ground, particularly through creating a hierarchy between above
and below, much like standing architecture. Perhaps
the cantilever is the ultimate viewing mechanism, allowing for an enhanced understanding of the ground
from the air, but it changes life beneath the jut as
well. If a cantilever is the ideal way to build out without interrupting the ground, it runs into similar problems as standing architecture. Does an enhanced
above come at the cost of below?
Because architecture has consistently been anchored to the ground, buildings in the water are is
usually fixed as opposed to free, revealing the human
reliance on ground for stability. A primary challenge
for floating architecture is its effect on aquatic life
systems. In addition to sea levels rising, ocean acidification, pollution, and declining biodiversity are all
marine problems of which most science is relatively
young.
Interestingly, the structural properties of the cantilever are one and the same as the structural properties of the tower, both which minimize connection
to the ground by building out and up. Optimizing
ground connection is becomes more and more technologically feasible today, as tower become taller
and thinner, cantilevering both over the earth and
into the wind. Yet minimizing the ground footprint
of architecture by jutting up and out creates monumental effects on human circulation, disrupting the
ground-mat of systems explored by designers such
as Frei Otto by introducing immense vertical circulation and obstructed daylight. If the ground is still to
be the primary field of systems on the earth, understanding jutting architecture’s effects, both positive
and negative, is vital.
Instead of looking to the ocean as a blank blue slate
on which to build as the ground is slowly swallowed
by sea, it is vital for floating architecture to understand the tremendous impact it can have on the watery environment it occupies.
Ideological Superstructures. El Lissitzky
“Cantilever.” Grove Art. November 23, 2017. Accessed May 04, 2019. https://www.oxfordartonline.
com/groveart/view/10.1093/gao/
Lissitzky, El. “Ideological Superstructures.” In Programs and Manifestoes on 20-th century Architecture. Cambridge: Massachusets Institute of Technology Press, 1970.
Flooding Modernity. Asmund Havsteen-Mikkelson
If people have been unable to preserve the ground
especially in coastal regions, understanding and protecting the oceans is imminently crucial if it is to become a new “ground” for the built environment.
Gehrels, Roland. “Rising Sea Levels.” Climate Change, 2016, 241-52. doi:10.1016/b978-0-44463524-2.00016-6.
Kolbert, Elizabeth. The Sixth Extinction: An Unnatural History. NY, NY: Henry Holt and Company/
Picador, 2015.
Otto, Frei. Occupying and Connecting: Thoughts on Territories and Spheres of Influence with Particular Reference to Human Settlement. Stuttgart: Menges, 2011.
4
5
WALKING ARCHITECTURE
FLYING ARCHITECTURE
Nomadic, or walking, architecture presents a rejection of the relationship between ground and place.
Because architecture is fundamentally anchored to
the ground, walking architecture rejects ground on
the principle that it restricts architecture to being
static.
The ultimate form of ground’s rejection in architecture comes from flying architecture, which not only
turns away from the ground’s complexity, it leaves it
behind entirely. Very little of this architecture exists,
as the ground’s influence on existing architecture is
still unavoidably pervasive.
When architecture can move, it creates several challenges for design, which tends to focus on the building as a stage, a vessel, or a shed for activity, not the
source of activity itself. In Reyner Banham’s “The
Great Gizmo”, he highlights the recreational vehicle
(RV) as a potential new primitive hut. The mobility
and nomadism offered by the RV, and speculatively walking architecture, could create a fundamental
shift in society from a scattering of nodal metropole
to a complex fabric of mutable, movable parts.
Yet, the idea of leaving behind earth, or even the
Earth, is still common in pop culture, science, and
science fiction. Often, the motivations behind taking
off and leaving the ground below are environmental. With anthropogenic climate change altering the
systems of the Earth and creating an increasingly inhospitable ground, flying architecture takes the view
that getting away is the only way to preserve life.
While pessimistic, this view is pervasive, from contemporary talk of Mars colonization to satirical Onion articles to the animated Pixar film WALL-E. If the
ground is becoming toxic and dangerous, humans
must find a way to leave it behind.
Yet walking architecture creates as many questions
as it does hypotheses. If a building can get up and
walk across town (assuming the concept of town
exists), what becomes of the traditional methods of
circulation typically used to circumnavigate a society of nodes, whether those points are rooms, buildings, or cities? Thus, the concept of walking buildings or walking cities is fundamentally dependent
on what can move, and how. If buildings could move,
the city would change, and if cities could move, the
entire landscape would change. Thus, the rejection
of ground and place is antithetical to nearly every
current lens of viewing architecture. Yet, despite the
fact that walking architecture may reject place, it
is unable to completely reject ground, still tethered
to a surface that must be networked by circulation
paths in order for it to get around.
Thus, flying architecture is often more concerned
with escaping the atmosphere of Earth itself rather than simply hovering over the polluted ground.
Interestingly, even though flying architecture seeks
to leave the ground behind, it often still hangs on to
the ground in some ways. Firstly, the ground is still
vital to sustaining life at a large scale particularly
through agriculture and resource cultivation. Until
another fully habitable planet is found or made, the
Earth’s ground will be vital to architecture. Secondly, even though architecture may be able to physically escape the ground, it is unlikely to be able to
escape the concept of ground, because human beings are used to operating on a surface with an “up”
and a “down”. Thus, completely rejecting the ground
through architecture is much more difficult than it is
often portrayed to be.
Instead of attempting to not interfere with complex
systems of life on ground as standing architecture
does, walking architecture seeks to follow the herd.
Understanding the ground entirely as surface for
movement while rejecting its other properties fundamentally alters its understanding, and walking architecture is the conceptual posterchild for effacing
the volumetric complexity of earth.
Walking House. Laurie Simmons
Banham, Reyner. “The great gizmo.” Industrial Design 12, no. 146 (1965): 54-63.
Sadler, Simon. Archigram Architecture without Architecture. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2005
6
Therefore, the salience of flying architecture may be
that it proves human dependence on the ground,
at least for now. Once human independence can be
proven away from Earth, the ground may be left behind, yet for now architecture continues to shape life
in connection with the ground.
Architecture Unchained. Ewa Gawron
Jormakka, Kari. Flying Dutchmen: motion in architecture. Springer Science & Business Media,
2002.
Zubrin, Robert. “The economic viability of Mars colonization.” British Interplanetary Society, Journal 48, no. 10 (1995): 407-414.
7
THE ARTIFACTS
STANDING ARCHITECTURE
Architecture has moved up and has moved away
from the ground, ultimately seeking to discover what
the world is like through a new understanding of the
ground. Buildings today stand, jut, float, walk, and fly
to reject the ground, aiming to both address contemporary issues and conjecture about the future of
the built environment away from the constraints of
both earth and the Earth.
These ten artifacts exemplify the various ways in
which architecture can get off the ground. Each theoretical work predates the built work it is paired with,
revealing the translation of ground-based architectural theory from concept to reality.
The future of the architecture-ground relationship
likely depends on how the ground is treated today, as
contemporary actions and attitudes will shape human attitude and dependence on ground for everyday life. Architecture may physically leave the surface, but today it must still understand it, whether
standing 3 meters off the ground or flying hundreds
of miles away.
8
Speculative
Built
IDEOLOGICAL SUPERSTRUCTURES
THE SHARP CENTRE
El Lissitzky, 1929
Will Alsop, 2004
In El Lissitzky’s Ideological Superstructures, he analyzes the future of architecture in wake of aviation. At
this time, Russian theorists were challenging the fundamentals of art, language, and architecture, looking
to the future to inspire, rather than the past. In architecture, El Lissitzky challenges the idea that buildings are fundamentally tied to the ground and are
bound by gravity. The example images show designs
that rise above the ground, standing on small stilts
or towers and projecting through the air. Ideological
Superstructures presents a picture of the ground
as something to be conquered. As humans leave
the ground in airplanes, argued Lissitzky, so should
they be able to escape the ground in architecture.
Lissitzky’s argument is largely predicated on technological progress, as with many of the designers that
look towards the future. It’s interesting to consider
the future of architecture that reflects the ways in
which humans travel, especially because the ground
is often an obstacle to circulation around the globe.
Erasing the presence of ground friction from travel
with flight was a monumental leap in transportation
technology. Yet architecture and airplanes, despite
how high they go, must always touch down on earth.
This point of connection between sky and earth is
crucial to architecture and is clearly visible in Lissitzky’s work. The question of whether this link should be
severed or reinforced is vital to the discipline.
The Sharp Center (section on the cover) is a valuable
example of architecture that stands above its surroundings, echoing many of the conceptual ideas of
El Lissitzky in Ideological Superstructures. The architect, Will Alsop, argued that the design was created to solve several problems. Firstly, the building
was elevated to preserve the existing structures on
the block. Though the introduction of the “tabletop”
form standing on stilts above the older structures
below is visually palimpsestic, Alsop argued that
the overarching structure of the Sharp Centre was
unifying to the entire block’s variety of architectural
styles. Lastly, echoing many of the theoretical arguments of standing architecture, Alsop argued that by
building a design with a minimized footprint, existing paths of circulation would be preserved around
the site. The Sharp Centre speaks to a larger trend in
architecture that rejects the ground, particularly in
the urban environment; the argument of space preservation is key. Because people almost exclusively
use the ground to navigate the city, airspace is much
more economical for constructing projects that have
an obligation to preserve their dense surrounding
environment. As the world’s population continues
to grow and become more urban, the Sharp Centre
is a salient example of the choices many designers
are making; building up is crucial to sustaining an increasingly crowded and diverse built environment.
Lissitzky, El. “Ideological Superstructures.” In Programs and Manifestoes on 20-th century Archi-
“THE SHARP CENTRE | By Will Alsop.” Archello. Accessed May 04, 2019. https://archello.com/proj-
tecture. Cambridge: Massachusets Institute of Technology Press, 1970.
ect/the-sharp-centre.
9
JUTTING ARCHITECTURE
FLOATING ARCHITECTURE
Speculative
Built
Speculative
Built
CITY IN THE AIR
HOUSE ON THE ROCK
PLAN FOR TOKYO BAY
THEATER OF THE WORLD
Arata Isozaki, 1962
Alex Jordan Jr., 1985
Kenzo Tange, 1960
Aldo Rossi, 1979
Arata Isozaki and his Metabolist colleagues present
another intriguing picture of jutting architecture that
minimizes its reliance on the ground. Isozaki was concerned with ideas of overpopulation and crowding in
the city, arguing that cantilevered housing projects like
his Clusters in the Air would free up the ground for human life. This presents an interesting argument that architecture’s sprawl across the ground can actually be
detrimental to human health, and that by building up,
the ground is freed to be its natural self. It’s particularly interesting to consider today in cities that struggle with air pollution affecting their residents. Is the
ground truly an unhealthy alternative to the air which is
constantly toxified by human emissions? Additionally,
by building away from the ground and up in the air, the
resulting ground condition is fundamentally changed.
Monumental shadows and falling debris from cantilevering structures would arguably make the ground
less pleasant and distort the natural conditions which
the Metabolists sought. Thus, the City in the Air project
reveals that, even by designing away from the ground
and with a minimized footprint, the ground is still affected in a myriad ways. Perhaps Isozaki and his colleagues were extremely prescient, and the future will
not be tied to the ground, thus negating concerns of
altered life on earth. Yet even the most technologically
advanced cities today require anchors in the ground,
which sustains human life on the planet.
The House on the Rock, located in Spring Green,
WI, is a bold display of both reliance on and independence from the ground. The 197-ft cantilevered
span of the building’s infinity room is indicative of a
different kind of rejection of the ground – it makes
a horizontal statement. The jutting room gives the
illusion of being infinitely long from the inside, while
also showcasing landscape views out of lateral windows. The motivations behind the cantilever are
almost purely formal, and because Alex Jordan Jr.
was not a trained architect, likely free of ‘theoretical’ motivations. The House on the Rock was designed as a showcase of unique experiences which
aimed to shock and surprise visitors. The infinity
room clearly demonstrates a provocative attitude
towards the ground, one which views the ground
as a point of intersection, not as a volume for embracing. Interestingly, the rest of the home is built
into a boulder formation at the base of the infinity
room. This juxtaposition of embracing and denying
the ground is indicative of the larger dialogue about
the ground’s purpose in architecture, particularly in
the rural environment, where space is less limited.
Can and should architecture be able to do both? Or
is architecture’s ultimate purpose to be the house
on the rock, not within the rock or even without it?
Where and how does architecture draw the line between the two?
Kenzo Tange’s Plan for Tokyo Bay reflects the concerns many had for the pace at which cities were
expanding. If cities were to keep rapidly expanding,
where would everyone live and work? To Tange, the
answer lay in the Bay of Tokyo, which he saw as the
ideal space in which to expand and unify the city.
The plan followed traditional city planning techniques of creating hierarchical axis of circulation
linking nodal places of work, living, play, and worship: just over water instead of land. Tange’s plan
presents a snapshot of the architectural attitude
towards the city as something fixed and translated
into a dynamic environment. Tange saw the dynamism of the Tokyo Bay plan in its modularity and
expandability, rather than the ability of individual segments to move around. Thus, the Tokyo Bay
Plan is in many ways much more about expanding
the land-city of Tokyo above the water, rather than
harnessing the unique properties of water. Though
the organicism of Tange’s utopian plan for a Tokyo
megastructure is clear, the understanding of architecture’s dynamic possibilities in the absence of
ground is stunted by a reliance on traditional methods of design. What does an architecture without
axis, without nodes, and without ground look like in
a watery environment? What is the role of the architect or the planner when individuals can steer their
own buildings?
Aldo Rossi’s pavilion for the Venice Biennale of 1979
presents a complex view of architecture as something which can have its foundation on water as
opposed to land. On one hand, the Theater of the
World takes advantage of the material properties
of the water on which it floats, often being untethered from any mooring, thus untethered from the
ground. On the other hand, the architectural design
is cartoonishly simple and “building-like”, which reinforces how odd it is for a traditional building to
be separated from the ground. Thus, Rossi creates
a dialogue between how architecture is traditionally understood, and its potential to exist in unfamiliar environments. In many ways, Rossi’s building
blurs the line between architectural and naval vessel, revealing the potential for individual buildings
to become independent, movable, and separated
from the ground. The possibilities of architecture
that can drift, float, and become unmoored from
the city are myriad, especially when considered at
the scale of the entire city. What if an entire city
could float above the waves? How does the relationship between people and the spaces they occupy change if the spaces can move along with the
people? Rossi’s Theater of the World poses many
of these questions, seeking to understand their
implications-- much like Tange’s Tokyo project, it
calls “grounded” city planning into question.
Lehmann, Steffen. “Reappraising the Visionary Work of Arata Isozaki: Six Decades and Four
“Wisconsin Attraction | Resort | Golf.” House on the Rock. Accessed May 04, 2019. https://www.
Lin, Zhongjie. Kenzo Tange and the Metabolist movement: urban utopias of modern Japan. Rout-
Rossi, Aldo, Carter Ratcliff, and Stefanie Lew. Aldo Rossi: drawings and paintings. Princeton Ar-
Phases.” Arts6, no. 4 (2017): 10. doi:10.3390/arts6030010.
thehouseontherock.com/.
ledge, 2010.
chitectural Press, 1993.
10
11
WALKING ARCHITECTURE
FLYING ARCHITECTURE
Speculative
Built
Speculative
Built
WALKING CITIES
WALKING HOUSE
THE DEATH STAR
THE INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION
Archigram, 1966
N55, 2010
George Lucas, 1977
Global Space Agencies, 1998-Present
Archigram presents a radical view of the ground
through their Walking Cities project, imagining
what a moving city could look like. This project
sees ground as a surficial field for movement
across, rather than a complex volume for foundation. The scale of this project is what makes it
particularly remarkable. Large vessels that serve
as pseudo-cities, like cruise ships, exist, but not
for land travel. Archigram’s imagination of what
an amphibious city could look like provokes questions about large-scale relationship the ground.
Today, every city in the world is tied to the ground
through complex systems of foundations, power
lines, and sewers. A city that walks must reinvent
all of these connections to the ground in a portable way. Intriguingly, this project, similarly to Le
Corbusier’s ideas in his 5 Points, does not totally erase the idea of ground, just the link between
ground and place. Yes, the moving cities could
theoretically traverse the globe, but they still
must walk on the ground as Archigram imagines
it. Thus, even the most radical ideas in architecture still hold on to the ground as an anchor for
reality. If cities are, by definition, not nomadic,
what changes when they are freed from their specific place on the ground? How would they fuel
up or plug in to a larger system, or could they be
completely self-sufficient?
N55’s Walking House echoes the ideas of Archigram’s Walking City at a much smaller scale. Perhaps Archigram’s thesis is fundamentally changed
when the architecture itself moves, as opposed
to the city as a whole. Individual moving buildings
offer much more independence than a moving
city would, but they also bring up similar issues of
plugging in to a larger network of support systems.
Just as RVs need to fill up at gas stations on long
road trips, moving homes like N55’s Walking House
or the ever-prevalent tiny houses of today need to
plug in to larger systems of transportation, food,
water, etc. These systems, particularly of transportation, are vital to the understanding of nomadic architecture like Walking Cities or the Walking
House. Clearly the Walking House can’t take advantage of traditional vehicular circulation paths
like highways or trails; it’s too slow for the former
and too large for the latter. Thus, perhaps mobile
architecture must be able to synthesize with contemporary transportation technologies in order
to succeed in the long run. What would cities of
Walking Houses look like? Would they be more efficient, flexible, or healthy than the cities of today?
N55’s project explores these ideas of groundless
and placeless architecture, seeking to reimagine
what residential life could be in the absence of the
restrictions of site.
Science fiction architecture presents some of the
most radical departures from the typical understanding of the ground. One particularly salient example of flying architecture with no ground is the
Death Star from the Star Wars franchise. As a pseudo-moon of its own, the Death Star is both ground
and construct, and is theoretically completely free
of any ties to the ground. Yet despite its apparent freedom from the physical constraints of the
ground, the Death Star is still not completely free
from the idea of the ground. It has a clear top and
bottom, and is organized much like a traditional
building, with sequential floors layered above one
another. Inside, the Death Star has its own gravity
system, which reinforces the idea of top and bottom and allows the construct to be navigated similarly to a traditional building. Though a fantastic
imagination of space architecture, the Death Star
reveals that the human reliance on the ground is
pervasive both in how we think and how we build.
If designing for space frees architects from nearly
every common constraint including gravity and a
ground plane, it brings into question the value of
these constraints for architecture. Perhaps design
would have nothing to account for without constraints such as the ground. And, perhaps humans
need a sense of ground in their built constructs,
even if none exists naturally.
The most sans-ground construct of this exhibition
exists. It is the International Space Station, which
orbits the Earth as a modular research station
and is a clear example of design without ground.
The formal design of the project, aggregated cylindrical modules, speaks to the anti-gravitational nature of life inside the ISS. Because there is
no up or down in space, the design accounts for
this by maximizing space along the surface area
of the tubes. There’s no ground needed to stand
on, which is beneficial for spatial efficiency of
research on the International Space Station; every surface is operable. The ISS is not completely
freed of positional and orientational constraints,
as its access to sunlight is vital to the constructs’
power, and its orbit around the Earth also keeps
it from totally free movement. Also, shipments of
food and supplies from the Earth are required for
the sustainability of the ISS. Yet it is the closest
that humans have managed to get to completely
groundless architecture, an architecture which has
no up, no down, and is completely suspended away
from the ground plane of planet Earth. Perhaps the
International Space Station reveals the true final
frontier of architecture that seeks to propel itself
up, up and away from the ground; only in space are
the commonly understood constraints of design
broken.
Sadler, Simon. Archigram Architecture without Architecture. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2005.
“N55: Walking House.” Designboom. August 21, 2013. Accessed May 04, 2019. https://www.
Wolf, Mark JP. “Adapting the Death Star into LEGO: The case of LEGO set# 10188.” In LEGO Studies,
Kitmacher, Gary H. Reference guide to the international space station. 2006.
designboom.com/architecture/n55-walking-house/.
pp. 41-65. Routledge, 2014.
12
13