7. Discontinuous volumes--determinant groups-- 
centralized distribution (example: any hotel) 
8, Discontinuous volumes--determinant group-- 
homogeneous distribution (example: university 
campus). 
Obviously there are many other examples for each 
heading. I have tried to visualize only a few of 
them. 
It is clear that we could represent all of the eight 
principal behavior types on a network as a result of 
the three influence diagrams printed one on the 
others. If one cannot do the "urban mechanisms" 
study (that gives far more gradations than the 
simplified classification), it can always be helpful 
to define the organization type one has to deal with 
by the reduced list, and to represent the problem in 
the form of three distinct influence diagrams on a 
previously chosen network using the considerations 
pointed out in the previous chapters, 
Vill.” CONCLUSION: THE ORDERING PROCESS 
The chief purpose of this seminar has been to attempt to 
transform architecture and planning its actual situation 
(a form of witch-doctorship, a set of uncoordinated 
kitchen recipe-type knowledge) into a well-ordered 
discipline, by trying to introduce an ordering process. 
This ordering process consists of listing all possible 
solutions, even if in a very simplified form. The 
intuitive activity that could add an artistic value to 
architecture/planning consists in the choice from this 
list and the manner in which the choice is translated 
into a hardware object. But however this choice and 
hardware realization are done, if the construction of 
the list was done in a clear way, at least the product 
(building or townpart) will work well, a feat that 
becomes rather exceptional in the work of the last 
decades. 
IX, 
AN EXAMPLE: A PERSONAL PROPOSITION, 
THE "SPATIAL TOWN" 
| would like to close this seminar with an example that 
| have been working on since 1958 through which I can 
demonstrate the utilization of the ordering process, 
The problem, as it seemed to me (and continues to seem) 
for architects, was that none should regulate the 
private lives of other people, But as things are, even 
choices that do not seem to concern anyone other than 
the chooser, in reality impose things on other persons, 
e.g. a skyscraper’s shadow cone imposes the way its 
neighbors build, even though the skyscraper is not on 
the neighbor’s plot, So I tried to look for a system of 
minimizing choice in the name of other persons, or 
imposing things on other persons. 
What are the typical choices involved in architectural 
activity? 
1. Choice of personal environment for someone in the 
framework of a community environment, 
2. Choice of distribution systems in a community 
pattern, 
3. Choice of ‚technological means for the hardware 
solution. 
Actually, all of these choices the architect/planner 
does for his client, in his name, but without knowing 
how the client (often even unknown by the architect/ 
planner) would choose, if he could do it himself, 
The first of these choices, that of the personal 
environment, is without any doubt a choice belonging 
to the client, and it does not imply the need of an 
intermediator, like the architect. The satisfaction of 
the community environment still stays with the 
architect, but what we mean by community is not 
necessarily a constituted group, but a group of the type 
stated in axiom a2, (and it can exist in a silent way). 
The architect does not know its characteristics, as size, 
rules, etc. As the building or townpart realized by the 
architect/planner has to be in some relationship with 
the size of the group, a size that the architect/planner 
does not know, and in order not to impose any pressure 
on the client’s personal choice to belong to any group 
he. might desire, and for the group’s choice to change 
its own size, the hardware construction proposed by the 
architect/planner should be without fixed boundaries, 
interior or exterior ones, Now, we found previously, 
that architects have to produce bounded volumes, 
Architects today, working for a multitude of humans, 
have to resign their original task and resume a hew one, 
instead of bounded volumes the architect’s task shifts to 
the construction of rules of assembly of arbitrarily 
chosen volumes and for arbitrary groupings of such 
volumes chosen directly by the groups according to 
their admitted or tacit rules, 
These considerations show that the architect’s task 
becomes the realization of networks, as networks permi{ 
any use following any behavior pattern possible. These 
networks | call "infrastructure", 
The second choice, concerning distribution systems, is 
evidently satisfied by networks, as we saw in our 
previous chapters, 
The same statement is true concerning technological 
means, Networks are realizable as hardware . 
The task before me was thus the choice of the most 
appropriate network, in a given context. So the second 
step was to find out the criteria involved in this context. 
These criteria were the following: 
1. A given list of sizes for utilized volumes, consisting 
of two types of volumes: a volume for individual use 
(approximately 6 m. x 6 m.) and another one for 
community use (approximately 60 m, x 60 m.). 
(Sizes are given only to indicate the range). 
2. A unique distribution technique is utilized in the 
context: all distribution is effectuated by physical 
transportation (movement). 
3. Daylight need, as no equivalent physical substitute 
exists, imposed the surface multiplication limit 
previously treated, 
The two types of volumes mentioned in 1, are clearly 
differentiated from a technical point of view by the 
correspopding payload brackets (approximately 
50 ka/m”“ for the indivicdyal volumes and 
approximately 200 kg/m?“ for the community volumes) 
ARCH + 1(1968)H2