Academic literature on the topic 'Philosophie et urbanisme'

L’historienne des idées et philosophe Françoise Choay a contribué à structurer le champ intellectuel de l’urbanisme. L’article revient sur la notion de modèle telle que celle-ci a été mobilisée dans deux ouvrages en particulier : L’urbanisme : utopies et réalités (1965) et La règle et le modèle (1980), compris à la fois comme les jalons d’une pensée et des approches complémentaires. Après une clarification du concept de modèle entendu comme image de la ville future, il apparaît que celui-ci se voit chez Choay durablement rapproché de celui d’utopie. L’article se demande si une conception trop fermée de l’un et de l’autre comme se destinant à être appliqués n’est pas une cause, après celui de leur important succès, de la moindre pertinence de leur valeur pratique, et de leur faible applicabilité aux théories plus récentes. Une thématique seconde dans le développement de l’œuvre, la temporalité, nourrit un nouvel intérêt.

«Exclusion», «ségrégation», «marginalisation», et quelques autres… Tous les mots, cela relève de la lapalissade, véhiculent plusieurs acceptions selon les périodes, les «milieux professionnels», les locuteurs, et chacun mérite une attention toute particulière, afin non seulement d’éviter le contresens mais surtout pour échanger, débattre et se comprendre. Les mots exclusion, ségrégation et marginalisation sont lourdement connotés ; c’est pourquoi Thierry Paquot, philosophe, professeur des universités et éditeur de la revue «Urbanisme», se propose d’en préciser le sens.

Résumé Au cours d’un entretien, Paul Virilio, philosophe et urbaniste, revient sur des questions qui traversent toute son œuvre : les accidents du Progrès, les ravages de l’accélération du monde, la fin de la géographie, le dépassement des notions classiques de « sédentarité » et de « nomadisme ».

Il pensiero di Urbano II è stato al centro di numerosi studi, volti pricipalmente a comprendere la genesi della spedizione gerosolimitana del 1096-1099. L’articolo riesamina le fonti urbaniane, con particolare riguardo all’epistolario papale, sottolineando le peculiari posizioni papali nell’ambito della “riforma ecclesiastica” dell’XI secolo. Quella specifica forma di guerra che definiamo “crociata” – termine sconosciuto ai contemporanei – fu, anzitutto, un mezzo per riportare in seno alla “cattolicità” le antiche sedi episcopali, sia in Europa, sia nel Mediterraneo, sia Asia, senza distinzioni. Lo scopo di tale costruzione, innanzitutto ideologica, è da ricercarsi nella progressiva costruzione del primato petrino, nell’ambito della contrapposizione fra il clero riformatore, quello imperiale e quello greco.

Les projets urbains et territoriaux sont à considérer aujourd’hui comme une « forme de recherche » spécifique productrice de connaissance – « construite avec des outils et à travers des opérations qui lui sont propres » (Viggano, 2012) – qui permet de questionner la fabrique contemporaine de la ville et du territoire. Point de rencontre entre les réseaux et l’urbain, la gare contemporaine est devenue récemment un point de passage presque inévitable des déplacements quotidiens, lieu-entre-deux-mouvements (Amar, 2010) que les architectes, les urbanistes, les ingénieurs transport, les philosophes et les artistes pensent et conçoivent comme une expérience synesthétique et cinétique renouvelée. À travers le travail de Jacques Ferrier et de son agence Sensual City Studio pour les gares du Grand Paris Express, cet article aura pour objectif de s’interroger sur les « empreintes » (Shannon Smets, 2010) des réseaux de mobilité sur les territoires métropolitains, et sur les « impressions » suscitées par ces lieux sur les voyageurs lors de leur passage en gare.

Re-Framing Participation in the Architecture Studio Recently, within design literature, significant attention has been given to collaboration across different disciplines (see for instance, Nicolini et al.; Carlile), as well as consideration of the breakdown of traditional disciplinarity and the corresponding involvement of users in co-generation (Sanders and Stappers, “Co-Creation” 11–12) through the development and deployment of structured methods and toolkits (Sanders et al., “Framework”; Sanders and Stappers, “Probes”). Relatively less attention has been paid to the workings of the “communities of practice” (Wenger) operating within the disciplinary domain of architecture. The discourse around concept design in architecture has tended to emphasise individualist approaches driven by personal philosophies, inspirations, imitation of a more experienced designer, and emphasis on latent talent or genius (for instance, Moneo). This can be problematic because without a shared language and methods there are limited opportunities for making meaning to facilitate participation between collaborators in architectural studio settings. It is worth asking then: are there things that “Architecture” might learn from “Design” about the deployment of structured methods, and might this interdisciplinary exchange promote participatory practices in studio-based cultures? We address this question by connecting and building on two important concepts relevant to design methods, meta-design as described in the open design literature (De Mul 36–37), and design frames as described by Schön and formalised by Dorst (‘Core’; Frame; see also Weedon). Through this combination, we propose a theory of participation by making shared meaning in architectural design. We animate our theoretical contribution through a design toolkit we have developed, refined, and applied over several years in typologically focused architectural design studios in Australian university contexts. One important contribution, we argue, is to the area of design theory-building, by taking two previously unrelated concepts from the design methods literature. We draw them together using an example from our own design practices to articulate a new term and concept for making shared meaning in design. The other contribution made is to the translation of this concept into the context of studio-based architectural practice, a setting that has traditionally struggled to accept structured methods. The existence of other form-metaphor design tools available for architecture and the theoretical basis of their development and connection to design literature more broadly has not always been clearly articulated (see for example Di Mari and Yoo; Lewis et al.). The rationale for giving an account of the construction and deployment of our own toolkit is to illustrate its theoretical contribution while providing the basis for future field testing and translation (including by other researchers), noting the established trajectory of this kind of work in the design literature (see, for example, Hoolohan and Browne; Visser et al.; Vaajakallio and Mattelmäki; Sanders and Stappers, “Co-Creation” and ”Probes”). In line with this issue’s thematic and epistemological agenda, we adopt what Cross identifies as “designerly ways of knowing” (223), and is at least partly a reflection on a practice in which we engage with our own disciplines and research interests to propose and deploy design thinking as a kind of critical “reflection-in-action” (Robertson and Simonsen 2). Meta-Framing: Combining Meta-Design and Framing Meta-design is a term used in open design literature to describe approaches aimed toward orchestration of a project in such a way that people are afforded the agency to become effective co-designers, regardless of their pre-existing skills or design-specific knowledge (De Mul 36). According to a meta-design approach, design is conceived of as a shared project of mutual learning instead of an individualistic expression of singular genius. Through the establishment of shared protocols and formats, what Ehn (1) calls “infrastructuring”, individuals with even very limited design experience are provided scaffolds that enable them to participate in a design project. One important way in which meta-design helps “create a pathway through a design space” is through the careful selection and adoption of shared guiding metaphors that provide common meanings between co-designers (De Mul 36). The usefulness of metaphors is also recognised in the context of design frames, the second concept on which we build our theory. Conceptualised as “cognitive shortcuts” for making “sense of complex situations” (Haase and Laursen 21), design frames were first conceived of by Schön (132) as a rational approach to design, one guided by “epistemological norms”. Frames have subsequently been further developed within the design methods literature and are defined as a system of counterfactual design decision-making that uses metaphors to provide a rationale for negotiating ill-structured problems. According to Dorst, frames involve: the creation of a (novel) standpoint from which a problematic situation can be tackled … . Although frames are often paraphrased by a simple metaphor, they are in fact very complex sets of statements that include the specific perception of a problem situation, the (implicit) adoption of certain concepts to describe the situation, a ‘working principle’ that underpins a solution and the key thesis: IF we look at the problem situation from this viewpoint, and adopt the working principle associated with that position, THEN we will create the value we are striving for. (525) Despite Schön choosing to illustrate his original conception of framing through the example of a student’s architectural design project, there has been limited subsequent consideration of framing in architectural studio contexts—an exception being Eissa in 2019. This may be because formalised design methods have tended to be treated with suspicion within architectural culture. For instance, Christopher Alexander’s Pattern Language is one such “highly systemised design process” (Dawes and Ostwald 10) that despite its potential to guide participatory design has had an “uneven reception” (Bhatt 716) within architecture itself. One way architecture as a disciplinary domain and as a profession has attempted to engage with design method is through typology, which is one of the few persistent and recurring notions in architectural discourse (Bandini; Grover et al.). As a system of classification, typology categorises “forms and functions as simply and unequivocally as possible” (Oechslin 37). In addition to being used as a classification system, typology has also been positioned as “a process as much as an object”, one with the potential for an “active role in the process of design” (Lathouri 25). Type and typology have been conceptualised as a particular way of projecting architecture’s “disciplinary agency” (Jacoby 936), and this goes some way to explaining their enduring value. A potentially valid criticism of framing is that it can tend toward “design fixation”, when a pre-existing assumption “inadvertently restricts the designers’ imagination” (Crilly). Similarly, typology-as-method—as opposed to a classification tool—has been criticised for being relatively “inflexible” or “reductive” (Shane 2011) and responsible for perpetuating “conservative, static norms” (Jacoby 932) if applied in a rote and non-reflexive way. We deal with these concerns in the discussion of the deployment of our Typekit below. We are drawing here on our experience teaching in the first two years of undergraduate architecture degrees in Australian university settings. As well as being equipped with a diversity of educational, social, linguistic, and cultural backgrounds, students typically have divergent competencies in the domain-specific skills of their discipline and a limited vocabulary for making shared meaning in relation to an architectural proposal. The challenge for studio-based collaborative work in such a context is developing shared understandings and a common language for working on a design project to enable a variety of different design solutions. The brief for a typical studio project will specify a common site, context, and program. Examples we have used include a bathhouse, fire station, archive, civic centre, and lifesaving club. There will then be multiple design solutions proposed by each studio participant. Significantly we are talking about relatively well-structured problems here, typically a specific building program for a specified site and user group. These are quite unlike the open-ended aims of “problem frames” described in the design thinking literature “to handle ill-defined, open-ended, and ambiguous problems that other problem-solving methodologies fail to handle” (Haase and Laursen 21). However, even for well-structured problems, there is still a multitude of possible solutions possible, generated by students working on a particular project brief. This openness reduces the possibility of making shared meaning and thus hinders participation in architectural design. Designing the Typekit The Typekit was developed heuristically out of our experiences teaching together over several years. As part of our own reflective practice, we realised that we had begun to develop a shared language for describing projects including that of students, our own, precedents and canonical works. Often these took the form of a simple formal or functional metaphor such as “the building is a wall”; “the building is an upturned coracle”; or “the building is a cloud”. While these cognitive shortcuts proved useful for our communication there remained the possibility for this language to become esoteric and exclusionary. On the other hand, we recognised the potential for this approach to be shared beyond our immediate “interpretive community” (Fish 485) of two, and we therefore began to develop a meta-design toolkit. Fig. 1: Hybrid page from the Typekit We began by developing a visual catalogue of formal and functional metaphors already present within the panoply of constructed contemporary architectural projects assembled by surveying the popular design media for relevant source material. Fig. 2: Classification of contemporary architectural built work using Typekit metaphors We then used simple line drawings to generate abstract representations of the observed building metaphors adopting isometry to maintain a level of objectivity and a neutral viewing position (Scolari). The drawings themselves were both revelatory and didactic and by applying what Cross calls “designerly ways of knowing” (Cross 223) the toolkit emerged as both design artefact and output of design research. We recognised two fundamentally different kinds of framing metaphors in the set of architectural projects we surveyed, rule-derived and model-derived—terms we are adapting from Choay’s description of “instaurational texts” (8). Rule-derived types describe building forms that navigate the development of a design from a generic to a specific form (Baker 70–71) through a series of discrete “logical operators” (Choay 134). They tend to follow a logic of “begin with x … perform some operation A … perform some operation B … end up with y”. Examples of such operations include add, subtract, scale-translate-rotate, distort and array. Model-derived framing metaphors are different in the way they aim toward an outcome that is an adapted version of an ideal initial form. This involves selecting an existing type and refining it until it suits the required program, site, and context. Examples of the model-derived metaphors we have used include the hedgehog, caterpillar, mountain, cloud, island, and snake as well as architectural Ur-types like the barn, courtyard, tent, treehouse, jetty, and ziggurat. The framing types we included in the Typekit are a combination of rule-derived and model-derived as well as useful hybrids that combined examples from different categories. This classification provides a construct for framing a studio experience while acknowledging that there are other ways of classifying formal types. Fig. 3: Development of isometric drawings of metaphor-frames After we developed a variety of these line drawings, we carried out a synthesis and classification exercise using a version of the KJ method. Like framing, KJ is a technique of abduction developed for dealing objectively with qualitative data without a priori categorisation (Scupin; Kawakita). It has also become an established and widely practiced method within design research (see, for instance, Hanington and Martin 104–5). Themes were developed from the images, and we aimed at balancing a parsimony of typological categories with a saturation of types, that is to capture all observed types/metaphors and to put them in as few buckets as possible. Fig. 4: Synthesis exercise of Typekit metaphors using the KJ method (top); classification detail (bottom) Deploying the Typekit We have successfully deployed the Typekit in architectural design studios at two universities since we started developing it in 2018. As a general process participants adopt a certain metaphor as the starting point of their design. Doing so provides a frame that prefigures other decisions as they move through a concept design process. Once a guiding metaphor is selected, it structures other decision-making by providing a counterfactual logic (Byrne 30). For instance, if a building-as-ramp is chosen as the typology to be deployed this guides a rationale as to where and how it is placed on the site. People should be able to walk on it; it should sit resolutely on the ground and not be floating above it; it should be made of a massive material with windows and doors appearing to be carved out of it; it can have a green occupiable roof; quiet and private spaces should be located at the top away from street noise; active spaces such as a community hall and entry foyer should be located at the bottom of the ramp … and so on. The adoption of the frame of “building-as-ramp” by its very nature is a crucial and critical move in the design process. It is a decision made early in the process that prefigures both “what” and “how” types of questions as the project develops. In the end, the result seems logical even inevitable but there are many other types that could have potentially been explored and these would have posed different kinds of questions and resulted in different kinds of answers during the process. The selection of a guiding metaphor also allows students to engage with historical and contemporary precedents to offer further insights into the development—as well as refinement—of their own projects within that classification. Even given the well-structured nature of the architectural project, precedents provide useful reference points from which to build domain-specific knowledge and benchmarks to measure the differences in approaches still afforded within each typological classification. We believe that our particular meta-framing approach addresses concerns about design fixation and balances mutual learning with opportunities for individual investigation. We position framing less about finding innovative solutions to wicked problems to become more about finding ways for a group of people to reason together through a design problem process by developing and using shared metaphors. Thus our invocation of framing is aligned to what Haase and Laursen term “solution frames” meaning they have an “operational” meaning-making agenda and provide opportunities for developing shared understanding between individuals engaged in a given problem domain (Haase and Laursen 20). By providing a variety of opportunities within an overarching “frame of frames” there are opportunities for parallel design investigation to be undertaken by individual designers. Meta-framing affords opportunities for shared meaning-making and a constructive discourse between different project outcomes. This occurs whether adopting the same type to enable questions including “How is my building-as-snake different from your building-as-snake?”, “Which is the most snake-like?”, or different types (“In what ways is my building-as-ramp different to your building-as-stair?”) By employing everyday visual metaphors, opportunities for “mutual learning between mutual participants” (Robertson and Simonsen 2) are enhanced without the need for substantial domain-specific architectural knowledge at a project’s outset. We argue that the promise of the toolkit and our meta-framing approach more generally is that it actually multiples rather than forecloses opportunities while retaining a shared understanding and language for reasoning through a project domain. This effectively responds to concerns that typology-as-method is a conservative or reductive approach to architectural design. It is important to clarify the role of our toolkit and its relationship to our theory-building agenda. On the basis of the findings accounted for here we do claim to draw specific conclusions about the efficacy of our toolkit. We simply did not collect experimental data relevant to that task. We can, however, use the example of our toolkit to animate, flesh out, and operationalise a model for collaboration in architectural design that may be useful for teaching and practicing architecture in collaborative, team-based contexts. The contribution of this account, therefore, is theoretical. That is, the adaptation of concepts from design literature modified and translated into a new domain to serve new purposes. The Promise of Meta-Framing through Typology Through our work, we have outlined the benefits of adopting formalised design methods in architecture as a way of supporting participation, including using toolkits for scaffolding architectural concept design. Meta-framing has shown itself to be a useful approach to enable participation in architectural design in a number of ways. It provides coherence of an idea and architectural concept. It assists decision-making in any given scenario because a designer can decide which out of a set of choices makes more sense within the “frame” adopted for the project. The question becomes then not “what do I like?” or “what do I want?” but “what makes sense within the project frame?” Finally and perhaps most importantly it brings a common understanding of a project that allows for communication across a team working on the same problem, supporting a variety of different approaches and problem-solving logics a voice. By combining methodologies and toolkits from the design methods literature with architecture’s domain-specific typological classifications we believe we have developed an effective and adaptive model for scaffolding participation and making shared meaning in architecture studio contexts. References Baker, Geoffrey H. Design Strategies in Architecture: An Approach to the Analysis of Form. Taylor and Francis, 2003. Bandini, Micha. “Typology as a Form of Convention.” AA Files 6 (1984): 73–82. Bhatt, Ritu. “Christopher Alexander’s Pattern Language: An Alternative Exploration of Space-Making Practices.” Journal of Architecture 15.6 (2010): 711–29. Byrne, Ruth M.J. The Rational Imagination: How People Create Alternatives to Reality. MIT P, 2005. Carlile, Paul R. “Transferring, Translating, and Transforming: An Integrative Framework for Managing Knowledge across Boundaries”. Organization Science 15.5 (2004): 555–68. Choay, Françoise. The Rule and the Model: On the Theory of Architecture and Urbanism. MIT P, 1997 [1980]. Crilly, Nathan. “Methodological Diversity and Theoretical Integration: Research in Design Fixation as an Example of Fixation in Research Design?” Design Studies 65 (2019): 78–106. Cross, Nigel. “Designerly Ways of Knowing”. Design Studies 3.4 (1982): 221–27. Dawes, Michael J., and Michael J. Ostwald. “Christopher Alexander’s A Pattern Language: Analysing, Mapping and Classifying the Critical Response.” City, Territory and Architecture 4.1 (2017): 1–14. De Mul, Jos. “Redesigning Design”. In Open Design Now: Why Design Cannot Remain Exclusive, eds. Bas Van Abel, Lucas Evers, Roel Klaassen, and Peter Troxler. BIS Publishers, 2011. 34–39. Di Mari, Anthony, and Nora Yoo. Operative Design. BIS Publishers, 2012. Dorst, Kees. “The Core of ‘Design Thinking’ and Its Application”. Design Studies 32.6 (2011): 521–32. <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2011.07.006>. ———. Frame Innovation: Create New Thinking by Design. Design Thinking, Design Theory. MIT P, 2015. Ehn, Pelle. “Participation in Design Things.” In Proceedings of the Participatory Design Conference 2008. Bloomington, Indiana, 2008. 92–101 Eissa, Doha. “Concept Generation in the Architectural Design Process: A Suggested Hybrid Model of Vertical and Lateral Thinking Approaches.” Thinking Skills and Creativity 33 (2019). Fish, Stanley E. “Interpreting the ‘Variorum’.” Critical Inquiry 2.3 (1976): 465–85. Grover, Robert, Stephen Emmitt, and Alex Copping. “The Language of Typology.” Arq 23.2 (2019): 149–56. <https://doi.org/10.1017/S1359135519000198>. Haase, Louise Møller, and Linda Nhu Laursen. “Meaning Frames: The Structure of Problem Frames and Solution Frames”. Design Issues 35.3 (2019): 20–34. <https://doi.org/10.1162/desi_a_00547>. Hanington, Bruce, and Bella Martin. Universal Methods of Design: 100 Ways to Research Complex Problems, Develop Innovative Ideas, and Design Effective Solutions. Rockport Publishers, 2012. Hoolohan, Claire, and Alison L Browne. “Design Thinking for Practice-Based Intervention: Co-Producing the Change Points Toolkit to Unlock (Un)Sustainable Practices.” Design Studies 67 (2020): 102–32. Jacoby, Sam. “Typal and Typological Reasoning: A Diagrammatic Practice of Architecture.” Journal of Architecture 20.6 (2015): 938–61. <https://doi.org/10.1080/13602365.2015.1116104>. Kawakita, Jiro. “The KJ Method and My Dream towards the ‘Heuristic’ Regional Geography.” Japanese Journal of Human Geography 25.5 (1973): 493–522. Lathouri, Marina. “The City as a Project: Types, Typical Objects and Typologies.” Architectural Design 81.1 (2011): 24–31. Lewis, Paul, Marc Tsurumaki, and David J Lewis. Manual of Section. Princeton Architectural P, 2016. Moneo, José Rafael. Theoretical Anxiety and Design Strategies in the Work of Eight Contemporary Architects. MIT P, 2004. Nicolini, Davide, Jeanne Mengis, and Jacky Swan. “Understanding the Role of Objects in Cross-Disciplinary Collaboration”. Organization Science (Providence, R.I.) 23.3 (2012): 612–29. Oechslin, Werner. “Premises for the Resumption of the Discussion of Typology.” Assemblage 1 (1986): 37–53. Panzano, Megan. “Foreword.” In Operative Design: A Catalogue of Spatial Verbs, by Anthony Di Mari and Nora Yoo. Amsterdam: BIS Publishers, 2012. 6–7. Robertson, Toni, and Jesper Simonsen. “Participatory Design: An Introduction”. In Routledge International Handbook of Participatory Design, eds. Toni Robertson and Jesper Simonsen. Taylor and Francis, 2012. 1–18. Sanders, Elizabeth B.-N., Eva Brandt, and Thomas Binder. “A Framework for Organizing the Tools and Techniques of Participatory Design.” Proceedings of the 11th Biennial Participatory Design Conference. ACM, 2010. 195–98. DOI: 10.1145/1900441.1900476. Sanders, Elizabeth B.-N., and Pieter Jan Stappers. “Co-Creation and the New Landscapes of Design.” Co-Design 4.1 (2008,): 5–18. ———. “Probes, Toolkits and Prototypes: Three Approaches to Making in Codesigning.” CoDesign 10.1 (2014): 5–14. Schön, Donald A. “Problems, Frames and Perspectives on Designing.” Design Studies 5.3 (1984): 132–36. <https://doi.org/10.1016/0142-694X(84)90002-4>. Scolari, Massimo. Oblique Drawing: A History of Anti-Perspective. MIT P, 2012. Scupin, Raymond. “The KJ Method: A Technique for Analyzing Data Derived from Japanese Ethnology.” Human Organization, 1997. 233–37. Shane, David Grahame. "Transcending Type: Designing for Urban Complexity." Architectural Design 81.1 (2011): 128-34. Vaajakallio, Kirsikka, and Tuuli Mattelmäki. “Design Games in Codesign: As a Tool, a Mindset and a Structure.” CoDesign 10.1 (2014): 63–77. <https://doi.org/10.1080/15710882.2014.881886>. Visser, Froukje Sleeswijk, Pieter Jan Stappers, Remko van der Lugt, and Elizabeth B.N. Sanders. “Contextmapping: Experiences from Practice.” CoDesign 1.2 (2005): 119–49. Weedon, Scott. “The Core of Kees Dorst’s Design Thinking: A Literature Review.” Journal of Business and Technical Communication 33.4 (2019): 425–30. <https://doi.org/10.1177/1050651919854077>. Wenger, Etienne. Communities of Practice : Learning, Meaning, and Identity. Learning in Doing. Cambridge UP, 1988. Yaneva, Albena. The Making of a Building: A Pragmatist Approach to Architecture. Peter Lang, 2009.

La mesure dans l'espace architectural et urbain est une réflexion qui a pour objet de permettre à l'architecte et à l'urbaniste de s'ouvrir à une lecture philosophique de leur problématique. Le travail porte sur l'idée que l'analyse philosophique des concepts clés du sujet, que sont la mesure, l'espace, l'architecture et l'urbanisme, donne les outils nécessaires au lecteur pour se réapproprier les formes construites. Il montre, dans une démarche que revisite l'histoire, la place que chaque civilisation a donnée à l'homme et à la mesure au travers du construire. Elle initie le lecteur à comprendre le mécanisme de la perception et à se faire une idée précise de ce qu'est une esthétique architecturale en suggérant que chaque moment de la réflexion est une réaffirmation de l'idée, que l'homme et la mesure sont les clés pour une architecture réussie. Comprendre la mesure sous tous ses aspects met le doigt sur le mal être que l'homme ressent parce qu'on ne construit plus à sa mesure
The measure in the architectural space is to give an idea aiming at allowing the architectural engineer to be open to a philosophical reading of their problems. The research is based on the idea that the philosophical analysis of the main concepts of the work are: the measure, the space and architecture. The constructional planning gives the necessary tools to the reader so that he can accept the built shapes. It reveals the process of the work through a visit to history and the special place each civilization gives to man and measure through construction. It adapts the reader to understand the mechanism of perception. The aim is to give an exact idea about the architectural scope suggesting that any moment of the analysis is repeating the focus on the idea which says that man and measure is the key to successful architecture. Understanding the measure under all aspects is to put the finger on the worried feeling of man because we do not build according to the human measure

Le futur urbain est le point de commencement de l'actuel travail; Nous avons essayé d'éclaircir l'échec des projets prospectifs de l'après deuxième guerre mondiale. L'orientation des projets prospectivistes vers le tout morphologique les a écarté de la réalité historique de l'homme. Cet homme comme son environnement artificiel est condamné à uneévolution qui s'insère dans tout le parcours historique de l'humanité. Vouloir figer l'homme à un simple individu constant, malgré les mutations sociales et individuelles observées d'une décennie à une autre, est une piste erronée. Alors, afin d'éviter à la prospective urbaine le seul aspect sculptural et de lui donner une viabilité comme une science crédible, nous avons essayé de montrer la nature du rapport entre l'homme et son environnement artificiel. DE la perception biologique à l'étude de l'environnement vécu, des déterminants considérés comme le socle du vécu environnemental sont analysés et mis en lumière. L'identité, la mémoire et l'imagination environnementales représentent les trois facteurs essentiel du vécu environnemental. L'évolution historique n'a pas épargné ces facteurs essentiels. Depuis la révolution industrielle, l'environnement artificiel a connu beaucoup de mutations. L'homme de la fin du XXe siècle s'est transformé en un individu anonyme, son espace habitable s'est réduit à une série limitée de fonctions. Ce nouveau phénomène de la consommation spatiale est lié étroitement à la standardisation typologique de l'environnement artificiel, à son informatisation et à son nouveau statut de "façade-image". Alors, au lieu de s'acharner à garder la ville comme unique issue du futur environnemental, pourquoi ne pas s'intéresser à l'essentiel, c'est à dire à ce qui lie l'homme à son environnement. Si l'environnement artificiel évolue et se diversifie, quel avenir pour l'identité, la mémoire et l'imagination?

Pour construire la ville durable, systèmes de représentations et usages demandent à être revus dans notre société moderne. Revenir sur cet ordre symbolique et pratique, c'est revenir sur notre rapport à la Nature, à l'Autre, à nous-mêmes, et à notre Idéal. En ce sens, la place faîte à la science et à la technique est nécessairement à interroger, et avec elle, celle de la productivité et d'une vision libérale de la vie en société. Le développement des sciences et des techniques a effectivement généré une productivité dévastatrice au niveau écologique, et l'idéologie libérale empêche le politique de corriger les erreurs commises sur le plan humain comme sur le plan de la biosphère. Une philosophie de la décroissance favorisant les valeurs de bien-être aux dépens des valeurs productivistes et libéralistes, une philosophie faisant triompher l'ontologique devant la logique et l'instrumentalisme, pourrait modifier les attitudes mercantiles, et permettre à notre société de prendre le virage qu'il lui faut prendre. Cette révolution en termes de valeurs n'est pas sans risque sur le plan des idéologies, ni sans modifier par ailleurs nos identités en profondeur. Pour accompagner le phénomène de résilience sur le plan social, un travail intérieur, c'est-à-dire en chacun de nous, doit être engagé. VERS

La ville constitue le cadre de vie de nombreux groupes, et seule une connaissance différenciée des images que les groupes et les individus s'en forgent fournit les outils nécessaires à la construction d'un environnement urbain satisfaisant pour tout un chacun. Dégager une logique de la communication de la structure de l'expérience urbaine (à la fois ville physique et ville sensible), signifie alors bâtir une méthodologie de lecture, qui fournit les outils pour une stratégie de (re)qualification de la ville et de son image. L'image de la ville concerne la relation sensible, affective et communicationnelle que les utilisateurs entretiennent avec elle. L'utilisateur est donc placé au centre de toute la réflexion ; le principe fondateur de la démarche adoptée dans ce travail est de ramener les différentes approches disciplinaires de l'urbain à une problématique commune, à savoir la problématique sémantique, afin de disposer d'un dénominateur commun permettant d'offrir des réponses, en termes conceptuels, au problème de la (re)qualification de l'image de la ville. La mise en œuvre d'un protocole de qualification, à travers différentes méthodes d'écoute (qualitatives et quantitatives), a permis de degager des indicateurs qualité, c'est-à-dire des éléments de (re)qualification de la ville et de son image, susceptibles de revivifier la communication entre l'espace perçu et vecu, et son usager. La validation a été effectuée par une experimentation pratique portant sur la ville de Valenciennes.

Cette thèse a pour but d'étudier l’idée d’«habiter-au monde», dans une perspective philosophique et éthique. Elle commence à articuler l’idée heideggérienne d’être-au-monde et les notions de sortir et de rentrer proposées par G. Bachelard. Ensuite, cette thèse couple les philosophies de ces penseurs avec la théorie de l’action de H. Arendt, le poststructuralisme de P. Bourdieu et la critique de la ville par H. Lefebvre. A travers ces perspectives multiples, nous pouvons affirmer que l’idée d’habiter-au-monde désigne essentiellement la façon de vivre avec les autres, mais aussi le droit de vivre dans la communauté humaine. En fait, ce détour dialectique définit justement, d’une part, la méthodologie de P. Ricoeur, et, d’autre part, la fin de sa philosophie, c’est-à-dire la fin de l’Ethique du soi. Or, cette thèse veut confronter sa pensée avec celle d’E. Levinas - Ethique de l’autre. Par cela, cette étude redonnera vie aux vieux thèmes éthiques de «la bonne vie» et de «la vie juste». D’un autre côté, en acceptant la thèse ricoeurienne de «la vie bonne dans de bonnes institutions», cette thèse sera amenée à réfléchir sur la réalité de la vie communautaire
The broad objective of this study is to develop an argument advocating the concept of “habit-the-world” from both philosophical and ethical perspectives. The first two chapters prepare the philosophical argumentation in first articulating M. Heidegger’s concept of Dasein, then following with G. Bachelard’s concept of “human going out of and coming in the house. ” In order to fully develop the question of “habit-the-world" in relation with the actuality of humane society, this study introduces three contemporary thoughts: “The theory of the action” by H. Arendt, the sociological analysis of “habitus of habitation” by P. Bourdieu and the “critique de the capitalist city” by H. Lefebvre. Through these multiple perspectives this study asserts that “habit-the-world” is fundamental to the nature of “living with others” and as well as the “right to live” in the social-political community. This study is implicitly guided by the methodology of P. Ricoeur and his philosophical ethic, Ethic of Oneself as another. It also attempts to promote a conversation between Ricoeur and E. Levinas by reflecting his work Ethic of the other. By the dialectic between Levinas’ concept of “my infinitive responsibility for the other” and Ricoeur’s concept of “the good life in good institutions”, this study consequently argues that the world is the home where ‘me’ and ‘others’ need not be mutually exclusive

La philosophie se définit directement par l'usage et la création de concepts tandis que l'architecture est dédiée à la conception d'espaces et à la construction de bâtiments. L'une et l'autre font dépendre leur propre fonction structurante et expressive d'un rapport fondamental à l'espace et au temps, selon une expérience du sujet (de ses intuitions et de ses schèmes) qui pour n'être le plus souvent qu'implicite ou inconsciente, n'en précède pas moins tout art (sinon toute pensée), et toute production de forme. S'il n'exige aucun concept déterminé, du moins l'ouvrage d'architecture a-t-il pour effet de susciter des concepts élargis. C'est à partir de tels concepts que le présent essai est construit. Une notion (un nom) peut avoir un sens en philosophie et un autre en architecture : plan, cadre, bloc, fonction, détail ont été saisis selon ce double registre, à la fois conceptuel et technique. Philosophique ou architectural et urbain, leur sens implique de multiples composantes, et pourtant les différences peuvent en être articulées, assemblées. Car pensée et construction sont intimement mêlées : cette affirmation même, qui ne peut s'entendre sans travail du concept ni intelligence de la fabrication, définit une place de la philosophie aux côtés de l'architecture. Les bâtiments et les écrits de Rem Koolhaas actualisent un rapport de l'architecture et de l'urbanisme, non seulement aux problèmes généraux de l'espace, mais a plusieurs des grands créateurs du XXe siècle - Loos et Le Corbusier, Mies Van Der Rohe, Aldo Rossi, Peter Eisenman. . . Parallèlement l'intérêt théorique pour l'architecture s'exprime à l'intérieur même de la philosophie et à partir de ses concepts. Gilles Deleuze, Nelson Goodman, mais aussi bien Leibniz et Kant, Platon et Wittgenstein y trouvent des emplois et, parfois, des formes de contre-emploi.

Que veut dire inventer en architecture ? Cette vieille question se trouve reposée aujourd’hui avec insistance. En effet, les conditions contemporaines de l’habitation humaine caractérisées par une forme d’épuisement du dehors ont profondément bouleversé les modalités de cette activité. Fondée, dans la pensée occidentale du moins, sur un mouvement d’expansion, la constitution de milieux habités trouvait son sens dans la tension du rapport inquiet mais fertile à l’étrangeté radicale de l’extériorité. Afin d’analyser cette mutation, nous cherchons d’abord à saisir la profonde originalité de l’invention architecturale désignée comme « ligne d’édifier ». Son mouvement rythmique n’est ni celui de la découverte, ni celui de la création, mais procède plutôt par ouverture ou instauration d’un milieu habitable. Cette définition permet ensuite de revisiter quelques grands textes fondamentaux de l’histoire de l’architecture (Vitruve, Alberti, Ledoux, Le Corbusier). Interrogés à partir de l’hypothèse d’un effacement progressif de l’extériorité à l’empire humain, ces écrits laissent percevoir comment la ligne d’édifier, cette ligne du monde, s’infléchit jusqu’à éprouver une situation limite : le bouclage. La dernière partie de la recherche explore plus directement la situation contemporaine et les pistes émergentes permettant de sortir de l’épuisement. L’hypothèse de réponse, basée sur la puissance régénérative de l’invention architecturale par la reliance, invite à élaborer le concept de transmilieu(x). Dépassant les frontières entre les échelles, les disciplines, et entre nature et culture, ce concept pourrait constituer le point de départ d’une autre pensée de l’architecture
What does inventing mean in architecture? This ages-old question is being strongly reevaluated nowadays. Indeed, the contemporary conditions of human habitat, characterized by the outside being exhausted, have considerably changed this activity. Architectural invention has always been based, in Western thought at least, on a spreading movement. The conception of inhabited milieu has been dealing with the worrying but bountiful relationship with the strange exterior forces. In order to report on this metamorphosis, we have tried to define the profound originality of architectural invention as "the building line". Its rhythmic movement is neither that of discovery, nor that of creation, but rather proceeds by opening or establishing a livable environment. This definition then allows some of the great texts from the history of architecture (Vitruvius, Alberti, Ledoux, Le Corbusier) to be analyzed in a new way. Questions arise from the hypothesis of progressive disappearance of the exterior from the human empire. The analysis shows how the building line continues in parallel to the progressive loss of the exterior, bending until it turns back on itself, leading to a critical situation (the “bouclage”). The last part of the thesis investigates the contemporary age in more detail and aims to identify the emergent perspectives trying to escape from this situation. The answer is based on the regenerative power of architecture through interlinking (“reliance”), and it leads on develop the concept of “transmilieu(x)”. The concept travels beyond the frontiers between scales, disciplines, nature and culture, and could be the starting point of another way of thinking in architecture

Ce travail se propose d’étudier les théories lefebvriennes de l’espace, de la ville et de l’urbain. Il analyse dans un premier temps les six livres consacrés par Henri Lefebvre à cette problématique : Du rural à l’urbain (paru en 1970 mais contenant des articles allant de 1949 à 1969), Le droit à la ville (1968), La révolution urbaine (1970), La pensée marxiste et la ville (1972), Espace et politique (1973), La production de l’espace (1974). Nous analysons ensuite la trentaine d’articles, de communications, de chapitres d’ouvrages et de films, consacrés à ces thèmes par Lefebvre jusqu’à sa mort. Nous poursuivons par l’analyse de la tétralogie De l’Etat ainsi que des articles portant sur la critique de l’Etat et sur l’autogestion, nécessaires pour bien comprendre les théories lefebvriennes de l’urbain. Dans une quatrième étape, nous étudions ensuite les principales réactions aux travaux lefebvriens sur l’espace et l’urbain (des situationnistes aux recherches internationales actuelles). Dans une dernière étape, nous essayons d’appliquer les principes et idées lefebvriens à l’analyse de la situation mondiale actuelle de la ville et de l’urbain. Les acquis de nos recherches consistent finalement dans : la vérification de l’importance de l’œuvre lefebvrienne (notamment en ce qui concerne l’espace, la ville et l’urbain); l’examen du marxisme anarchisant lefebvrien, qui permet la compréhension des contradictions actuelles et des révolutions possibles; la précision du lien consubstantiel existant entre les analyses lefebvriennes de l’espace et l’autogestion; la vérification d’une convergence entre la pensée de Lefebvre et celle de Deleuze
This thesis intends to study the Henri Lefebvre’s theories of space, town and urban. It begins by analysing his books on this subject: Du rural à l’urbain (published in 1970, with articles dated from 1949 to 1969), Le droit à la ville (1968), La révolution urbaine (1970), La pensée marxiste et la ville (1972), Espace et politique (1973), La production de l’espace (1974). About thirty articles, chapters and films on this topic up to Lefebvre’s death in 1991 are then analysed. We study next the tetralogy De l’Etat (1976-8) and the articles on self-management (autogestion), which are both relating to the urban and spatial themes. The fourth part deals with the different reactions to Lefebvre’s work on space and urban (from the situationists to the actual international researches). At last, we try to apply the Lefebvre’s theories to the actual world-wide situation of urban. Our work results finally lie in: the verification of the validity and the importance of Lefebvre’s theories of space, town and urban; the analysis of Lefebvre’s anarchist version of marxism; the examination of the strong link existing between his theories of urban and his theories of state critics and self-management (autogestion); the establishment of a concordance between some aspects of Lefebvre’s ideas and Deleuze’s philosophy

L'urbanisme français, né au début du XXe siècle, cherche des bases scientifiques et une méthode. L'usage abondant et varié d'images biologiques apporte une commodité épistémologique mais aussi bien des confusions. Les idées d'évolution et d'organisme induisent chez les urbanistes des représentations de la mémoire et de l'histoire urbaine qui stimulent le débat et qui font apparaître la difficulté de poser de façon certaine les lois de l'urbain. L'idée de loi, rapprochée du temps et du vivant, permet de toucher une des ambiguïtés majeures des discours : le passage de la loi de développement et de fonctionnement urbains, qu'on considère comme naturelle, à la loi normative ou prescriptive. C'est dans la conception du temps politique urbain que se nouent ces problèmes. Et le récit de la ville, rédigé ou implicite, est l'objet où se lisent le mieux les enjeux du débat. On étudie ici les textes des urbanistes en les faisant dialoguer entre eux, et en se référant aux philosophes, que les urbanistes appellent parfois eux-mêmes, afin de clarifier le plus possible les représentations du temps et du vivant qui président à l'élaboration du savoir et du savoir-faire de l'urbaniste des années 1900 aux années 1970
French town planning, born at the beginning of the 20th century, seeks scientific bases and a method. The abundant and varied use of biological images brings epistemological convenience but also confusions. The ideas of evolution and organism induce in town planners representations of memory and urban history which stimulate debate and which reveal the difficulty of laying down the laws of the urban with certainty. The idea of law, approximated to time and the life, makes it possible to touch one of the major ambiguities of discourse : the passage from the law of urban development and functioning, which is considered to be natural, to normative or prescriptive law. It is in the conception of urban political time that these problems arise. And the narrative of the city, written or implicit, is the object where the issues of the debate are best read. We study here the texts of town planners by making them dialogue with each other, and by referring to the philosophers, to whom town planners sometimes refer, in order to clarify as much as possible the representations of time and of life which govern the elaboration of the the knowledge and know-how of the town planner from the 1900s to the 1970s