UBC Graduate Research

The Happiness Machine Lash, Rhianna 2021-05

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Notice for Google Chrome users:
If you are having trouble viewing or searching the PDF with Google Chrome, please download it here instead.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
42591-Lash_Rhianna_ARCH_549_Happiness_machine_2021.pdf [ 18.13MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 42591-1.0397255.json
JSON-LD: 42591-1.0397255-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 42591-1.0397255-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 42591-1.0397255-rdf.json
Turtle: 42591-1.0397255-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 42591-1.0397255-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 42591-1.0397255-source.json
Full Text
42591-1.0397255-fulltext.txt
Citation
42591-1.0397255.ris

Full Text

The Happiness Machinefig. 1The Happiness Machineby Rhianna LashBachelor of Architectural Studies, University of Auckland, 2018Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Architecturein The Faculty of Graduate Studies, School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture, Architecture ProgramCommittee:Christopher DorayMatthieu GradyPuya KhaliliThe University of British ColumbiaVancouver, CanadaMay 2021© Rhianna LashWelcome to Cloudbank; an oligopoly metropolis governed by monetary exchange, investment and the intrinsic value of things, people, and architecture. As you wake, eat, work, bathe, consume entertainment, sleep and repeat, you feel content in the routine that plays out every day, week, and year. Every day is the same and every architec-ture is the same; repetitions of developments within the same block, rectangular buildings in rectangular organisations. Sure-ly there is more to it? More to living as a value amongst other values.. more to the architecture that has been consumed by the profit that can be extracted from it or saved.This thesis seeks to explore the ways in which architecture has been subjected to and used as a tool of investment in generating capital, that in its effect has shown to instigate several social and economic conflicts of individuality, exclusivity, alienation, corporate greed and consumption. iiTable of Contentsiiiviiiiiviixxixiii1311121314172125272763152931334349List of FiguresviFig.   title     type  pg. Creator1  Connecting    Drawing 342  Theoretical Thinkers   Diagram 23  No-Stop city    Drawing 4 4  Plan Voisin    Model  5 Le Corbusier5  Plug-in City    Drawing 6 Peter Cook6  New Cities    Animation 7 Liam Young7  New Cities     Animation 7 Liam Young8  New Cities     Animation 7 Liam Young9  A Future City From The Past  Drawing 8 Clemens Gritl10  Dense Metabolism   Drawing 8 Team Akria Shibuya11  Untitled    Illustration 9 Anna Mill12  Untitled    Illustration 9 Anna Mill13  Untitled    Illustration 10 Anna Mill14  Untitled    Illustration 10 Anna Mill15  Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs Diagram 1216  Vertical City    Drawing 15 Ludwig Hilberseimer17   Vertical City    Drawing 15 Ludwig Hilberseimer18  Timeline of scope of capitalism Diagram 1719  Distinguishing Tayorlism  Diagram 1820  Typological Timeline   Diagram 1921  The Mechanical Metropolis  Illustration 2022  Mass Produced Housing Iterations Drawings 2323  The Changing Room   Animation 2424  Google Tower    Model  2625  Amazon Tower   Model  2626  Twitter Tower    Model  2627  Netflix Tower    Model  2628  Walmart Tower   Model  26viiFig.   title     type  pg.29  Cybernetic Connections  Diagram 3030  To Video    Animation 3231  User Guide    Animation 3532  Unit Stills    Images  3633  Cyber Social Space   Animation 3734   Virtual Park    Drawing 3935  Virtual Brothel   Drawing 3936  Virtual Gym    Drawing 3937  Market Place    Animation 4038  Advertisement    Drawing 4139  Day in the Life Of   Animation 4340  Day in the Life Of Stills  Images  4541  Virtual Workplace   Animation 4642  Promoted    Drawings 4743  Factory 1    Animation 4944  Factory 2    Animation 5145  Units Departing   Animation 5346  Journey    Animation 5447  Inside Data Tower   Drawing 5548  Data Severs    Drawing  5649  Docking    Animation  5750  Eden     Drawing 5751  Cloudbank Metropolis  Drawing 59A  Metropolis of Progress  Drawing xiiAll figures otherwise attributed to an author were created by Rhianna LashRefer to Bibliography for citation.viiiI am greatful to my supervisor, An-nalisa Meyboom, for her patience, ideas, and companionship during a very lonely, homebound semester, as well as Matthew Soules for his expa-nisve knowledge and mentorship that has guided me through my architec-tural education. ixxThis thesis is dedicated to my future self. xixiifig. AThe demand for efficiency and profit within capitalism has ren-dered architecture to operate as a tool explicit in investment and consumption; causing the loss of individuality and meaningful interaction with space and each other.As we face an accelerating cost of living due to demands on space, search for profit, and lack of time, architecture is reduced to a tool of investment and capital used by corporations and the very wealthy. By taking the current resulting architectural and social disparities to a logical extreme, such as the drive for efficiency and profit, the reduction of identity, and our lulled complacency through convenience and pleasure, as expressed through the most complex setting of the body and the building, the metropolis, we can learn from the potential dystopian out-come.xiiiIntroduction1Value1. Money makes the world go round. It’s the lifeline to comfort, food, education, entertain-ment, shelter; the list could really go on forev-er. To have and make money is synonymous with living... To have money is to also have agency within that life. Even further, to have money is to have power.2. In more recent times, what I couldn’t un-derstand was why buildings began to look the same, or how there are people who are working multiple jobs within those buildings and still can’t afford to pay for rent, how they go about everyday as if it were the same, why housing is owned and purposefully not lived in - instead being used to generate a new income or invest-ment, or why I’m probably never going to be able to afford a house of my own one day. 3. A current phenomena that is occuring in Silicon Valley and even Toronto, Canada, is the involvement of large companies, such as Google, designing modular and mass produced housing and urban environments for their workers, as housing is too expensive in the area for their employees to continue living and working there.[1] This begs the question as to what the future holds within our ever-increas-ingly expensive and corporate world, espe-cially our built environment, the further our technology advances and the wealthy become wealthier.4. In the recent release of a book written by Bank of England Governor Mark Carney, he states “We are approaching the extremes of commodification as commerce expands deep into the personal and civic realms. The price of everything is becoming the value of every-thing.”[2]5. This thesis aims to address the shift in values from architecture being a meaningful experience of space to an investment vehicle to capitalise upon; specifically as real estate has been getting more and more expensive and less people can afford to own homes of their own, the benefit of architecture shifts from the user of the space, to the owner who profits.What follows hereinafter within this thesis is an exploration of the relationship architec-ture and humans have had within capitalism to money, used ultimately for understanding and re-interpreting its social and architectur-al impacts to form a critique of the extent in which money controls and deindividualizes us, as well as the ways in which architecture itself facilitates its workings. This critique takes the form of a speculative metropolis, owned and governed by an oligopoly of massive compa-nies, where anything can be bought and sold, where being efficient informs all aspects of life, and where we truly no longer experience architecture, nor our spaces or eachother as a result of escapism and conveniences.Buckle up.2fig. 2IntroductionPrecedents There are a multitude of significant projects that attest to ideological imaginaries and archi-tecture’s ability to form them, including Archi-gram, Superstudio, Archizoom, Le Corbusier, Frank Lloyd Wright and more. Two of these projects were analysed further for the purpose of this thesis because of their groundedness in the capitalist functions of our lives and our architecture. Meanwhile, a plethora of alterna-tive media gave precedent for the generating of narrative such as films, books and speculative drawings. In 1969, Archizoom developed a ‘critical utopia’ in response to Tafuri, that aimed to be a purely cognitive and continuous monument; an amoral city that has no qualities, an architec-ture that has no architecture. When comparing No-stop city to that of Hilberseimer’s Hoch-hausstadt, both projects propose an infinite grid of featureless structures extending beyond vision. “If in Hilberseimer’s project the dif-ference between each building unit and the urban order was abolished, in No-Stop City the difference between architecture and urban-ity itself was abolished. Hochhausstadt still acknowledged the critical importance of urban space and the street, whereas No-Stop City rejected it.”[3] The urbanity of the metropolis became obsolete as the city was no longer the collective parts that made up the whole of the system, but became the system itself. By doing so, Archizoom reduced the urban realm to a question of quantity rather than quality; which Simmel argues is what defines metropolitan life. Similarly to Hilberseimer, Le Corbusier’s Plan Voisin focused on the urban space and its im-portance for transportation. Everything would be absolutely symmetrical and standardised. At the very heart of the city is the business district which is connected to residential and com-mercial zones by underground transport. The above ground serves as traffic corridors as well as public landscapes with lush greenery. Pe-destrians, cyclists, drivers and public transpor-tation users were given dedicated routes to get around, set up (or down) at various elevations. The basic strategy behind the scheme was to create vertical architecture and leave plenty of shared open space in between for people to use and enjoy.[4] By doing so however, production and the economic systems that function within the metropolis are ignored from view, ultimate-ly aiding the capitalistic ideology.Across both precedents was the elimination of expressive gestures, what Simmel would con-sider qualitative, in exchange for architectural signs like columns, walls, elevators and liberat-ing the city from any recognizable values other than those which are of regimented organi-sation. The idea of each of these utopias of course are linked to the current state of techno-logical capabilities and social necessities of the time for the proletariat to remain content and complacent in their role within the metropolis. So, how do we place these principles within the framework of the 21st century? Beyond the realm of utopia is dystopia, which in the case of the metropolis, is the amalgamation of the inequalities, social hardships, and oppressive architectures propelled by the over advance-ment of technology. 3_No-Stop City,  1969Archizoom4fig. 3fig. 45_Plan Voisin, 1925 Le Corbusierfig. 56_Plug-in City, 1964 Archigramfig. 6fig. 7fig. 87_New City, 2014 Liam Young fig. 9fig. 108_A Future City From The Past, 2019Clemens Gritl _Dense Metabolism, 1966Team Akira ShibuyaImages omitted for copyright.fig. 11fig. 129_Square Eyes, 2018Anna Mill fig. 14fig. 1310_Square Eyes, 2018Anna Mill MethodologyThis project was developed within a different lens to the typical thesis, wherein after deter-mining the issue and what was causing it, a specific building that I would propose would not be the solution. The problem remains one which is ideological; one that is ingrained into our psychological needs for progress and own-ership, one which is not solved with a building. Infact, under this notion of architecture being explicit as a tool in propelling investment and consumption, architecture is a part of the prob-lem. To begin with, the disheartening reality of this non-fiction narrative being something so much greater and out of the control of the architect was something that I struggled to place as my dutiful job to address because of its ideological integration with societal fab-ric across many professions, making me feel all the more powerless to these systems I am about to set out into the world and be apart of, and all the more powerless to being able to change. It is also for this reason why I felt this issue was all the more important to address; in some context or another.Rather than a solution, this project is proposed as a speculative future; where in the attributing causes are instead over-enunciated and pushed to the extreme, in a hope the problem itself be-comes clear. Also by using this method, what is causality to the problem becomes outlined with a massive red marker, to which we, the archi-tectural profession can look back on and make the according changes; if it’s not too late. More than pushing the problem to the extreme, the resulting outlook had to be convincing to its dystopian route I am proposing we are head-ed for, let alone know what it is that is being pushed… leading us to the dystopian genre as a whole.Dystopias are created by pushing what is seemingly utopic to an extreme turning point, where it begins to show its ugly reality. Too much of anything is never a good idea - except in the context of this thesis. The convincing nature of the dystopian genre also rests on its tethers to current social, political, and architec-tural disparities that we are facing, rather than speculating on the future disparities, as the present is determinative of the future. Lastly, the way in which these ideas and casualties are conveyed holds very closely to the success of the dystopian world, as to give the viewer a frightening experience that will encourage them to jump to action- or at least agree with the message. This is achieved through the perspective in which the viewer is placed in, as well as the stylization of what is being viewed. A more common place for this is the ‘day in the life of’ approach, which will be strategical-ly used within my speculative narrative, so as to enable the viewer to really be a part of and experiencing this unfortunate world and be more immersed within it. Specific precedents existed for this project, both in its representa-tion and its narrative.Finally, this methodology brings to light ques-tions of my agency within this project. Am I acting as an architect? No. Instead I interpret myself into a position of authorship, to be crafting experiences, visions and journeys; something of which I believe is an essential part of being an architect, however. Further within this authorship, I become the role of the economist, the manufacturer, the government, the capitalist, the worker, and the architect, to vividly divulge all elements and narratives that exist within this world - that exists within any world.11FrameworkThe methodology of this project relied on taking three main interventions to the extreme: efficiency, intrinsic values, and convenience. As I argue that what we now value most with-in architecture is its ability to be valuable and produce value, efficiency is the most practical way in which value is inherently increased. By increasing efficiency, less time is spent, less labour is spent, and more profit can be extract-ed. In a bid to increase efficiencies and maxi-mise our time, there are trade offs, such as the ability to have meaningful, sensitive, and indi-vidualised spaces. Architecture itself becomes about conveniences, as well as our habitual ac-tions. The speculative metropolis expands on the extremetising of efficiency, value and con-venience by reducing all that is not efficient; specific movement actions that are facilitated through functions and spaces within the home like hallways, as well as the removal of social relationships that would interfere with efficien-cy. To determine what would remain present within the physical realm and architecturally represented, Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs was examined and used as a basis for decision making; ultimately determining all that is not a part of the base physiological needs would be established as ‘conveniences’ within the virtual world and contingent on corporation and con-sumer structures. Furthermore, if architecture is used for a means of investment and capital, everything - and I mean everything, within this world would also be able to be sold or bought, and valued very purely on its monetary value. fig. 1512The MetropolisSimmelThe metropolis exists as the centre of the social economy, fostering unique and com-plex relationships between individuality and work, which have been linked analytically to capitalistic circulation by thinkers for over a century. When questioning the extent in which value and labour has infiltrated everyday life, it is impossible to ignore the ‘hustle and bustle’ of the modern metropolis as a key setting of phenomenological texture and economic vigor. Not only is the metropolis the most dense in population and economic circulation, but also as a built environment. In Georg Simmel’s essay ‘The metropolis and Mental Life’, the metropolis is analysed for the individual’s position within the whole; first-ly within what is the epicentre of the money economy, and secondly within the metropolitan lifestyle. Unlike rural life, the metropolis is made up of a collection of complex relation-ships with rigid definitions and values for its ability to function, both within the urban fabric and social network. The grid of the city can be understood as what determines the phys-ical definitions of a city, whilst the economy sets the social definition. The money econo-my dominates the metropolis, playing a key role in the metropolitan person’s life for its fostering of interactions with others, as the exchange value of money may be weighed much greater than the emotional value with an encounter to another individual, thus, making a relationship based on quantitative values.[5] The metropolis’s value to this thesis is held in the commonality of money and its reduction of values down to only its exchange value, to which both parties benefit from the definitions and values set. However, there is no quality, subjectivity or individuality to an exchange value and therefore all intimate emotions and relationships can be removed and replaced with agreed-upon facts. For Simmel, the social relations between one another have either become brief associations to fulfil an econom-ic transaction or deeply alienated labor rela-tionships due to the overspecialization found within the modern city. The division of labour can be viewed for both its benefits and disad-vantages; being the surplus time gained from attaining what one needs with using his own labour, however demands from the individu-al objectivity as a cog in the greater complex system of the metropolis, therefore also re-ducing himself down to an exchange value.[6] Furthermore, the  metropolis and metropolitan man is dominated by objectivism as opposed to subjectivism via “objective spirit”. Through this objectivity, the metropolitan lifestyle leads to a neglect and degradation of personality with the ever increasing emphasis on accom-plishments, rationality and monetary gain, add-ing to his blase attitude. The blase attitude is defined as a part of the ‘protective organ’ that the metropolitan man develops as a result of the rapidly changing and bombarding stimula-tions of the metropolis, its punctuality, calcula-bility and exactness, leading to a populace that is apathetic and dulled to its environment and interactions. We are able to exert our individ-uality through the choices that we make in our daily lives; to be able to try new coffee shops or walk different routes to work. A point can be made however that it is these numerous choic-es that stunts our ability to make choices, that is make it even more difficult to exert choice by being overwhelmed by the options. It can also be thought that routine is developed as a result of the blase attitude. We pick the same 13options to block out the overwhelming stimuli of the free market.Comparative to modern day, everyone is connected to the internet and social media and therefore have the ability to work and live any-where, therefore are choosing to not live within the metropolis. It is also, however, because of this network that what defines the metropolis has become blurred. We face the same over-whelming stimuli and complex networks due to our virtual connectedness that the metropolis can technically be thought of as expanding and completely decentralised. Smaller towns are just as much a part of the system- if not mak-ing it all the more complex and larger.AlienationLeading the charge as the predecessor of this economic condition is Marx. The theoretical basis for Marx’s theory of alienation within the capitalist mode of production is through the exploitation of the proletariat’s surplus value, being the extrapolated value of labour. The worker becomes a commodity; the production of which is subject to the ordinary laws of sup-ply and demand. If the supply of the workers exceeds the demand for labour, wages fall and workers would starve.[7] Wages therefore tend to the lowest possible level compatible with keeping an adequate supply of workers alive and healthy. Meanwhile, the capitalist builds up his wealth through the workers’ labour, to which is used to build bigger factories and buy more machines, increasing the division of labour. He states: “The more the worker exerts himself, the more powerful becomes the alien objective world which he fashions against himself, the poorer he and his inner world become, the less there is that belongs to him. It is the same in religion. The more man attributes to God, the less he retains in himself. The worker puts his life into the object; then it no longer belongs to him but to the object . . . The externalization of the worker in his product means not only that his work becomes an object, an external existence, but also that it exists outside him, independently, alien, an autonomous power, opposed to him. The life he has given to the object confronts him as hostile and alien.” [8]The capitalist system relies on the necessity of abstract labour, being the work done simply to earn a wage rather than for the work done for themself. He argues labour in the sense of free productive activity is the essence of human life, so when under the conditions of alienated labour, workers must produce objects over which they have no control because they do not belong to them, therefore, the worker is alienated from their essential humanity. A consequence of this alienation of humans from their own natures is the alienation from each other. Humans start seeing each other as com-petition, as a form of exchange or bargaining as expressed by the blase attitude described by Simmel. “The propertied class and the class of the pro-letariat represent the same human self-alien-ation. But the former feels comfortable and confirmed in this self-alienation, knowing that this alienation is its own power and possessing in it the semblance of a human existence. The latter feels itself ruined in this alienation and sees in it its impotence and the actuality of an inhuman existence.”[9]Despite these overwhelming feelings of isola-tion, from ourselves and to our environment, the proletariat falls complacent to the way of things. “This is just life” he admits. As much as you can try, it’s very hard to remove ar-chitecture from capitalism, at its core being dependent on land, which has value, and our inherent need for shelter. It is because of this that architecture can be analysed as a cog with-in the workings of human alienation, that of which is also alienated.14The Metropolisfig. 16fig. 1715HilberseimerThe 20th century gave rise to the proposed ‘utopia’ as society began to ask how they wanted the metropolis to reflect activities of work, leisure and production in response to the growing capitalistic developments.Proposed by Tafuri was that it was no longer possible for intellectuals to address the issue of social and cultural changes provoked by capi-talist development from an outside perspective, only from within, as they were unconsciously mediating the effects of continued capitalist production or participating in its reification. The anticipated conditions of an architecture for a liberated society by image alone is at-tached only to disciplinary ideologies that ulti-mately hide reality and lull the consumer into a state of complacency.[10]In the 1924 plan of Vertical City, proposed by architect Ludwig Hilberseimer, the architecture of the metropolis “depends essentially on the solution given to two factors: the elementary cell and the urban organism as a whole. The single room as the constituent element of the habitation will determine the aspect of the hab-itation, and since the habitations in turn form blocks, the room will become a factor of urban configuration, which is architecture’s true goal. Reciprocally, the planimetric structure of the city will have a substantial influence on the design of the habitation and the room.”[11] Hilberseimer’s total unification of repetitive cells and the global structure of the city may have been effective in shifting architectural meaning from the aesthetic realm to a deeper logic of the socioeconomic metropolis itself. Between the multilayered functions within the city, the means of production, and the architec-tural form that is supposed to be their product, the serial cellular organism that constitutes Hilberseimer’s city follows the logic of the city’s production cycles.[12] Hilberseimer’s project organizes a metaphor for the city’s own productive and functional procedures, mediat-ing those procedures through the conventions of architectural form, and thus effectively truncating the complex technical, social, and economic conditions that produced it, conceal-ing the “real” origins of its formation by dis-placing them with a substitute and irreducibly architectural form. Hilberseimer’s drawings demonstrate the relationship to functionalism, in that form can only follow function when function has first been interpreted as a possibil-ity of form. Furthermore, the project takes on a matrix in which monopoly capitalism might in-cidentally play itself out, absorbing all things, people, and thought into a single-market sys-tem; it is itself a form of that system.[13]Because of the pure expression of the capitalist nature of the metropolis, Hilberseimer’s analy-sis and depiction of the architectural condition will serve as a guide for this thesis, however operated within a completely different realm of capitalism in which we operate today. It will be taken up as a part of this thesis to determine what the modern-day Hochhausstadt condi-tions are, both formally and systematically.16An Inquiry into CapitalismOur inquiry into capitalism and its architectural relationship takes shape through examining its multiple iterations that Western society has progressed through, namely industrial and consumer capitalism. This inquiry starts at a significant turning point in production, effi-ciency, profit, and labour; the introduction of Taylorization. Lastly, this inquiry will finish on our current capitalist model of neoliberal-ism. Although this thesis outlines capitalism through a less than positive bias, it is important to note that capitalism herein is not the prob-lem specifically or in-of itself, but the effects it has sustained onto architecture and the ideolo-gy that builds architecture. Industrial CapitalismAt the turn of the 20th century, the way in which places of work functioned and were organized shifted with the introduction of Ford Factories and the Model T car. Huge factories overtook small craftsman shops and the high-ly specialized machines for mass production, such as the assembly line, replaced simple craft tools. A new method of ‘scientific manage-ment,’ that separated thought from execution, made it possible to replace skilled craftsmen with unspecialized machinists, firstly brought about in the Midvale Steel Company factory. These changes, along with hierarchical posi-tions and fragmentation of work, constituted the key systems of Fordism; an approach to production which remained at large in the American Industry up until the 1970s.[14] Pre-vious to Fordism, Taylorism was introduced by Fred W. Taylor, which was characterized through determining the best way for the fac-tory worker to do the job, thus to be providing the proper tools and training, and to be provid-ing incentives for good performance. Each job was broken down into its individual motions with unnecessary motion eliminated; produc-tivity overall increased meaning fewer workers or working hours would be needed to produce the same amount of goods. The worker, fol-lowing a machine-like routine, became far more productive.[15] The enlarging of the poll of workers because of their lower-skill level of course didn’t come without repercussion to the proletariat, effectively lowering wages as well as job security. Because the job could be done by anyone, any individual is also very replace-able. As the predecessor of Taylorism, Fordism was heavily impacted by some of these ideas of efficiency. The architecture of Fordist factories began to morph around the functionalism of these management systems, with requirements of size to fit the assembly line and other spe-cialized machines, specific spatial program-ming for quickest circulation pathways, open floor plans for supervision, and clerestory windows for lighting and much needed ventila-tion.[16] The relationship between architecture fig. 1817and worker becomes prevalent in the drive for efficiency and control through Fordist manage-ment systems with the application of systems like the assembly line. The monotony of the assembly line meant workers could be easily trained and therefore easily replaced, whilst also having the speed in which they worked predetermined. Being seen by fellow workers and management constantly enforces another level of efficiency due to social pressure; per-petuated by the open floor plan.[17] Ultimate, the assembly line was a tool of alienation that further removed the essence of labour from the worker, becoming meaningless as an individual but useful as a cog, meanwhile factories, and factory design became more and more special-ised to account for the socio-political hierar-chies of management systems for efficiency and surveillance rather than quality of space. The systems of management that were most prevalent in the time of Ford factories was not limited to the factory typology, in fact spread across most means of workplaces to an extent where they are still used today by companies such as Amazon, however is not limited to its spatial boundaries, such as the example of their newly released surveilled delivery cars which monitor for 100 percent of the time.Moreover, as our technological capabilities have reached new feats in the most recent years, AI machines have replaced human workers in ‘Smart Factories’ with independent, moving, and self organizing robots such as in the Changying Precision Technology Compa-ny in Dongguan, China. The factory recently replaced 90 percent of its human workforce with machines, which led to a 250 percent increase in productivity and a significant 80 percent drop in defects. According to a joint study conducted by Oxford University and the Oxford Martin School, 47 percent of jobs in the US are ‘at risk’ of being automated in the next 20 years alone, starting with remedial and labour intensive work. At the rate that robotics and artificial intelligence (AI) are advancing, machines will soon be able to take over tasks in a variety of industries.[18]fig. 1918fig. 2019fig. 2120An Inquiry into CapitalismConsumer CapitalismAt a similar time to the creation of the assem-bly line and the new management methods being introduced in America through Fordism, the deliberation of mass-marketing techniques stimulated by mass-production derived a new theoretical economic and socio-political con-dition of consumer capitalism. The power of consumer capitalism laid in the manipulation of consumer demand in a reversal of advantage given to the seller. The realities of consumer capitalism portrayed a new kind of individual-ism onto the metropolitan man; where persons use consumer capitalism to project the kind of person they want to be through the objects they own; the origins of which can be found in the development of the american department store and later used in the 1920s by General Motors through annual model updates and planned obsolescence.[19] Meanwhile in Germany, who was establishing themselves as the third most powerful indus-trial economy behind the United States and England, Deutscher Werkbund (the German Work Federation) surged the expansion and production of industrial manufacturing. In a 1908 study by Leo Colze on the new urban presence of consumer capitalism, he wrote:“The transformation of Berlin into a major city, into an international metropolis, is closely tied to the arrival of these shopping palaces. The impartial observer, without political agenda, must admit it was the department stores that got the ball rolling here in the commercial areas. When one shopping palace after another lines the thoroughfares of the imperial capital today, when light-permeated display windows not only incite us to buy the most amazing merchandise of every industry from the civi-lized nations, but also speaks to our purely aes-thetic sense, when today even the little man is in a position, for a low price, to possess luxury items for which he has no useful need—then it is the sole doing of the modern department store organism.”[20]Among the architects apart of the Werkbund included Peter Behrens who was appointed as AEG’s Artistic advisor, responsible for the designing of factories and exhibition pavil-ions and credited with representing the spirit of machines production and communicating the modern industrial process in its totality within his unadorned simplistic geometries.[19] Following Simmel’s notion of the small community, where useful tools were made by commision between mutually known individu-als, versus the metropolis, in which commodi-ties are produced speculatively and exchanged anonymously, the werkbund divested objects of any evidence of their manufacturing. The alienation of products of their origins was so complete that “the worker is compelled to buy his own product.” In turn of the influence of mass-produced products came the notion of mass-produced architectures such as the Haus am Horn proposed by Bauhaus in an attempt to cooperate with capitalist industry and utilize Taylorist efficiencies.[21]21Argued by philosopher Bernard Stiegler, capi-talism today is not governed by production but by consumption, and that the techniques used to create consumer behaviour amount to the destruction of psychic and collective individu-ation. The result of which is an additive cycle leading to hyperconsumption and exhaustion of desire.[22] Consumption of information, entertainment, and other physical or virtual pleasure plays an important role within the realm of capitalism, as Hilberseimer would say - as a means of disguise. As these plea-sures become more convenient to us through the internet, through metropolitan proximity, we are in a constant search for stimulation; be consuming at all times… of course when we are not working or other productive means.Moving into the post-Fordist managerial sys-tems of today that enforces immaterial labour over material labour, that being the labour that produces the informational and cultural content of the commodity, is instigated by the rise of new technologies that ultimately allow infor-mality, collaboration and mobility. These new strategies render the worker and workspace itself to be widespread and technically bound-aryless. What does the modern workplace look like? Well, that’s the point. “Today’s architec-tural phantasmagoria is similarly invested in the ‘occultation of production’,” meaning that not one architecture is any longer associated to one mode of production, as architecture no longer seeks to look like a typology of work.[23] The workspace of the offce is re-shaped to accommodate work ‘anyplace, anytime’, to inculcate in employees fexible, adaptive and communicative dispositions. The spa-tial typologies of non-work – the cafe or the lounge – are transplanted into those of work and vice-versa. Spaces outside that of the office are progressively transformed to accom-modate the new modalities of labour. Office team-based working lunches are catered for in bars and restaurants. Similarly, domestic spaces are re-appropriated for the home of-fice, to now also be affiliated with work and thus removing its exclusivity as a typology for leisure. “The availability of transportable computing technologies, coupled to an ubiqui-tous telecommunications infrastructure, enable the extension of work, and working hours, into the spaces of leisure and travel, both domestic and public.”[24] The ability for work to be completed anywhere, along with its integration into spaces of leisure like the home, propel the narrative of its integral part of our everyday being. These concepts of domesticity reflecting the workplace reimagined the purpose of the home, its uses, and its hierarchical structures, to that similar of the workplace; one that is also efficient and productive, to become a true machine for living. Attempted within the project was to recreate a mass-produced home, one as desirable as an iphone and as efficient as the assembly line, to induce a sense of the dystopic direction hous-ing could take, especially as it becomes less af-fordable. The following studies are the iterative process of determining as such:2223fig. 22Designing a mass produced unit - Iterations24fig. 23Virtual experiences integrated in realityNeoliberalism ArchitectureEmerging in the 1970’s was a new form of cap-italism built on a market economy that favours “liberating individual entrepreneurial freedoms and skills within an institutional framework characterized by strong property rights, free markets and free trade,”  known as neoliberal capitalism.[25] Compared to previous models such as the Fordist-Keynesian model of cap-italism circulating in the 1950’s-60’s, which favoured strong state regulation of a market system, neoliberal capitalism focuses on glo-balization with goods and services of the pub-lic realm being provided by private, for-profit firms within the marketplace and urbanisation. With it came emphasis on a new urban ideol-ogy of the urban growth machine and invest-ment in flashy new development properties that are vastly unoccupied, whilst older, poorer and less attractive parts of cities were disin-vested in and ultimately devalued.In the neoliberal world of capitalism, architec-ture works explicitly within the realm of design and desire, manufacturing new and attractive products that stimulate the consumer economy.[26]For the most part, new developments are being used not as a building to be occupied, but for its developer to profit from secondary buyers, rent, or investment, reducing architecture as a financial tool. In a similar effect, architecture is used as a tool not in itself to generate reve-nue, such as the case of the New York High-line, but to stimulate value of its surrounding area through unique place value, adding to exchange value.[27] Proposed by Tafuri is that architectural production is caught between two consumer systems: one based on market value of construction, where architecture is reduced to a symbol; the other which “integrates ar-chitectural production into the art market and address itself to the artistic and speculative enjoyment of the collector or museum.”[28]Enter; the strachitect. A generation of architects which created new religious icons of capital; underwriting accumulation for the elite while designing for increasingly exclusive audiences. The value of the starchitect to capital is gen-erated within the branding of the building as a symbol, like that of Apple or Gucci, through its famous creator title and its strictly formal attributes that create desire. What matters is the icon or symbol itself.The Movements toward formalism and the designing and theorizing of architecture purely in terms of its physical attributes resulted in the contextual irrelevance of the architecture itself, only its financial relevance. The formal object can be anything; whether parametric, hyper minimal or iconism. There is no consensus of what architecture can be, therefore can be anything and ultimately nothing. To represent this phenomenon, large iconic towers were designed and incorporated into the metropolis as massive data towers base on a few dominat-ing corportation’s logos; filled with only stacks upon stacks of server racks inside an otherwise empty form.25fig. 27 fig. 28fig. 24 fig. 25 fig. 2626Technology and DataThe Individual & The MachineMachines are everywhere, more so now than ever before as our technological capabilities advance everyday. However, the definition of machine is no longer limited to our equipment as it was in the 1800s, or tools we developed in the 1900’s, or the tech we’ve been invent-ing more recently in the 2000s. As described by Deleuze and Guatarri in Anti-oedipus, “A machine may be defined as a system of inter-ruptions… They operate along lines that vary according to whichever aspect of them we are considering... Every machine functions as a break in the flow in relation to the machine to which is connected, but at the same time is also a flow itself, or the production of a flow.”[29]  With what can now be considered a world of processes and programs, we think of ourselves as a series of processes and programs rather than consciences that can act in relative inde-pendence. The world seems everlessly mutable to the will of the individual because of its composition of massive unstoppable forces, systems and markets which keep accelerating indifferent to the individuals choices or inter-ests; as one great machine. The world is run and made up of machines; meaning systems of information processing and their particular logics, diverting the machine from just being an object, but also processes that make distinc-tion, where the outputs are the inputs to other machines. [30] This chapter will explore the concept of living machines: humans, their data, their systems, their routines and how the built environment acts as facilitator and filter to the greater ma-chine of society, ultimately reducing agency and individuality. Control SocietiesAt the turn of the 20th century, the rise of modernity began to produce a subjectivity that coincided with the rise of capitalist industrial-ization and its material processes of production as seen in the abstract and sinister systems brought about by Taylorization, which would go on to become an essential condition of modernity itself. The new methods of scientific management implemented into the workforce, in particular manufacturing, sought changes to efficiency in  actions and the pace of work via the assembly line; a form of monotony that rendered workers into a position to be easily trained and just as easily replaced, as well as being constantly surveilled by management to ensure productivity.[31] In a very literal sense, the subject became in sync with the machinery they worked with as an extension of its func-tions, repeating the same task over and over again. The monotonous routine of the every-day further divulged workers comparatively to actual machines, not just within the system and management of the factory but within the greater system of capitalism they would par-ticipate in on their daily basis. Both the func-tionings of the factory and the production of a new kind of subject, of which can be described as Foucaldian, was not limited to this specific condition, rather than operated as one amongst many state apparatuses within the discipline society structure; schools, prisons, churches, dwellings and more.[32]The discipline society was speculated on by Michael Focault as regulation enforced through the threat of violence from authority, which was very closely controlled through the regu-lation of space itself. According to Althusser, ideology always exists within apparatuses and this existence is also always material.[33] The relationship of architecture appears explicit within disciplined society as the restriction to movement and time are enforced through built environment and schedule, leading to the 27production of specific typologies primarily designed to enforce discipline. The panopticon prison concept is an example of an institution-al building that was designed in the mid 19th century that Foucault cites as a representation of the discipline society’s operations, designed with a central observation tower placed with-in a circle of prison cells. From the tower, a guard is able to see the movements of all the inmates, however cannot reciprocate, therefore are unaware of whether they are being watched or not. This constant observation enforces self-regulation through the internalizing of constant surveillance in order to avoid the threat of violence.[34] Similarly, the archi-tectural designs of factories, as established at the turn of fordism by Ford’s own architect Albert Kahn, embedded ideas of surveillance within the application of the open floor plan to encourage workers to always be performing their best as they can always be seen by other colleagues and management.In a more modern context, although the ideo-logical state apparatuses used within the discipline society are still prevalent, as well as the very physically built interpretations, soci-ety has transitioned to a means of automated regulation. Argued by Deleuze, the subject is no longer an individual or a member of a mass of individuals within a space that needs to be disciplined, instead the subject is a dividual.[35] If the Foucauldian subject is produced by ideological state apparatuses, for deleuze there is just no longer a subject; only the constantly changing flows of systems in which the divid-ual is input and output to.[36] The dividual can be defined as a representation of the subject as the data values that systems interact with, being the different flows of information; for example a credit score to a bank, a grade to a school, or risk factors to an insurance company and other institutions of advanced capitalism. As these machines collect data which is auto-matically interpreted and filtered into a new di-rectional flow, limiting access according to the flow the individual and their data is output to. Because control systems channel and restrict access, the reasons and ability to self regulate is no longer an option; instead the dividual is automatically regulated. The options you have within these systems are controlled in advance before even having to make a decision, ef-fectively creating future-steering machines. The concept of future-steering algorithms known as cybernetics originated in 1961 by Norbert Wiener (much earlier and differently than its practical application today) where it can be understood as systems that function via feedback loops to eliminate deviation and maintain pattern; which can be described as the difference between the given pattern and the performed motion being used as a new input “to cause the part regulated to move in such a way as to bring its motion closer to that given by the pattern.”[37] As behaviour steer-ing machines, control societies don’t enforce you to do anything however when you offer information, they offer you feedback in return. With further feedback, the algorithms become increasingly defined; propelling the dividual deeper along the flow. The question remains as to who the control has shifted to, if in the case of discipline society control remained within the state. Our data is powerful, in that whoever owns the data (in which we are willingly trad-ing for the ability to stay connected) has the control; whom of which can be identified as the large scale tech and information companies that currently run the market: such as Face-book, Google, Apple, Microsoft and Amazon. The implications of the control society means that the body and space are replaced with 28data of non-individuated aggregates, causing the subject to be reduced to values flowing through exclusively accessible pathways governed by the laws of capitalism, rather than state. The application of accessibility is more visible through the more modern application of subscription-base ownership, where products and services are only accessible as long as the buyer continues to opt-in, as well in exclusive spaces/buildings that can only be interacted with if of a high enough economic and social standing. What remains is the question of the modern contextualisation that architecture holds to control societies if discipline is no longer enforced by space, instead by the intan-gible and immaterial boundaries of data and information.Cyberspace and PosthumanismOn average, a Canadian in 2019 would spend 11 hours daily on computational devices.[38] Technology has become so ingrained in our routine, that technology in all of its forms has become essential to our social, political, economic and mental lives. For Haraway, the realities of modern life happen to include a relationship between people and technology so intimate that it’s no longer possible to tell where we end and machines begin. Within her Cyborg Manifesto, she insinuates we have al-ready begun to fuse with our technologies, be-coming what is known as cyborg, in the begin-ning of the cyborg era which can be defined by the control society.[39] Furthermore, the role of the cyborgs attempts to construct a basis for collective consciousness by mapping vibrant parallels between the structure of current eco-nomic and technological practices and human actors’ fictional capability to comprehend and interact with a changing ideological structure.[40] With augmented realities and computing power becoming more advanced everyday, a question remains however as to the relevance of physical space and built environments, for anything other than containment, when our experiences have translated into the ephemeral realm of cyberspace.Rather than human machines being governed by systematic machines in the topological mindfield of data, the new form our built environment takes is within machines them-selves, ones in which provide virtual networks and flows that are boundaryless however not spatially controlled through means of infra-structures, including architectures, but con-structed of data itself as well. Within the world of cyberspace, individuals are very literally reflected as their data, however so is the en-vironment, allowing a greater ability to self regulate the individual AND the environment it occupies. In this sense, greater machines have the ability to automate according to patterns and flows more intensely than its ability to regulate dividuals just existing within the physical world; an intensity of control that is given completely to the corporate world while simultaneously removing all power from the state/governing bodies tethered to the physi-cal plane. Theorized by Hans Moravec, only successful enterprises will be able to afford the storage and computational essentials of life within cyberspace, similar to the accessibility to ownership of land and housing in life as we know it now.  Entities who fail to support their operating costs will eventually shrink and disappear, or merge with other ventures. Those who succeed will grow. The closest present-day parallel is the growth, evolution, fragmentation and consolidation of corpora-tions, who plan their future, but whose options are shaped primarily by the marketplace.[40] To end this speculative query on cyberspace, I leave you, the reader, with a series of ques-tions to ponder, rather than answer: Is virtual architecture really even architecture? Is archi-tecture in the sense that we know of capable of existing within cyberspace? Does the complete integration with cyberspace mean the complete death of architecture along with the death of the subject?2930fig. 29The narrative of this world follows a new employee as they move into their company housing at Googol in the metropolis of Cloudbank. The rules of the world are as followed:Property and real estate have gotten so expensive that only large companies can afford ownership, leading to the construction of idealized cities of mass-produced housing for their workers. In a bid for increased efficiency, all labour work is auto-mated, leaving only a knowledge-based workforce. The companies want their workers to stay working for them, so supply them with all of life’s conveniences to maxi-mise the best life/work balance within their housing.Everything they could possibly need is delivered straight to their feet. Everything within this world has a transactional val-ue and can be sold, bought, or invested in, including housing, people, moments and memories - the largest stakeholder being the company governing the district of residence. The knowledge worker, who can’t afford full ownership of anything, owns partial shares in their company hous-ing, where they are provided with everything to satisfy their physiological and hedonistic pleasures, however recluse into the virtual world as a medium for social interaction, entertainment, and livelihood. As housing units are released with the newest technol-ogies and simultaneously go obsolete, upgrading to the next-best-thing is constantly sought after- or else face being disconnected completely.Context.31 The following content was presented in the form of an animation visual on the 28th of April, 2021. Each drawing comes to life to further its immersion and the narrative. 32fig. 30Welcome Employee #0002343244...Living in our Googol company housing, we supply all you could ever need, to give you the best work/life balance you’ll find at any company. To start, connect to the servers and begin your interface initiation.33fig. 134fig. 3135This is your personal unit. Here at Googol, we believe your time and comfort is valu-able so we’ve brought to you the latest in living technology, to service both your physical and virtual needs. Have whatever you need delivered right to your feet. Tran-sition between working and relaxing in a matter of 4.23 seconds with intuitive multi-level translations across three standard programs. Improve productivity by more than 33% with our clean, modern finishes to give you the most immersive environment. for connecting to your virtual self.fig. 3236fig. 33fig. 34fig. 35fig. 3639fig. 3740fig. 3841keep and touch and stay connected in our cyber social network. Chat, react, and interact with all your friend. Wind down, let loose, and get your sweat on after work in our luxury ame-nities determined by what our research shows will bring you the most happi-ness.With low transaction fees and re-al-time market rates, the Marketplace is your opportunity to invest in some-thing greater than yourself. Buy any-thing, Sell anything.With a new release of our units every 3 months, you can unlock exclusive virtual features, experience faster speeds to optimize your workflow, and indulge in pleasures previously un-imaginable. Upgrade today to one of our latest units by clicking here to view our premium subscription options.4243fig. 3944Hi there. I’m your unit A I assistant and welcome to the Cloudbank Metropolis, district: Googol. What would you like to order today?With your current subscription, you have 6 months remaining until your unit is disconnected, so work hard to keep your virtual livelihood up-to-date with the latest Googol unit.Clock in when you’re ready to enter your virtual workplace.fig. 4045fig. 4146fig. 4247Productivity levels: ... 75%.Total value you’ve increased by today: ... 22%.You are currently rank number 1038th at Googol. Continue to work hard to get promotions and access exclusive content.Congratulations! Would you like to visit Eden? I’ll give you the grand tour.48fig. 4351fig. 44Cloudbanks automated factory removes all manual labour, leaving only the knowledge-based workforces that keeps Googol and the virtual livelihoods of all 135,000 employees running.All goods are transported via deliv-ery plenum infrastructures directly to your unit....Detaching from central supply... enabling Bluetooth connection...Departing for Eden shortly.5253fig. 4554fig. 4655fig. 47fig. 48Our tower is a unique architectural symbol to Googol and holds the entire-ty of the district’s data. Your data allows us to tailor your life best to the needs of you and the company using cybernetic systems, producing the most opportune form of societal progres-sion.5657fig. 49fig. 50Welcome to Eden, an exclusive and sought after in-person amenities for the company’s most valuable employees. Be sure to maximise your corporeal pleasure during your visit, anything goes!58We hope you enjoy your time here at Google amongst the great citizens of Coudbank, as we know your time is valuable...59... Work hard, live pleasurably, and I’m sure the next 50 years will fly by.fig. 51End notes611. Bloom, “Google Is Spending $30 Million on Housing for Silicon Valley Employees,” CNBC (CNBC, June 16, 2017), https://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/14/google-spending-30-million-on-housing-for-sili-con-valley-employees.html.2. Konrad Yakabuski, “Opinion: Mark Carney Takes a Swipe at Capital-ism, for Its Own Good,” The Globe and Mail, March 24, 2021, https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/commentary/article-mark-carney-takes-a-swipe-at-capitalism-for-its-own-good/.3. Aureli, The Project of Autonomy: Politics and Architecture withn and against Capitalism, 36.4. Hays, “Modernism and the Post-Humanist Subject: The Architecture of Hannes Meyer and Ludwig Hilberseimer,” 282.5. Simmel, “The Metropolis and Mental Life,” 3.6. Ibid., 8.7. Singer, Marx: A Very Short Introduction, 338. Ibid., 34.9. Ibid., 33.10. Tafuri, Architecture and Utopia: Design and Capitalist Development, 179.11. Hays, “Modernism and the Post-Humanist Subject: The Architecture of Hannes Meyer and Ludwig Hilberseimer,” 282.12. Ibid,. 284.13. Ibid,. 286.14. Sweet, “Work and power in post-Fordist production: A case study of four machine shops,” 1.15. Encyclopædia Britannica, “Taylorism.”16. Hyde, Assembly-Line Architecture: Albert Kahn and the Evolution of the U.S. Auto Factory, 1905-1940, 17.17. Ibid.18. Javelosa, “Production Soared After This Factory Replaced 90% of Its Employees With Robots,” Futurism (Futurism, February 9, 2017), https://futurism.com/2-production-soars-for-chinese-factory-who-re-placed-90-of-employees-with-robots.19. Deamer,  Architecture and Capitalism: 1845 to the Present, 52.20. Ibid., 50.End notes6221. Ibid., 51.22. Ibid., 53.23. Spencer, The Architecture of Neoliberalism: How Contempo-rary Architecture Became an Instrument of Control and Compli-ance, 78.24. Ibid.25. Martin, “Financial Imaginaries; Toward a Philosophy of the City,” 61.26. Yarina, “How Architecture became Capitalism’s Handmaiden: Architecture as Alibi for The High Line’s Neoliberal Space of Capi-tal Accumulation,” 245.27. Ibid., 243.28. Scott, Architecture or Techno-Utopia: Politics after Modern-ism, 113.29. Deleuze and Guattari, Anti-Oedipus: Capitalism and Schizo-phrenia, 33.30. Brott, Architecture for a free subjectivity: Guatarri and Deleuze at the horizon of the real, 4.31. Encyclopædia Britannica, “Taylorism.”32. Althusser, Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses, 695.33. Foucault, Discipline and Punishment, 149.34. Hyde, Assembly-Line Architecture: Albert Kahn and the Evolu-tion of the U.S. Auto Factory, 1905-1940, 16.35. Kurt and Maalsen, “Social Control in the Networked City: Datafied Dividuals, Disciplined Individuals and Powers of Assem-bly,” 332.36. Brott, Architecture for a free subjectivity: Guatarri and Deleuze at the horizon of the real, 7.37. Wiener, Cybernetics: Or Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine, 96.38. Newswire, “Canadians spend 11 hours per day on screens, Alcon survey shows.”39. Haraway, Simians, Cyborgs, and Women: The Reinvention of Nature, 150.40. Ibid.BibliographyAdjustments Agency. “Refusal after Refusal.” Harvard Design Magazine, no. 46 (Fall/Winter 2018). http://www.harvarddesignmagazine.org/issues/46/refusal-afterrefusal.Althusser, Louis. Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses. Paris: Les Éditions Socia-les, 1970. Aureli, Pier Vittorio. The Project of Autonomy: Politics and Architecture within and against Capitalism. New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 2008.Brott, Simone. Architecture for a free subjec-tivity: Guattari and Deleuze at the horizon of the real. Surrey: Ashgate Publishing Ltd., 2011.Bryant, Levi R. Onto-Cartography: An Ontolo-gy of Machines and Media. Edinburgh: Edin-burgh University Press Ltd., 2014.Buchanan, Ian. “Architecture and control so-ciety.” Interstices: Journal of Architecture and Related Arts 20 (2020): 11-19. Retrieved from https://interstices.ac.nz/index.php/Interstices/article/view/644De Graff, Reiner. “Architecture is now a tool of capital, complicit in a purpose antithetical to its social mission.” The Architectural Review, April 2015. https://www.architectural-review.com/essays/architecture-is-now-a-tool-of-cap-ital-complicit-in-a-purpose-antitheti-cal-to-its-social-mission?tkn=1Deamer, Peggy. Architecture and Capitalism: 1845 to the Present. London: Routledge, 2013.Deleuze, Gilles. “Postscript on the Societies of Control.” October 59 (1992): 3-7. Accessed March 12, 2021. http://www.jstor.org/sta-ble/778828.Foucault, Michel. Discipline and Punishment. London: Tavistock, 1977.Gartman, David. From Autos to Architecture: Fordism and Architectural Aesthetics in the Twentieth Century. New York: Princeton Archi-tectural Press, 2012.Harvey, David. “The Art of Rent: Globaliza-tion, Monopoly and the Commodification of Culture.” Socialist Register 38 (2009): 93–110.Hays, K. Michael. “Modernism and the Post-humanist Subject: The Architecture of Hannes Meyer and Ludwig Hilberseimer.” PhD diss., Architecture Massachusetts Institute of Tech-nology, 1990.Hyde, Charles K. “Assembly-Line Architec-ture: Albert Kahn and the Evolution of the U.S. Auto Factory, 1905-1940.” IA. The Journal of the Society for Industrial Archeology 22, no. 2 (1996): 5-24. Accessed October 18, 2020. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40968351.Iveson, Kurt, and Sophia Maalsen. “So-cial Control in the Networked City: Data-fied Dividuals, Disciplined Individuals and Powers of Assembly.” Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 37, no. 2 (April 2019): 331–49. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263775818812084.Jameson, Fredric. “Architecture and the Cri-63tique of Ideology,” in The Ideologies of Theory, Essays 1971-1986, no. 2 (1988): 440-461.Jameson, Fredric. “Culture and Finance Capi-tal.” Critical Inquiry 24, no. 1 (Autumn, 1997): 246-265.Jameson, Fredric. “Future City.” New Left Review 21 (May–June 2003): 76.Jameson, Fredric. “The Brick and the Balloon: Architecture, Idealism and Land Speculation.” New Left Review, no. 228 (March – April 1998): 25-46.Jameson, Fredric. Postmodernism, or, The Cul-tural Logic of Late Capitalism. Durham: Duke University Press, 1992.Jameson, Fredric. The Political Unconscious. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1981.Javelosa, June. “Production Soared After This Factory Replaced 90% of Its Employees With Robots.” Futurism. Futurism, February 9, 2017. https://futurism.com/2-production-soars-for-chinese-factory-who-replaced-90-of-em-ployees-with-robots. Kracauer, Zigfried. “The Mass Ornament,” in The Mass Ornament: Weimar Essays, trans-lated by Thomas Y. Levin. London: Harvard University Press, 1995. p.75-88.Lacan, Jacques. “The Mirror Stage as Forma-tive of the Function of the I as Revealed in Psychoanalytic Experience.” (Lecture, 16th international Congress of Psychoanalysis, July 17, 1949), in The Critical Tradition (2016): 1122-1128.Martin, Reinhold. “Financial Imaginaries; Toward a Philosophy of the City.” Grey Room, no. 42 (Winter 2011): 60-79.Martin, Reinhold. “In the Bank.” Thresholds, no. 41 (Spring 2013): 104-109.Martin, Reinhold. Utopia’s Ghost: Architec-ture and Postmodernism, Again. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2010.Moravec, Hans. “The Senses Have No Future.” Proceedings of Der Sinn der Sinne Internation-alCongress, February 1997. https://frc.ri.cmu.edu/~hpm/project.archive/general.arti-cles/1997/970128.nosense.htmlSchumpeter, Joseph A. “Capitalism” in Ency-clopedia Britannica (1946, reprint 1989).Scott, Felicity D. “On Architecture under Capitalism.” Grey Room, no. 6 (2002): 45-65. Accessed November 11, 2020. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1262615.Scott, Felicity D. Architecture or Techno-Uto-pia: Politics after Modernism. Massachusetts: MIT Press, 2007.Sennet, Richard. “The Public Domain” and “Man as Actor,” in The Fall of the Public Man. New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 1977. 3-27; 107-122.Simmel, Georg. “The Metropolis and Mental Life,” in The Sociology of Georg Simmel. New York: Free Press, 1950: 409-424.Singer, Peter. “Enter the proletariat,” “The first Marxism,” “The development of the materialist theory of history,” and “Economics,” in Marx: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018: 60-76. https://ebook-central.proquest.com/lib/ubc/detail.action?do-cID=4964537Spencer, Douglas. The Architecture of Neo-liberalism: How Contemporary Architecture Became an Instrument of Control and Compli-ance. London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2016.64Sweet, Stephen K. “Work and power in post-Fordist production: A case study of four machine shops.” PhD Diss., University of New Hampshire, 1994. https://scholars.unh.edu/dis-sertation/1796Tafuri, Manfredo. “The Creation of Rockefel-ler Center,” from “The Disenchanted Moun-tain: The Skyscraper and the City,” in The American City: From the Civil War to the New Deal. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 1979.Tafuri, Manfredo. “Toward a Critique of Ar-chitectural Ideology,” in Architectural Theory Since 1968. Massachusetts: MIT Press, 2000: 6–33. Tafuri, Manfredo. Architecture and Utopia: Design and Capitalist Development. Massa-chusetts: MIT Press, 1976.Taquet, Maxime, Jordi Quoidbach, Yves-Al-exandre de Montjoye, Martin Desseilles, and James J. Gross. “Hedonism and the choice of everyday activities.” Proceedings of The National Academy of Sciences 113, no. 35 (Aug 2016): 9769-73. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1519998113Tronti, Mario. “Factory and Society.” Work-ers and Capital, translated by David Broder, Verso, 2019.Vujosevic, Tijana. Modernism and the Making of the Soviet New Man. Manchester: Manches-ter University Press, 2017.Wiener, Norbert. Cybernetics: Or Control and Communication in the Animal and the Ma-chine. Massachusetts: MIT Press, 1961.Yakabuski, Konrad. “Opinion: Mark Carney Takes a Swipe at Capitalism, for Its Own Good.” The Globe and Mail, March 24, 2021. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/commentary/article-mark-carney-takes-a-swipe-at-capitalism-for-its-own-good/.65Yarina, Elizabeth. “How Architecture be-came Capitalism’s Handmaiden: Architec-ture as Alibi for The High Line’s Neoliberal Space of Capital Accumulation.” Architecture and Culture 5, no. 2 (2017): 241-263. DOI: 10.1080/20507828.2017.1325263ImagesFig. 3 Archizoom. No-Stop City, 1965.https://architizer.com/blog/practice/details/archizoom-retrospective/Fig. 4 Plan Voisin. Le Corbusier, 1925. http://le-corbusierfullwork.blogspot.com/2015/06/058-plan-voisin-1925.htmlFig. 5. Peter Cook. Archigram: Plug-in City. 1964. https://www.researchgate.net/publica-tion/313776283_Da_funcao_a_ficcaoFig. 6. Liam Young. New City: Keeping up Appearances, 2014. https://vimeo.com/chan-nels/newcity/251790092Fig. 7. Liam Young. New City: Taobao Vil-lage, 2014. https://vimeo.com/channels/newci-ty/251790092Fig. 8. Liam Young. New City: Machines of Posthuman Production, 2014. https://vimeo.com/channels/newcity/251790092Fig. 9. Clemens Gritl. A Future City From The Past, 2019. https://www.clemensgritl.com/Fig. 10. Team Akira Shibuya. Dense Metab-olism, 1966. http://vertices.ch/dense-metabo-lism-akira-shibuya-1966/Fig. 11. Anna Mill. Square Eyes. London: Johnathon Cape, 2018.https://squareeyescomic.com/Fig. 12. Anna Mill. Square Eyes. London: Johnathon Cape, 2018.https://squareeyescomic.com/Fig. 13. Anna Mill. Square Eyes. London: Johnathon Cape, 2018.https://squareeyescomic.com/Fig. 14.Anna Mill. Square Eyes. London: Johnathon Cape, 2018.https://squareeyescomic.com/Fig. 16. Ludwig Hilberseimer. Vertical City, 1924. https://courseblogs.bard.edu/arth234s17/ludwig-hilberseimers-vertical-city/Fig. 17. Ibid.

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            data-media="{[{embed.selectedMedia}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.42591.1-0397255/manifest

Comment

Related Items