What do you think?
Rate this book
Constant's New Babylon
The New Babylon Project was a project that consisted of a vast, layered, sheltered structure, supported by pillars and covering the entire earth. Human labor is rendered superfluous. Dwelling, work, recreation and transportation take a back seat to that which drives Homo Ludens, creativity. Constant was proposing an alternate society and along with it, an alternate architecture. Not just for those with architectural concerns, but for anyone who thinks.
- GenresArchitectureArt
236 pages, Hardcover
First published June 15, 1999
4 people are currently reading
108 people want to read
About the author
Mark Wigley
77 books16 followersMark Wigley is Professor and Dean Emeritus at Columbia GSAPP. He served as Dean from 2004 to 2014. Wigley has written extensively on the theory and practice of architecture and is the author of Constant’s New Babylon: The Hyper-Architecture of Desire (1998); White Walls, Designer Dresses: The Fashioning of Modern Architecture (1995); and The Architecture of Deconstruction: Derrida’s Haunt (1993). He co-edited The Activist Drawing: Retracing Situationalist Architectures from Constant’s New Babylon to Beyond (2001).
In 2005 he co-founded Volume magazine with Rem Koolhaas and Ole Bouman as a collaborative project by Archis (Amsterdam), AMO (Rotterdam), and C-lab (Columbia University). Wigley curated the exhibition Deconstructivist Architecture at The Museum of Modern Art, and others at The Drawing Center, New York; Canadian Centre for Architecture, Montreal; and Witte de With Museum, Rotterdam.
Mark Wigley was awarded the Resident Fellowship, Chicago Institute for Architecture and Urbanism (1989), International Committee of Architectural Critics (C.I.C.A.) Triennial Award for Architectural Criticism (1990) and a Graham Foundation Gran (1997). He received both his Bachelor of Architecture (1979) and his Ph.D. (1987) from the University of Auckland, New Zealand.
In 2005 he co-founded Volume magazine with Rem Koolhaas and Ole Bouman as a collaborative project by Archis (Amsterdam), AMO (Rotterdam), and C-lab (Columbia University). Wigley curated the exhibition Deconstructivist Architecture at The Museum of Modern Art, and others at The Drawing Center, New York; Canadian Centre for Architecture, Montreal; and Witte de With Museum, Rotterdam.
Mark Wigley was awarded the Resident Fellowship, Chicago Institute for Architecture and Urbanism (1989), International Committee of Architectural Critics (C.I.C.A.) Triennial Award for Architectural Criticism (1990) and a Graham Foundation Gran (1997). He received both his Bachelor of Architecture (1979) and his Ph.D. (1987) from the University of Auckland, New Zealand.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
October 14, 2021
As much as I agree with Constant's reasoning to produce such a project and sharing similar sources of inspiration (Roma communities) with him, I ended up struggling with the way he ended up fleshing out New Babylon.
I think my main point of criticism lies in the underlying dichotomization, and therefore, commodification of the New Babylonians. I find it quite interesting how Le Corbusier's proposals are constantly attacked by the Situationists and Constant himself but it is not hard to see New Babylon as nothing but a revisited, and automated Plan Voisin, with its well-known differentiation and physical (even visual) separation between functions (Leisure/Work, Slow/Fast, Nature/Technology). By creating such antagonistic relations, the categories themselves become consumable, a product. I find this quite surprising, considering how Unitary Urbanism was supposed to achieve complexity rather than division.
Furthermore, the New Babylonian is not free but becomes a pet, as their leisure does not depend upon themselves but rather on the automated work that happens beneath, hidden in the ground. Who controls such production? The New Babylonian, Homo Faber in the past, does not break their chains, as, even if they don't have to produce anymore, they still have a very important role to play. That of Consumption. From Homo Faber to Homo Consumens, not Homo Ludens.
Another pitfall, perhaps, is the forced spontaneity within the spaces proposed. There is no need for a labyrinth and confusion to achieve non-productive movement! As Jan Gehl puts it in Life Between Buildings: "Venice is a living room with integrated processes enlarged to city scale. This same concept explains the civilized Venetian practice of arriving late at prearranged meetings because people inevitably meet friends and acquaintances or stop to look at something while walking through the city."
All in all, I think New Babylon fails in this idea of "leisuring" as much as possible and "working" as little as possible. I am of the opinion that those two categories are unproductive, and that life is in itself praxis, and therefore existing and surviving is play and vice versa.
I think my main point of criticism lies in the underlying dichotomization, and therefore, commodification of the New Babylonians. I find it quite interesting how Le Corbusier's proposals are constantly attacked by the Situationists and Constant himself but it is not hard to see New Babylon as nothing but a revisited, and automated Plan Voisin, with its well-known differentiation and physical (even visual) separation between functions (Leisure/Work, Slow/Fast, Nature/Technology). By creating such antagonistic relations, the categories themselves become consumable, a product. I find this quite surprising, considering how Unitary Urbanism was supposed to achieve complexity rather than division.
Furthermore, the New Babylonian is not free but becomes a pet, as their leisure does not depend upon themselves but rather on the automated work that happens beneath, hidden in the ground. Who controls such production? The New Babylonian, Homo Faber in the past, does not break their chains, as, even if they don't have to produce anymore, they still have a very important role to play. That of Consumption. From Homo Faber to Homo Consumens, not Homo Ludens.
Another pitfall, perhaps, is the forced spontaneity within the spaces proposed. There is no need for a labyrinth and confusion to achieve non-productive movement! As Jan Gehl puts it in Life Between Buildings: "Venice is a living room with integrated processes enlarged to city scale. This same concept explains the civilized Venetian practice of arriving late at prearranged meetings because people inevitably meet friends and acquaintances or stop to look at something while walking through the city."
All in all, I think New Babylon fails in this idea of "leisuring" as much as possible and "working" as little as possible. I am of the opinion that those two categories are unproductive, and that life is in itself praxis, and therefore existing and surviving is play and vice versa.
November 29, 2023
wicked
February 23, 2013
Constant' zijn manier van denken over de mens en zijn omgeving blijft fascinerend. Het mooie in zijn werk is dat hij in staat is om in een imaginaire kleine uitvoering van zijn zelf door zijn eigen creaties te lopen en zich te verwonderen. Tegelijkertijd gedraagt de "grote" Constant zich als een haast scheppende god. Zijn plan om dit land zodanig te verbinden dat iedere inwoner een mooi uitzicht heeft. Het "groene hart" is in zijn plan veel groter en overal aanwezig. Dit plan getuigt van visie, is in feite het mooiste planologische manifest wat ooit geschreven is.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews