PROJECT AS PARODY: ARCHIZOOM’S “NO-STOP CITY” AND THE SOCIAL PRODUCTION OF SCALE

Öz

The conceptualisation of scale in traditional spatial theories as a set of pre-given, vertically nested levels —such as the local, regional, national, and global— remains inadequate for explaining the infrastructural continuities, transboundary flows, networked forms of organisation, and spatial dynamics that increasingly blur the urban–rural distinction under contemporary capitalist urbanisation. This inadequacy points not only to an epistemological problem concerning how scale is defined, but also to an ontological crisis regarding the spatial units through which urban reality is constituted. Intervening in this ontological and epistemological impasse, the debate on the new political economy of scale approaches scale not as a pre-given and immutable spatial level, but as a historical process produced and restructured through capitalist social relations. Similarly, since the late 1960s, the discipline of architecture has questioned the assumption that social and urban crises can be resolved through discrete objects, formal innovations, or the production of buildings. By bringing together the ontological–epistemological crisis identified by the new political economy of scale with architecture’s crisis of object, representation, and intervention, this study examines Archizoom Associati’s No-Stop City project (1968–1972). The research investigates the social, economic, and infrastructural mechanisms through which scale is produced under conditions of capitalist urbanisation, and how No-Stop City renders these processes visible through black humour, parody, and exaggeration. The theoretical framework brings together the debate on the new political economy of scale—which conceptualises scale as a socio-spatial relation continually reproduced through capital accumulation, state strategies, labour processes, and power struggles—and the literature on radical architecture, which approaches design as a form of critical praxis. Methodologically, the study proceeds along two axes: a theoretical examination grounded in the social production and construction of scale, networked spatiality, and planetary urbanisation; and a hermeneutic interpretation of No-Stop City’s diagrams, plans, photomontages, and manifestos as “spatial texts.” Rather than treating the project as a utopia, the study approaches it as an absurd parody that carries capitalist rationality to its own logical limits and as a conceptual X-ray of capitalist spatial organisation. The analysis demonstrates how the project’s boundless interior, homogeneous infrastructural surface, and infinite grid dissolve conventional scalar hierarchies while eroding the distinctions between public and private, urban and rural, and production and consumption. Yet this spatial continuity does not eliminate power relations; on the contrary, it extends the infrastructural, technical, and programming power of capital. The study interprets No-Stop City both as a self-critique of architecture’s object-centred repertoire of intervention and as an analytical and critical device for diagnosing the social production of scale. By bridging the debate on the new political economy of scale and radical architectural speculation, the article reveals the distinctive capacity of design imaginaries to analyse and rethink the complex, transboundary, and infrastructural processes of capitalist urbanisation.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Scale and Urbanization
• The new political economy of scale
• Architecture and Utopia
• Archizoom
• No-stop City.

Destekleyen Kurum

No financial support that has been received for conducting the research and/or for the preparation of the article.

Etik Beyan

There is no conflict of interest for conducting the research and/or for the preparation of the article. All procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards. No works of intellectual and artistic works (figures, photographs, graphics, etc.) subject to copyright regulations have been used in this article.

Teşekkür

The initial version and main focus of this study emerged in the “Architecture and Utopia” course offered within the Architectural Design Graduate Program at Istanbul Technical University. We would like to express our sincere gratitude to the course instructors, Assoc. Prof. Dr. Sıdıka Aslıhan Şenel and Assoc. Prof. Dr. Nizam Onur Sönmez, for their insightful discussions and valuable contributions. The framework integrating the study with geography was subsequently developed in the “Critical Approaches in Geography” course offered within the Urbanism PhD Program at Mimar Sinan Fine Arts University. We would also like to sincerely thank the course instructor, Prof. Dr. Hürriyet Öğdül, for her insightful discussions and valuable contributions.

PARODİ OLARAK PROJE: ARCHIZOOM’UN “NO-STOP CITY” PROJESİ VE ÖLÇEĞİN TOPLUMSAL ÜRETİMİ

Öz

Geleneksel mekân kuramlarında ölçeğin “yerel, bölgesel, ulusal ve küresel” gibi önceden verilmiş, birbirini kapsayan dikey kademeler biçiminde kavramsallaştırılması, günümüz kapitalist kentleşmesinin altyapısal sürekliliklerini, sınır aşan akışlarını, ağsal örgütlenmelerini ve kent-kır ayrımını belirsizleştiren dinamiklerini açıklamakta yetersiz kalmaktadır. Bu yetersizlik, ölçeğin tanımlanmasına ilişkin epistemolojik bir sorunun yanı sıra, kentsel gerçekliğin hangi mekânsal birimlerden oluştuğuna dair ontolojik bir krize de işaret etmektedir. Bu ontolojik ve epistemolojik tıkanmaya müdahale eden yeni ölçek ekonomi-politiği tartışması, ölçeği önceden verilmiş ve değişmez bir mekânsal kademe olarak değil, kapitalist toplumsal ilişkiler içinde üretilen ve yeniden yapılandırılan tarihsel bir süreç olarak ele almaktadır. Benzer biçimde mimarlık disiplini de 1960’ların sonlarından itibaren toplumsal ve kentsel krizlerin tekil nesneler, biçimsel yenilikler veya bina üretimiyle çözülebileceği varsayımını sorgulamıştır. Bu çalışma, yeni ölçek ekonomi-politiği tartışmasının işaret ettiği ontolojik-epistemolojik kriz ile mimarlığın nesne, temsil ve müdahale krizini birlikte ele alarak Archizoom Associati’nin No-Stop City (1968–1972) projesini incelemektedir. Araştırma, kapitalist kentleşme koşullarında ölçeğin hangi toplumsal, ekonomik ve altyapısal düzenekler aracılığıyla üretildiğini ve No-Stop City’nin bu süreçleri kara mizah, parodi ve aşırılaştırma yoluyla nasıl görünür kıldığını sorgulamaktadır. Kuramsal çerçeve, ölçeği sermaye birikimi, devlet stratejileri, emek süreçleri ve iktidar mücadeleleri içinde sürekli yeniden üretilen toplumsal-mekânsal bir ilişki olarak kavrayan yeni ölçek ekonomi-politiği tartışması ile tasarımı eleştirel bir praksis olarak değerlendiren radikal mimarlık literatürünü buluşturmaktadır. Yöntem iki eksenden oluşmaktadır: ölçeğin toplumsal üretimi, ölçek inşası, ağsal mekânsallık ve gezegensel kentleşmeye dayalı kuramsal inceleme ile No-Stop City’nin diyagram, plan, fotomontaj ve manifestolarının birer “mekânsal metin” olarak hermenötik yorumu. Proje, bir ütopyadan çok kapitalist rasyonaliteyi kendi mantıksal sınırına taşıyan absürt bir parodi ve kapitalist mekânsal örgütlenmenin kavramsal röntgeni olarak ele alınmaktadır. Analiz, sınırsız iç mekân, homojen altyapı yüzeyi ve sonsuz ızgaranın geleneksel ölçek hiyerarşilerini çözerken kamusal/özel, kent/kır ve üretim/tüketim ayrımlarını aşındırdığını göstermektedir. Ancak bu mekânsal süreklilik iktidar ilişkilerini ortadan kaldırmamakta; aksine, sermayenin altyapısal, teknik ve programlayıcı gücünü yaygınlaştırmaktadır. Çalışma, No-Stop City’yi hem mimarlığın nesne merkezli müdahale repertuvarına yönelik bir özeleştiri hem de ölçeğin toplumsal üretimini teşhis eden analitik ve eleştirel bir aygıt olarak değerlendirmektedir. Böylece makale, yeni ölçek ekonomi-politiği tartışması ile radikal mimari spekülasyon arasında köprü kurarak tasarım tahayyüllerinin kapitalist kentleşmenin karmaşık, sınır aşan ve altyapısal süreçlerini çözümleme ve yeniden düşünmedeki özgün kapasitesini ortaya koymaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Ölçek ve Kentleşme
• Yeni ölçek ekonomi politiği
• Mimarlık ve Ütopya
• Archizoom
• No-stop City

Destekleyen Kurum

Bu araştırmanın yürütülmesi ve/veya makalenin hazırlanması için herhangi bir mali destek alınmamıştır.

Etik Beyan

Araştırmanın yürütülmesi ve/veya makalenin hazırlanması hususunda herhangi bir çıkar çatışması bulunmamaktadır. Araştırma etik standartlara uygun olarak yapılmıştır. Makalede telif hakları düzenlemeleri gerektiren fikir ve sanat eserleri (şekil, fotoğraf, grafik vb.) kullanılmamıştır.

Teşekkür

Bu çalışmanın ilk versiyonu ve ana konusu İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi Mimari Tasarım Lisansüstü Programı kapsamındaki “Mimarlık ve Ütopya” dersinde ortaya çıkmıştır. Dersin yürütücüleri Doç. Dr. Sıdıka Aslıhan Şenel ve Doç. Dr. Nizam Onur Sönmez’in tartışmaları ve değerli katkıları için çok teşekkür ederiz. Çalışmanın coğrafya ile birleşen çerçevesi ise Mimar Sinan Güzel Sanatlar Üniversitesi Şehircilik Doktora Programı kapsamındaki “Coğrafyada Eleştirel Yaklaşımlar” dersinde belirlenmiştir. Dersin yürütücüsü Prof. Dr. Hürriyet Öğdül’e tartışmaları ve değerli katkıları için çok teşekkür ederiz.

Kaynakça

1. Alexander, J., Grassi, S. ve Mellos, G. (2022). Radical practices, radical pedagogies: intercultural explorations in language and meaning. ARQ: Architectural Research Quarterly, 26(4), 315-330. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1359135522000550
2. Archizoom. (1971). No-Stop City. Residential Parkings, Climatic Universal System. Domus 496: 49–54.
3. Ash, J. (2020). Flat ontology and geography, Dialogues in Human Geography, Vol. 10(3) 345–361. https://doi.org/10.1177/2043820620940052
4. Aureli, P. V. (2008a). The Project of Autonomy: Politics and Architecture within and Against Capitalism (Vol. 4). New York: Princeton Architectural Press.
5. Aureli, P. V. (2008b). Toward the archipelago. Log, (11), 91-120.
6. Aureli, P. V. (2009). More and more about less and less: Notes toward a history of nonfigurative architecture. Log, (16), 7-18.
7. Aureli, P. V. (2013). Manfredo Tafuri, Archizoom, Superstudio, and the critique of architectural ideology. İçinde P. Deamer (der.) Architecture and Capitalism (ss. 132-147). London: Routledge.
8. Benevolo, L. (1995). Avrupa Tarihinde Kentler. (N. Nirven, Çev.) İstanbul: AFA Yayıncılık.

9. Blankenbaker, S. (2024). No-Stop City as Building. Idea Journal, 21(01), 89-101. https://doi.org/10.37113/ij.v21i01.554
10. Bookchin, M. (2014). Kentsiz Kentleşme. (B. Özyalçın, Çev.) İstanbul: Sümer Yayıncılık.
11. Boyer, R. ve Hollingsworth, J. R. (1997). From National Embeddedness to Spatial and Institutional Nestedness. İçinde R. Boyer ve J.R. Hollingsworth (der.) Contemporary capitalism: The embeddedness of institutions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
12. Boysan, A. ve Mutlu-Tunca, G. (2023). Design and Counter Design Against Consumption: 1972 “Italy, the New Domestic Landscape” Exhibition. METU Journal of the Faculty of Architecture, 40(1), 151-174. https://doi.org/10.4305/METU.JFA.2023.1.7
13. Branzi, A. (1974a). Radical Notes 15: Avanguardie e fascismo/Fascism and the Avant-Garde, Casabella 589 (May): 8.
14. Branzi, A. (1974b). Radical Notes 20: Architecture and Modesty. Casabella 396 (December): 8.
15. Branzi, A. (2006). No-Stop City: Archizoom Associati. HYX: Orléans.
16. Branzi, A. (2022). Agronica. İçinde Barcelloni-Corte, M. ve Viganò, P. (der.) The Horizontal Metropolis: The anthology (ss. 427-437). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
17. Branzi, A. ve Boeri, S. (2000). Sui sistemi non deterministici, Lotus International 107, 124.
18. Brenner, N. (1998). Between fixity and motion: accumulation, territorial organization and the historical geography of spatial scales. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 16 (4), 459–81. https://doi.org/10.1068/d160459
19. Brenner, N. (2001). The limits to scale? Methodological reflections on scalar structuration. Progress in human geography, 25(4), 591-614. https://doi.org/10.1191/030913201682688959
20. Brenner, N. (2004). New State Spaces: Urban Governance and the Rescaling of Statehood. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
21. Brenner, N. (2005). Urban governance, interspatial competition and the political geographies of the new economy. İçinde K. Huebner (der.) The New Economy in Transatlantic Perspective: Spaces of Innovation (ss. 155-183). London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203420966
22. Brenner, N. (2014). Implosions/explosions: Towards a Study of Planetary Urbanization. Berlin: Jovis.
23. Budzynski, S. (2011). Continuous spaces: Object and imagination in Superarchitettura. Palinsesti-Contemporary Italian Art On-line Journal, (1). https://doi.org/10.15168/palinsesti.1.780
24. Bumin, K. (1990). Demokrasi Arayışında Kent. İstanbul: İz Yayıncılık
25. Capdevila, P. M. (2013). The Interior City Infinity and Concavity in the No-Stop City (1970-1971). Cuadernos de Proyectos Arquitectónicos, (4), 130-132.
26. Capdevila, P. M. (2016a). Estamos dentro: En conversation con Andrea Branzi (P.M. Capdevila, Çev). Plot 29 (February/March): 179.
27. Capdevila, P. M. (2016b). Towards a weak architecture: Andrea Branzi and Gianni Vattimo. Cuadernos de Proyectos Arquitectónicos, (6), 147-150.
28. Capdevila, P. M. (2017). An Italian querelle: Radical vs. tendenza. Log, (40), 67-81.
29. Cioran, E. M. (2015). Tarih ve Ütopya. (H. Bayrı, Çev.) İstanbul: Metis Yayınları.
30. Coleman, N. (2022). Rehabilitating Operative Criticism: The Return of Theory against Entrepreneurialism. İçinde Haddad, E. G. (der.) The Contested Territory of Architectural Theory (ss. 67-86). London: Routledge.
31. Collinge, C. (2006). Flat ontology and the deconstruction of scale: a response to Marston, Jones and Woodward. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 31(2), 244-251. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-5661.2006.00201.x
32. DeLanda, M. (2006). A New Philosophy of Society: Assemblage Theory and Social Complexity. New York: Bloomsbury Academic.
33. DeLanda, M. (2016). Assemblage Theory. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
34. Dicken, P. (2004). Geographers and globalization: (yet) another missed boat? Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 29(1), 5–26. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0020-2754.2004.00111.x
35. Doxiadis, C. A. (1966). Between Dystopia and Utopia. Connecticut: The Trinity College Press.
36. Eco, U. (1979). The Role of the Reader: Explorations in the Semiotics of Texts. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
37. Eraydın, A. (1992). Post-Fordizm ve Değişen Mekânsal Öncelikler. Ankara: Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi Mimarlık Fakültesi Yayınları.
38. Feliz, N. (2018). No-Stop Shopping City: Supermarkets, Hybrid Space, and the Logistics of the Quotidian. New Instrumentalities: 2018 ACSA/COAM International Conference, 87-92.
39. Fishman, R. (2016). Yirminci Yüzyılda Kent Ütopyaları. (D. Toprak, Çev.) İstanbul: Daimon Yayınları.
40. Ford, H. (1922). The Modern City: A Pestiferous Growth. İçinde H. Ford (der.), Ford Ideals: Being a Selection from Mr. Ford’s Page in The Dearborn Independent. Michigan: The Deaborn Publishing Company.
41. Gallion, A. B. ve Eisner, S. (1950). The Urban Pattern: City Planning and Design. Toronto: D. Van Nostrand Company.
42. Giamarelos, S. (2019). The Little Big Planet of Architectural Imagination: An Interview with NEMESTUDIO’s Neyran Turan. Architectural Design, 89(4), 38-45. https://doi.org/10.1002/ad.2455
43. Habermas, J. (2019). ‘Öteki’ Olmak, ‘Öteki’yle Yaşamak. (İ. Aka, Çev.) İstanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları.
44. Harvey, D. (1997). Postmodernliğin Durumu. (S. Savran, Çev.) İstanbul: Metis Yayınları.
45. Harvey, D. (2010). Paris, Modernitenin Başkenti. (B. Kılınçer, Çev.) İstanbul: Sel Yayıncılık.
46. Hoefle, S. W. (2006). Eliminating scale and killing the goose that laid the golden egg? Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 31(2), 238-243. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-5661.2006.00203.x
47. Jessop, B., Brenner, N. ve Jones, M. (2008). Theorizing sociospatial relations. Environment and planning D: society and space, 26(3), 389-401. https://doi.org/10.1068/d9107
48. Jones, J. P. (2017). Scale and anti-scale. International Encyclopedia of Geography: People, the Earth, Environment and Technology: People, the Earth, Environment and Technology, 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118786352.wbieg1104
49. Jones, J. P., Leitner, H., Marston, S. A. ve Sheppard, E. (2017). Neil Smith's scale. Antipode, 49, 138-152.
50. Jones, K. (1998). Scale as epistemology, Political Geography, 17 (1), 25-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0962-6298(97)00049-8
51. Katsikis, N. (2018). The ‘other’ horizontal metropolis: Landscapes of urban interdependence. İçinde P. Viganò, C. Cavalieri ve M. Barcelloni Corte (der.) The horizontal metropolis between urbanism and urbanization (ss. 23-45). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
52. Kumar, K. (1995). Sanayi Sonrası Toplumdan Post-Modern Topluma: Çağdaş Dünyanın Yeni Kuramları. (M. Küçük, Çev.) Ankara: Dost Kitapevi Yayını.
53. Lang, P. ve Menking, W. (2003). Superstudio: Life without Objects, Milan: Skira.
54. Latour, B. (1994). On technical mediation - philosophy, sociology, genealogy. Common Knowledge 3: 29–65.
55. Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
56. Lefebvre, H. (2011). Kentsel Devrim. (S. Sezer, Çev.) İstanbul: Sel Yayıncılık.
57. Lefebvre, H. (2014). From the City to Urban Society, İçinde N. Brenner (der.) Implosions/explosions. Berlin: Jovis
58. Leitner, H. ve Miller, B. (2007). Scale and the limitations of ontological debate: a commentary on Marston, Jones and Woodward. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 32(1), 116-125.
59. MacKinnon, D. (2011). Reconstructing scale: Towards a new scalar politics. Progress in Human Geography, 35(1), 21-36. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132510367841
60. MacLeod, G. (1999). Place, politics and ‘scaledependence’: exploring the structuration of Euro-regionalism. European Urban and RegionalStudies, 6(3), 231–53. https://doi.org/10.1177/096977649900600304
61. MacLeod, G. ve Goodwin, M. (1999). Space, Scale and State Strategy: Rethinking Urban and Regional Governance. Progress in Human Geography, 23(4), 503–527. https://doi.org/10.1191/030913299669861026
62. Marston S. A., Jones, J. P. ve Woodward K. (2005). Human geography without scale. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, New Series, 30(4), 416-432. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-5661.2005.00180.x
63. Marston, S. (2000): The social construction of scale. Progress in Human Geography 24, 219–242. https://doi.org/10.1191/030913200674086272
64. Parga, M. (2015). Superzoom: Italy and the Radical Commitment, Constelaciones (03) 15–35.
65. Pearson, L. C. (2019). System cities: Building a ‘quantitative utopia’. Architectural Design, 89(4), 70-77. https://doi.org/10.1002/ad.2459
66. Porotto, A. (2016). Utopia and vision: learning from Vienna and Frankfurt. Joelho Revista de Cultura Arquitectonica, 7, 84-103. https://doi.org/10.14195/1647-8681_7_7
67. Power, A., Plöger, J. ve Winkler, A. (2010). Phoenix Cities: The Fall and Rise of Great Industrial Cities. Bristol: Policy Press.
68. Reader, J. (2007). Şehirler. (F. B. Karlıdağ, Çev.) İstanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları.
69. Sayer, A. (1985). The difference that space makes. İçinde D. Gregory ve J. Urry (der.) Social Relations and Spatial Structures (ss. 49–66). London: Macmillan.
70. Scolari, M. (1998). The New Architecture and the Avant-Garde (S. Sartarelli, Çev.). İçinde K. M. Hays (Der.) Architecture Theory since 1968 (ss. 126-145). Cambridge: MIT Press.
71. Serter, G. (2013). Şikago Okulu Kent Kuramı: Kentsel Ekolojik Kuram. Planlama, 23(2), 67-76. https://doi.org/10.5505/planlama.2013.98608
72. Simmel, G. (1997). Bridge and Door. İçinde N. Leach (Der.), Rethinking Architecture: A reader in cultural theory (ss. 63-67). New York: Routledge.
73. Simmel, G. (2009). Bireysellik ve Kültür (T. Birkan, Çev.), İstanbul: Metis Yayınları.
74. Smith, N. (1984). Uneven Development: Nature, Capital, and the Production of Space. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
75. Smith, N. (1992). Contours of a spatialized politics: Homeless vehicles and the production of geographical scale. Social Text, 33, 54–81.
76. Smith, N. (1996). Spaces of vulnerability: The space of flows and the politics of scale. Critique of Anthropology, 16, 63–77. https://doi.org/10.1177/0308275X9601600107
77. Smith, N. (2000). Scale. İçinde Johnston, R.J., Gregory, D., Pratt, G. ve Watts, M. (Der.), The dictionary of human geography (4. Baskı) New Jersey: Wiley-Blackwell.
78. Smith, R. G. (2003). World city actor-networks. Progress in human geography, 27(1), 25-44. https://doi.org/10.1191/0309132503ph411oa
79. Soja, E. (1992). Inside exopolis: scenes from Orange County. İçinde M. Sorkin (Der.), Variations on a theme park: The new American city and the end of public space, (ss. 94-122). New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux (FSG).
80. Soja, E. (2017). Postmodern Coğrafyalar: Eleştirel Toplumsal Teoride Mekânın Yeniden İleri Sürülmesi. (Y. Çetin, Çev.) İstanbul: Sel Yayıncılık.
81. Soja, E. W. (1996). Thirdspace: Journeys to Los Angeles and Other Real-and-Imagined Places. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
82. Soja, E. W. (2000). Postmetropolis: Critical Studies of Cities and Regions. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
83. Soja, E. W. (2003). Six Discourses on the Postmetropolis 1. İçinde S. Westwood ve J. M. Williams (Der.), Imagining cities, (ss. 19-30). London: Routledge.
84. Stauffer, M. T. (2002). Utopian Reflection, Reflected Utopias: Urban Designs by Archizoom and Superstudio. AA Files, 47, 23-36. http://www.jstor.org/stable/29544275 adresinden alındı.
85. Stavrides, S. (2018). Kentsel Heterotopya: Özgürleşme Mekânı Olarak Eşikler Kentine Doğru (2. Basım), (A. Karatay, Çev.). İstanbul: Sel Yayıncılık.
86. Swyngedouw, E. (1997). Neither global nor local: ‘glocalization’and the politics of scale. İçinde Cox, K. (Der.), Spaces of globalization (ss. 137–66). New York: Guilford Press.
87. Tafuri, M. (1972). Design and Technological Utopia. İçinde Ambasz, E. (der.) Italy: The New Domestic Landscape, (pp. 388–404) New York Graphic Society, Greenwich: Conn.
88. Tafuri, M. (1976). Architecture and utopia: design and capitalist development. Massachusetts: MIT Press.
89. Tafuri, M. (1998a). L’Architecture dans le boudoir: The language of criticism and the criticism of language (V. Caliendro, Çev.). İçinde Hays, K. M. (Der.), Architecture Theory since 1968 (ss. 146–174). Cambridge: MIT Press.
90. Tafuri, M. (1998b). Toward a Critique of Architectural Ideology. (S. Sartarelli, Çev.). İçinde Hays, K. M. (Der.), Architecture Theory since 1968 (ss. 2–35). Cambridge: MIT Press.
91. Thrift, N. (1995). A Hyperactive World. İçinde Johnston, R. J., Taylor, P. ve Watts, M. (Der.), Geographies of global change: remapping the world in the late twentieth century, (ss. 18-35). Oxford: Blackwell.
92. Thrift, N. (1996). Spatial Formations. London: Sage.
93. Turan, N. (2015). Geographic Object. İçinde Larsen, J. ve Hubeli, R. (Der.), Between the Autonomous & Object ACSA Fall Conference Paper Proceedings, ss. 13-19.
94. Vance, J. J. (1971). Land assignment in the precapitalist, capitalist, and postcapitalist city. Economic geography, 47(2), 101-120. https://doi.org/10.2307/143040
95. Varnelis, K. (2006). Programming After Program: Archizoom’s No-Stop City. Praxis, 8 (May), 82-91.
96. Waldheim, C. (2010). Notes toward a history of agrarian urbanism. Places Journal. https://placesjournal.org/article/history-of-agrarian-urbanism/ adresinden alınmıştır.
97. White, H. (1973). The content of the form. Berkeley CA: University of California Press
98. Yang, Y. ve Xie, Z. (2019). The Rebellious Journey: Archizoom Associati and Andrea Branzi. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, July 2019 (Vol. 573, No. 1, s. 012077). Bristol: IOP Publishing.
99. Zuddas, F. (2020). Radical Notes: Archizoom Re-Viewed via Ivan Illich. Architecture and Culture, 8(1), 119-142.