Structuralism is a movement in architecture and urban planning evolved around the middle of the 20th century. It was a reaction to CIAM-Functionalism (Rationalism) [1] which had led to a lifeless expression of urban planning that ignored the identity of the inhabitants and urban forms.

Structuralism in a general sense is a mode of thought of the 20th century, which came about in different places, at different times and in different fields. It can also be found in linguistics, anthropology, philosophy and art. At the beginning of the general article Structuralism the following explanations are noted:

“Structuralism is a theoretical paradigm emphasizing that elements of culture must be understood in terms of their relationship to a larger, overarching system or structure.”

Alternately, as summarized by philosopher Simon Blackburn, “Structuralism is the belief that phenomena of human life are not intelligible except through their interrelations. These relations constitute a structure, and behind local variations in the surface phenomena there are constant laws of abstract culture.”


1 Structuralism as parallel movement to Postmodernism
2 Various movements and directions
3 Origins
4 Manifesto
5 Otterlo Congress – participants
6 Definition of the structuralist form
7 Theoretical origins, principles and aspects
8 Housing estates, buildings and projects
9 Different types of structures
9.1 Aesthetics of number
9.2 Structure and coincidence – two-components approach – participation
9.3 Other structures
10 Urban structuring – the art of town planning – overarching structures
10.1 Historic cities
10.2 Historic cities – reciprocity of form
10.3 New cities
11 Interrelationships between social and built structures (Team 10)
12 Literature and annotations
13 Literature – Interpretations since 1969

Structuralism as parallel movement to Postmodernism

In Europe, structuralism is seen as a parallel movement to American postmodern architecture. The first interpretations of both movements came up in the 1960s. Through publications and presentations by authors such as Charles Jencks, Robert Venturi and Denise Scott Brown, postmodern architecture was successful throughout the world for decades. While postmodernism is concerned with an architectural style, many aspects of architecture and urbanism are treated in the structuralist movement.

Nakagin Capsule Tower in Tokyo, Primary structure: two towers, secondary elements: capsules, 1972 (Kisho Kurokawa)

Yamanashi Culture Chamber in Kofu, Prototype of an interpretable, adaptable and expandable architecture, 1967 (Kenzo Tange)
In contrast to the postmodern movement, structuralism has developed more slowly, less noticeably during several periods in the last decades. The theoretical contributions of structuralism were developed in Europe, Japan, US and Canada. In 2011, the first comprehensive compilation of structuralist activity appeared in a publication called Structuralism Reloaded.[2] In this extensive book, articles by 47 international authors were published about philosophical, historical, artistic and other relevant aspects. The selecting process for all these different views, including what is more or less important, needs time to give a definitive overall picture of structuralism. The following parts of this article are based on the current state of the publication Structuralism Reloaded.

A few months after publishing this book, the RIBA Institute in London discussed the new candidates for the RIBA Gold Medal in 2012. An actual question was: “Should the Venturis be given this year’s RIBA Gold Medal?” Surprisingly enough, the RIBA-committee did not award the Venturis with their postmodernist view, and instead, gave Herman Hertzberger the prize for his structuralist architecture and theoretical contributions. The times had changed and a shift in emphasis had occurred. The comment of the former RIBA president Jack Pringle was: “The Royal Gold Medal, Britain’s most prestigious award, should go to an architect that has taken us forward, not backwards.” Today, postmodern architecture can be compared, to some degree with the architectural movement, Traditionalismus, in Europe.

Various movements and directions

Manhattan: Gridiron plan 1807 and 2007, overarching system, structure and coincidence, rule-based and interpretable structure
NASA Manhattan.jpg
The anthropologist, Claude Lévi-Strauss, remarked: “I do not believe that we can still speak of one structuralism. There were a lot of movements that claimed to be structuralist.”[2] This diversity can also be found in architecture. However, architectural structuralism has an autonomy that does not comply with all the principles of structuralism in human sciences. In architecture, the different directions have created different images. In this article two directions are discussed. Sometimes these occur in combination.

On the one hand, there is the Aesthetics of Number [3] which was formulated by Aldo van Eyck in 1959. This concept can be compared to cellular tissue. The most influential prototype of this direction is the orphanage in Amsterdam by Aldo van Eyck, completed in 1960. The “Aesthetics of Number” can also be described as “Spatial Configurations in Architecture”[4] or “Mat-Building” (Alison Smithson).

On the other hand, there is the Architecture of Lively Variety (Structure and Coincidence)[5] which was formulated for user participation in housing by John Habraken in 1961. Also, in the 1960s, many well-known utopian projects [6] were based on the principle of “Structure and Coincidence”. The most influential prototype of this direction is the Yamanashi Culture Chamber in Kofu by Kenzo Tange, completed in 1967. Similar notions of “Architecture of Lively Variety” are: “Architecture of Diversity”, “Pluralistic Architecture”, “Two-Components-Approach” or “Open Structures”.


Orphanage in Amsterdam, “Dutch Structuralism”, 1960 (Aldo van Eyck)

Kasbah housing estate in Hengelo, 1973 (Piet Blom)

Urban district Oude Haven in Rotterdam, 1985 (Piet Blom)

Centraal Beheer office building in Apeldoorn, 1972 (Herman Hertzberger)
Structuralism in architecture and urban planning had its origins in the Congrès International d’Architecture Moderne (CIAM) after World War II. Between 1928 and 1959, the CIAM was an important platform for the discussion of architecture and urbanism. Various groups with often conflicting views were active in this organization; for example, members with a scientific approach to architecture without aesthetic premises (Rationalists), members who regarded architecture as an art form (Le Corbusier), members who were proponents of high- or low-rise building (Ernst May), members supporting a course of reform after World War II (Team 10), members of the old guard and so on. Individual members of the small splinter group Team 10 laid the foundations for Structuralism. The influence of this team was later interpreted by second generation protagonist Herman Hertzberger when he said: “I am a product of Team 10.”[7] As a group of avant-garde architects, Team 10 was active from 1953 to 1981, and two different movements emerged from it: the New Brutalism of the English members (Alison and Peter Smithson) and the Structuralism of the Dutch members (Aldo van Eyck and Jacob Bakema).[7]

Outside Team 10, other ideas developed that furthered the Structuralist movement – influenced by the concepts of Louis Kahn in the United States, Kenzo Tange in Japan and John Habraken in the Netherlands (with his theory of user participation in housing). Herman Hertzberger and Lucien Kroll made important architectural contributions in the field of participation.

In 1960, the Japanese architect Kenzo Tange designed his well-known Tokyo Bay Plan. Reflecting later on the initial phase of that project, he said: “It was, I believe, around 1959 or at the beginning of the sixties that I began to think about what I was later to call Structuralism.”[8] Tange also wrote the article “Function, Structure and Symbol, 1966”, in which he describes the transition from a functional to a structural approach in thinking. Tange considers the period from 1920 to 1960 under the heading of “Functionalism” and the time from 1960 onwards under the heading of “Structuralism”.[8]

Le Corbusier created several early projects and built prototypes in a Structuralist mode, some of them dating back to the 1920s. Although he was criticized by the members of Team 10 in the 1950s for certain aspects of his work (urban concept without a “sense of place” and the dark interior streets of the Unité), they nevertheless acknowledged him as a great model and creative personality in architecture and art.


One of the most influential manifestos for the Structuralist movement was compiled by Aldo van Eyck in the architectural magazine Forum 7/1959.[3] It was drawn up as the programme for the International Congress of Architects in Otterlo in 1959. The central aspect of this issue of Forum was a frontal attack on the Dutch representatives of CIAM-Rationalism who were responsible for the reconstruction work after World War II, (for tactical reasons, planners like van Tijen, van Eesteren, Merkelbach and others were not mentioned). The magazine contains many examples of and statements in favour of a more human form of urban planning. This congress in 1959 marks the official start of Structuralism,[2][9][10] although earlier projects and buildings did exist. Only since 1969 has the term “Structuralism” been used in publications in relation to architecture.[2][11]

Otterlo Congress – participants

Barcelona, integration of two different structures: historic town and gridiron plan, 1859
Some presentations and discussions that took place during the Otterlo Congress in 1959 are seen as the beginning of Structuralism in architecture and urbanism. These presentations had an international influence. In the book CIAM ’59 in Otterlo[12] the names of the 43 participating architects are listed.[7] While the term structuralism in architecture was published for the first time in 1969.[11]

L. Miquel, Alger / Aldo van Eyck, Amsterdam / José A. Coderch, Barcelona / Wendell Lovett, Bellevue-Washington / Werner Rausch, Berlin / W. van der Meeren, Bruxelles / Ch. Polonyi, Budapest / M. Siegler, Genf / P. Waltenspuhl, Genf / Hubert Hoffmann, Graz / Chr. Fahrenholz, Hamburg / Alison Smithson, London / Peter Smithson, London / Giancarlo de Carlo, Milan / Ignazio Gardella, Milan / Vico Magistretti, Milan / Ernesto Nathan Rogers, Milan / Blanche Lemco van Ginkel, Montreal / Sandy van Ginkel, Montreal / Callebout, Nieuport / Geir Grung, Oslo / Arne Korsmo, Oslo / Georges Candilis, Paris / Alexis Josic, Paris / André Wogenscky, Paris / Shadrach Woods, Paris / Louis Kahn, Philadelphia / Viana de Lima, Porto / F. Tavora, Porto / Jacob B. Bakema, Rotterdam / Herman Haan, Rotterdam / J.M. Stokla, Rotterdam / John Voelcker, Staplehurst / Ralph Erskine, Stockholm / Kenzo Tange, Tokyo / Terje Moe (architect), Trondheim / Oskar Hansen, Warszawa / Zofia Hansen, Warszawa / Jerzy Soltan, Warszawa / Fred Freyler, Wien / Eduard F. Sekler, Wien / Radovan Niksic, Zagreb / Alfred Roth, Zurich

Definition of the structuralist form

Amsterdam, structure and infills (architectural ensembles), 1660

Centre Le Corbusier in Zurich, “Structure and Infill by the architect”, 1963-67 (Le Corbusier)

Halen housing estate near Bern, 1961 (Atelier 5)

Secondary school in Morbio Inferiore, 1976 (Mario Botta)

Swiss pavillon Expo 2000 in Hannover (Peter Zumthor)
Since structuralism has different directions, there is more than one definition. The theoretical contribution by Herman Hertzberger belongs to the most interesting versions. A recent and often cited statement by Hertzberger is: “In Structuralism, one differentiates between a structure with a long life cycle and infills with shorter life cycles.” [13]

A more detailed description by Hertzberger is published in 1973. It is a structuralist definition in a general sense, but also the basis concept for user participation: “The fact that we put ‘form’ in a central position with respect to such notions as ‘space’ or ‘architecture’, means in itself no more than a shifting of accent. What we are talking about is in fact another notion of form than that, which premises a formal and unchanging relationship between object and viewer, and maintains this. It is not an outward form wrapped around the object that matters to us, but form in the sense of inbuilt capacity and potential vehicle of significance. Form can be filled-in with significance, but can also be deprived of it again, depending on the use that’s made of it, through the values we attach to, or add to it, or which we even deprive it of, – all this dependent on the way in which the users and the form react to, and play on each other. The case we want to put is, that it is this capacity to absorb, carry and convey significance that defines what form can bring about in the users – and conversely – what the users can bring about in the form. What matters is the interaction of form and users, what they convey to each other and bring about in each other, and how they mutually take possession of each other. What we have to aim for, is, to form the material (of the things we make) in such a way that – as well as answering to the function in the narrower sense – it will be suitable for more purposes. And thus, it will be able to play as many roles as possible in the service of the various, individual users, – so that everyone will then be able to react to it for himself, interpreting it in his own way, annexing it to his familiar environment, to which it will then make a contribution.” [9] p. 56

Compared to other directions of structuralism in architecture, the following clarifications are noted: “In the new architectural movement there is often a tendency to call everything Structuralist that resembles a woven texture and has a grid. This would be a superficial way of looking at things. By nature Structuralism is concerned with the configuration of conditioned and polyvalent units of form (spatial, communicational, constructional or other units) at all urban scales. Only when the users have taken possession of the structures through contact, interpretation or filling-in the details, do the structures achieve their full status. Any architecture that has a tendency to formalism is thus excluded. Flexible form, which has been much discussed, is also rejected as a neutral enclosing system, since it does not offer the appropriate solution for any spatial programme. In the architecture of Herman Hertzberger Structuralist form can be found from the smallest detail up to the most complicated structure, whether it is in terms of spatial, facade or environmental design.” [9] p. 56

The next quotation is a definition of structuralism in different fields. It also discusses the autonomy of the primary structure: “Many Structuralists would describe a structure roughly in the following terms: it is a complete set of relationships, in which the elements can change, but in such a way that these remain dependent on the whole and retain their meaning. The whole is independent of its relationship to the elements. The relationships between the elements are more important than the elements themselves. The elements are interchangeable, but not the relationships.” [9] p. 16

Theoretical origins, principles and aspects
Built structures corresponding in form to social structures, according to Team 10 (Working group for the investigation of interrelationships between social and built structures).[7][9][12]
The archetypical behaviour of man as the origin of architecture (cf. Anthropology, Claude Lévi-Strauss). Different Rationalist architects had contacts with groups of the Russian Avant-Garde after World War I. They believed in the idea that man and society could be manipulated.
Coherence, growth and change on all levels of the urban structure. The concept of a Sense of place. Tokens of identification (identifying devices). Urban Structuring and Articulation (of the built volume).
Polyvalent form and individual interpretations (compare the concept of langue et parole by Ferdinand de Saussure). User Participation in housing. Integration of “high” and “low” culture in architecture (fine architecture and everyday forms of building). Pluralistic architecture.
The principle Structure and Coincidence remains relevant until now, both for housing schemes and urban planning. For housing schemes the following images were influential: the perspective drawing of the project “Fort l’Empereur” in Algiers by Le Corbusier (1934) and the isometric drawing of the housing scheme “Diagoon” in Delft by Herman Hertzberger (1971). At city level, important projects were: the Tokyo Bay Plan of Kenzo Tange (1960) and the fascinating images of the model of the Free University of Berlin by Candilis Josic & Woods (1963). Also, worth mentioning are the utopias of Metabolism, Archigram and Yona Friedman. In general, instruments for urban structuring are: traffic lines (e.g. gridiron plans), symmetries, squares, remarkable buildings, rivers, seashore, green areas, hills etc. These methods were also used in previous cities.

The principle Aesthetics of Number proved to be less useful for structuring an entire city. However, exemplary articulated configurations did arise, both in architecture and housing schemes. The first influential images for this direction Aldo van Eyck provided with aerial photos of his orphanage in Amsterdam (1960). Later he built another inspiring configuration for the Space Centre Estec in Noordwijk (1989). These two compositions can be counted among the most beautiful “icons” of structuralism.[3]

Housing estates, buildings and projects

Zentrum Paul Klee, Bern 2005 (Renzo Piano)

Madrid-Barajas Airport, 2006 (Richard Rogers)

Madrid-Barajas Airport, terminal 4
Atelier 5: Halen housing estate near Bern, 1961
Van den Broek & Bakema et al.: New Rotterdam districts: Pendrecht project 1949 / Alexanderpolder projects 1953 and 1956
Piet Blom: Kasbah housing estate in Hengelo, 1973 / Urban district Oude Haven in Rotterdam, 1985
Candilis Josic & Woods: Free University of Berlin, 1963–73
Craig Zeidler & Strong: McMaster University Medical Centre in Hamilton Canada, 1972
Giancarlo De Carlo: Student housing Collegio del Colle Urbino, 1966
Adriaan Geuze et al.: New urban district Borneo-Sporenburg Scheepstimmermanstraat in Amsterdam, 1997 (participation)
Herman Hertzberger: Centraal Beheer office building in Apeldoorn, 1972 (participation, inside) / Diagoon, eight experimental houses in Delft, 1971 (participation)
Louis Kahn: Jewish Community Center in Trenton, project 1954 / Salk Institute in La Jolla California, 1965 / Kimbell Art Museum in Fort Worth, 1972
Lucien Kroll: Students’ Centre St. Lambrechts-Woluwe in Louvain-la-Neuve near Brussels, 1976 (participation)
Kisho Kurokawa: Nakagin Capsule Tower in Tokyo, 1972
Le Corbusier: Perspective drawing of new city district Fort l’Empereur in Algiers, project 1934 (participation) / Weekend house near Paris, 1935 / Centre Le Corbusier in Zurich, 1967
Renzo Piano & Richard Rogers: Centre Georges-Pompidou in Paris, 1977
Renzo Piano: Zentrum Paul Klee, Museum in Bern, 2005
Richard Rogers: Madrid-Barajas Airport terminal 4, 2006
Moshe Safdie: Habitat ’67 housing estate, World Exposition in Montréal, 1967 / The Children’s Monument Yad Vashem in Jerusalem, 2005
Alison and Peter Smithson: Golden Lane housing estate in London, project 1952 / Urban-planning scheme 1953: Hierarchy of Association “house-street-district-city”
Kenzo Tange: Tokyo Bay Plan, project 1960 / Yamanashi Culture Chamber in Kofu, 1967
Aldo van Eyck: Orphanage in Amsterdam, 1960 / European Space Research and Technology Centre Estec, restaurant conference-hall library in Noordwijk, 1989
Verhoeven Klunder Witstok & Brinkman: Housing estate in Berkel-Rodenrijs near Rotterdam, 1973
Stefan Wewerka: New city district Ruhwald in Berlin, project 1965
Different types of structures
Aesthetics of number
The term “aesthetics of number” is introduced by Aldo van Eyck in the architectural magazine Forum 7/1959.[3] In his article van Eyck showed two works of art: a structuralist painting by the contemporary artist Richard Paul Lohse and a Kuba textile (Bakuba tissue) by an African artist of the “primitive” culture. The combination of these two cultures has a symbolic meaning in the structuralist movement.

Municipal Orphanage in Amsterdam, “Aesthetics of Number”, 1960 (Aldo van Eyck)

Trenton Bath House, part of a larger plan, 1955 (Louis Kahn)

Leicester University Engineering Building, 1963 (Stirling-Gowan)

Salk Institute in La Jolla California, 1965 (Louis Kahn)

Brunswick Centre Bloomsbury London, 1972 (Patrick Hodgkinson)

Klinikum Aachen, 1971–1985

Office building Banca del Gottardo in Lugano, 1987 (Mario Botta)

Gare do Oriente, Station in Lisbon, 1998 (Santiago Calatrava)

The Children’s Monument Yad Vashem Jerusalem, 2005 (Moshe Safdie)

Memorial in Berlin, 2005 (Peter Eisenman)

Structure and coincidence – two-components approach – participation
In the 1960s the structuralists criticised the narrowness of the functional principle “Form Follows Function”. In historic cities they found solutions for a new form principle: an interpretable, adaptable and expandable architecture, see below “Historic cities – reciprocity of form”. In the magazine Forum they developed ideas about “polyvalent form and individual interpretations”, “reciprocity of form”, “structure and infill” and “participation”.[3] In our time the notions “open structures” and “creation of architectural ensembles” are also used in discussions.

Yamanashi Culture Chamber in Kofu, “Interpretable, adaptable and expandable”, 1967 (Kenzo Tange)

Diagoon housing in Delft, “Participation”, 1971 (Herman Hertzberger)

Diagoon housing, basic structure for “Participation”

Diagoon housing, “Participation” of the inhabitants, inside and outside

Free University of Berlin, “Mat-building”, “Structure and coincidence”, 1973 (Candilis-Josic-Woods)

Medical Faculty Housing, “Participation”, Louvain-la-Neuve near Brussels, 1976 (Lucien Kroll)

Amsterdam Scheeps- timmermanstraat, “Participation”, cubist style, 1997 (Adriaan Geuze, coord. architectural ensemble)

Almere Homerus- kwartier, “Participation”, mix of styles, 2012 (OMA, coord. architectural ensemble)

Almere town plan, Homeruskwartier (circle left), “Participation”

Other structures

Centre Pompidou in Paris, “Megastructure”, 1977 (Renzo Piano & Richard Rogers)

Park Hill housing estate in Sheffield, “Gridless structure”, 1961 (Jack Lynn & Ivor Smith)

Parliament building of North Rhine-Westphalia in Düsseldorf, 1979-1988

Urban structuring – the art of town planning – overarching structures
Historic cities
Examples of urban planning and urban structuring. About the relation between historic and contemporary architecture Le Corbusier wrote: “I was labelled a revolutionary, whereas my greatest teacher was the Past. My so-called revolutionary ideas are straight out of the history of architecture itself.” Quotation in [13] No.2.

Barcelona, Gridiron Plan 1859

Manhattan, Gridiron Plan 1807

Rome, Symmetries Axes River Hills etc.

Karlsruhe, Basic structure: Radial

Paris, Radial structure Axes Symmetries River

Washington, D.C., L’Enfant Plan 1792

Amsterdam, Basic structure: U-shape

Venice, Basic structure: S-shape

Historic cities – reciprocity of form
In Forum 2/1962 Jacob Bakema made a study on the principle “reciprocity of form” and “participation”, especially on the Diocletian’s Palace in Split.[3] In Forum 3/1962 Herman Hertzberger did research on the Roman amphitheatres in Arles and Lucca. Later, in 1966 the idea of the amphitheatre in Arles was taken over by Aldo Rossi in his book The Architecture of the City. In 1976 Reyner Banham presented the Ponte Vecchio in Florence as one of the historic prototypes in his book Megastructure.[6]

Diocletian’s Palace, original state, 305

Diocletian’s Palace, original plan

Diocletian’s Palace transformed into a town, Split 1912

Split and Diocletian’s Palace, 21st century



Arles, Roman amphi- theatre, built in 90 AD, transformed into a town 600-1830

Arles, Roman amphi- theatre, reused as an arena since 1830

Florence, Ponte Vecchio, Structure and coincidence

New cities
New cities in the twentieth century. The term “Urban Structuring” is introduced by Alison and Peter Smithson, the term “Articulations” (of the built volume) by Herman Hertzberger. Both terms are used as a title of an architectural book.

Amsterdam, Plan Zuid, urban plan by Berlage 1915, architecture of the Amsterdam School

Chandigarh, urban plan and government buildings by Le Corbusier, 1951-1964

Brasilia, urban plan by Lucio Costa, government buildings by Oscar Niemeyer, 1956-1963

Brasilia 1990

Dhaka, National Parlia- ment Bangladesh, urban plan and architecture by Louis Kahn, 1962-1976

Interrelationships between social and built structures (Team 10)
De Drie Hoven residential building for elderly people in Amsterdam-Slotervaart by Herman Hertzberger, 1974. In the original state, the primary megastructure was light grey (prefabricated concrete) and the facade elements dark grey and matt (wood construction). Today, the original proportions and colors of the facade elements are changed by the intervention of an unknown architect. Herewith the fine architectural quality of the original building complex has disappeared.

File:Opening “De Drie Hoven”, modern complex voor bejaardenhuisvesting Weeknummer 75-23 – Open Beelden – 59794.ogv
Interrelationships, [see also YouTube]

Situation plan

Part of the megastructure

Kasbah housing estate in Hengelo by Piet Blom, 1973

File:Kasbah project van Pieter Blom Weeknummer 74-42 – Open Beelden – 61865.ogv
Kasbah, [see also YouTube]

De Kasbah, Hengelo (6921528471).jpg
Literature and annotations
Aldo van Eyck, “Statement Against Rationalism”, written for CIAM VI in 1947. In: Aldo van Eyck – Writings, Amsterdam 2008. Statement against CIAM-formulations like: “Urban planning can never be determined by aesthetic considerations but exclusively by functional conclusions.” This formulation came from architects of the Rationalist movement, written for the CIAM-declaration in 1928.
Tomas Valena (ed.) with Tom Avermaete and Georg Vrachliotis, Structuralism Reloaded – Rule-Based Design in Architecture and Urbanism, Stuttgart-London 2011. 47 articles by Roland Barthes, Herman Hertzberger, Winy Maas et al.
Aldo van Eyck, “Het Verhaal van een Andere Gedachte” (The Story of Another Idea), with the principle “Aesthetics of Number”, in Forum 7/1959, Amsterdam-Hilversum. The editorial team for the magazine Forum 7/1959-3/1963 and July/1967 existed of Aldo van Eyck, Herman Hertzberger, Jacob Bakema et al.
Aldo van Eyck, “Steps towards a configurative discipline”, in: Forum 3/1962, Amsterdam-Hilversum.
N. John Habraken, Supports – An Alternative to Mass Housing, London 1972. User Participation. (Dutch edition De Dragers en de Mensen, Amsterdam 1961. German edition Die Träger und die Menschen, The Hague 2000; in combination with Two-Components-Approach – Structure and Coincidence).
Reyner Banham, Megastructure – Urban Futures of the Recent Past, London 1976.
Max Risselada and Dirk van den Heuvel (eds.), Team 10 – In Search of a Utopia of the Present, Rotterdam 2005. Essays by 23 authors. Interviews with Georges Candilis, Giancarlo De Carlo, Balkrishna Doshi, Ralph Erskine, Herman Hertzberger, Alison and Peter Smithson, Aldo van Eyck.
Kenzo Tange, “Function, Structure and Symbol, 1966”, in: Udo Kultermann, Kenzo Tange, Zurich 1970. Kenzo Tange in 1966: “In addition to ‘functioning’ we also need to give spaces structure. The process of ‘structuring’ is the basic theme of urban design.” – Kenzo Tange in a lecture in 1981: “It was, I believe, around 1959 or in the beginning of the Sixties, that I started to think about what I was later to call structuralism,” (published in Plan 2/1982, Amsterdam).
Arnulf Lüchinger, Structuralism in Architecture and Urban Planning, Stuttgart 1980. Structuralism as an international movement. Including original texts by Herman Hertzberger, Louis Kahn, Le Corbusier, Kenzo Tange, Aldo van Eyck and other members of Team 10.
Wim van Heuvel, Structuralism in Dutch Architecture, Rotterdam 1992.
Arnaud Beerends, “Een Structuur voor het Raadhuis van Amsterdam” (A Structure for the Town Hall in Amsterdam), in TABK 1/1969, Heerlen. The architectural terms “Structuralism” and “Structuralists” are published the first time in this magazine, for the Dutch architecture scene. According to Francis Strauven (video Vimeo 2014, Studium Generale, 04:40 and 1:22:40) the term “Structuralism” was used by Herman Hertzberger in a discussion with Arnaud Beerends after the presentation of the Valkenswaard project in 1966, and “Dutch Structuralism as an architectural movement was recognized and launched internationally by the Swiss architect Arnulf Lüchinger, since 1974.” It is remarkable that the term “Structuralism” was never used in the magazine Forum (van Eyck, Bakema, Hertzberger et al.). The last issue of this editorial team was Forum July/1967. Herein one of the articles by Herman Hertzberger was named “A Study of Configuration”. In an architectural magazine, the first article with the title “Structuralism” was published in Bauen+Wohnen 5/1974 by Arnulf Lüchinger, about the architecture of Herman Hertzberger. – Correction in video 2014, first use of the term structuralism in architecture. Herman Hertzberger: “It was Arnaud Beerends who used the term structuralism for the first time in the magazine TABK 1/1969… I have expanded the term structuralism.” Interview with Herman Hertzberger by Francis Strauven (in: A+, Architecture in Belgium, 261_Hertzberger, Brussels 4.10.2016). Development from “Configurative discipline” to “Overarching system or structure”.
Oscar Newman (ed.), CIAM ’59 in Otterlo, Stuttgart-London-New York 1961. 30 articles by Louis Kahn, Kenzo Tange, Georges Candilis, Jacob Bakema, Aldo van Eyck, Alison and Peter Smithson et al., (English+German supplement). Since the 1970s the Otterlo congress is considered the official start of the structuralist movement.
Herman Hertzberger, Lessons for Students in Architecture, Rotterdam 1991-No.1, 2000-No.2, 2008-No.3. Definition by Herman Hertzberger: “Structuralism deals with the difference of a structure with a long life-cycle and infills with shorter life-cycles.”
Literature – Interpretations since 1969
Herman Hertzberger, Architecture and Structuralism – The Ordering of Space, Rotterdam 2015 (2014).
Joaquin Warmburg and Cornelie Leopold (eds.), Strukturelle Architektur, Bielefeld 2012.
Tomáš Valena, Tom Avermaete, and Georg Vrachliotis (eds.), Structuralism Reloaded – Rule-based Design in Architecture and Urbanism, 47 articles by international authors, Stuttgart-London 2011.
Rivka Oxman and Robert Oxman (guest-eds.), “The New Structuralism – Design, Engineering and Architectural Technologies”, in: Architectural Design July/August 2010, London.
Mark Garcia (guest-ed.), “Patterns of Architecture”, in: Architectural Design November/December 2009, London.
Sabrina van der Ley and Markus Richter (eds.), Megastructure Reloaded – Visionary Architecture and Urban Design of the Sixties reflected by Contemporary Artists, Ostfildern near Stuttgart 2008. 25 articles about Archigram, Yona Friedman, Eckhard Schulze-Fielitz, Constant et al., (German+English).
Michael Hecker, Structurel-Structural, Structuralist Theory in Architecture and Urbanism 1959-1975, thesis Stuttgart University of Technology, Stuttgart 2007.
Max Risselada and Dirk van den Heuvel (eds.), Team 10 – In Search of a Utopia of the Present, Rotterdam 2005. Essays and interviews.
Francis Strauven, Aldo van Eyck – The Shape of Relativity, Amsterdam 1998 (1994). Biography of Aldo van Eyck and his “Configurative Discipline” of designing.
Wim van Heuvel, Structuralism in Dutch architecture, Rotterdam 1992.
Hans van Dijk, “The demise of structuralism”, in: Architecture in the Netherlands – Yearbook 1988/1989 – Dutch Architectural Institute Rotterdam, Deventer 1989.
Anders Ekholm, Nils Ahrbom, Peter Broberg, Poul-Erik Skriver, Strukturalism i Arkitekturen, Stockholm 1980.
Reyner Banham, Megastructure – Urban Futures of the Recent Past, London 1976.
Alison Smithson, “Mat-Building, mainstream architecture as it has developed towards the mat-building”, in: Architectural Design 9/1974, London.
Arnulf Luchinger, “Strukturalismus”, in: Bauen+Wohnen 5/1974, Zurich-Munich — “Structuralism, a new trend in architecture”, in: Bauen+Wohnen 1/1976, Zurich-Munich. — “Dutch Structuralism”, in: Architecture+Urbanism 3/1977, Tokyo. — Structuralism in Architecture and Urban Planning, Stuttgart 1980.
Justus Dahinden, Stadtstrukturen für morgen (Urban Structures for the Future), Stuttgart 1971, London-New York 1972.
Udo Kultermann, “Introduction”, in: Kenzo Tange, Zurich 1970. The term “Structurism” is mentioned by Udo Kultermann as one of the themes, “characterizing the present phase in architecture”.
Arnaud Beerends, “Een Structuur voor het Raadhuis van Amsterdam” (A Structure for the Town Hall in Amsterdam), in: TABK 1/1969, Heerlen. The architectural terms “Structuralism” and “Structuralists” are published the first time in this magazine, according to the “Configurative Discipline” with equal building units.