This paper highlights the theoretical and critical implications of the everyday for contemporary Chinese architecture on two levels. On the one hand, against the background that – ever since the formation of the profession of architecture in the early twentieth century – there has been a recurrent preference for high definitions of Chinese architecture either in terms of its outer form or style, or its essential and metaphysical meanings. This paper thus aims to identify a quiet yet compelling awareness of the significance of the everyday to architecture in China over the past 15 years. Beginning with Jiakun Liu's declaration of Here and Now, illustrated by his recently completed project in Chengdu, Xicun Big Yard, this consciousness has been made apparent through architectural practice, research and education. To borrow Roland Barthes’ terminology, it is a ‘degree zero’ agenda that rests on the multiple yet ostensible unobtrusiveness of everyday reality in Chinese cities rather than the hot definition of form and overladen historical and metaphysical meanings. In the context of contemporary Chinese architecture, on the other hand, this agenda can also be seen as a resistance arising in response to the dramatic construction of large-scale urban redevelopments that have, in many cases, resulted in devastating consequences. As a ‘degree zero agenda’, the concern of the everyday not only offers a way to see around architecture's obsessions with buildings as autonomous objects but also calls for bottom-up urban processes in contrast to the top down approach that has prevailed in China. The paper calls for a Chinese architecture that, by transforming the purpose and activity of design, would better fulfil its social and architectural potentials through practical, poetic and critical operations.

This paper sets out to investigate the origins and legacy of a significant 1960s modernist public housing estate in the North East of England. This estate at Kenton Bar remains virtually intact, and as such represents a unique example in Newcastle upon Tyne. Its architects, Ryder and Yates, had personal contact with Le Corbusier, Georges Braque, Berthold Lubetkin, Ove Arup and Clive Entwistle; and the influence and mentorship of these individuals is clearly evident in the design. Being selected to join the small team at Peterlee New Town in 1948, provided the opportunity for Ryder and Yates to work together for the first time. The experience enriched their architectural vocabulary and modernist values; and ultimately led to the establishment of their business partnership in 1953. By the time of Kenton Bar, it was by far the largest project that their architectural practice had undertaken. The office was greatly appreciative of Eric Lyons and Span Developments, and their work appears as a distinct precedent in the layout. With a pyramid in its central square, and an assortment of innovative design installations, the estate resonated strongly and immediately with residents.Today, even the pyramid that was removed some years ago, lives on in the collective memory of residents, past and present. Recently, weblogs have been established; and collages and models produced by artists, as well as adults and children from the Estate, in the style of the original design presentations. Fifty years after it was conceived, the interest of local artists and galleries, the tenants’ association, former residents, and pupils of the primary school specifically designed to be at the heart of the estate may not be unprecedented but it is certainly rare. Ryder and Yates have created a living monument to twentieth-century ideas.

Exactly 50 years ago, the Council of the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) launched a new policy and commitment to ‘architectural research.’ At its meeting on 7 December 1967, it set in motion a new programme to accelerate and coordinate the growth of research in architecture, not only in architectural schools but through research centres and in practices. In addition, it reinforced its commitment to building up the Institute's own competence in research, ‘so that it can speak authoritatively on behalf of the profession in the formulation of national research policies and investment programmes.

This paper seeks to historicise the formation, development and promotion of architectural research – what we are terming the idea of architectural research – in light of the Institute's renewed commitment to a research agenda through the appointment in December 2017 of a Vice President for Research (an entirely new role) and the publication of a suite of resources aimed at ‘de-mystifying’ research in practice and promoting the evidencing of design quality and the value of the architect. These initiatives have their origin in the invention of architectural research as a distinct tradition and a post-rationalisation of what had gone before following on from the Oxford Conference in 1958. Furthermore, we situate the invention of this tradition not only within professional and educational debates of the post-war period, but also in the changing and fluctuating landscape of government policy on the promotion and funding of research, itself a response to a perceived cultural and political angst about the UK's shortcomings in productivity and development. In contextualising and problematising the creation and fostering of a ‘research culture’ in the UK architecture profession over the last 60 or so years, we also uncover some of the assumptions behind the contemporary self-conscious pre-occupation with developing the research culture of architects. The paper begins with a discussion of historiography and methodology before moving to the research context of construction history and the role played by the RIBA Research Group in developing the idea of architectural research.

Translating the German expressions Entwurf or Entwerfen into English seems to be an easy task: ‘design’ or ‘designing’ are the common choices recommended by dictionaries whenever a translation of Entwerfen or Entwurf is intended. The mutual translatability is evident since both ‘designing’ and Entwerfen refer to the same phase of an architectural process. Similarly, Entwurf and ‘design’ refer to the outcome of the architectural process as well. This confirms their exchangeability. It is notable that there are no similarly convincing alternative translations available, at least not in the form of single words or short expressions.

But there is no doubt that the expressions ‘design’ and Entwurf refer to different practices and media. They stress different aspects of the process of developing new concepts, ideas or objects, and different aspects of the result. This is why the common translation becomes dubious. Translating proves to be a challenge. The term ‘design’ offers characteristic and conceptually important qualities, as does the German word Entwurf, and the implications of each are so different that there is some doubt that ‘design(ing)’ can function as the adequate translation of Entwerfen.

Everyday life has gradually become an important thinking method of urban and architectural spatial practice. This article hopes to introduce the practice of rural research in south China through a design project, illustrating instructive characteristics of space on everyday reading. Through the introduction of everyday observation, systematic objects, place association based on the order and structure, and the image of space triggered by textual construction, this article finally shows the instructive meaning of everyday space practice which is an indispensable topic and method for spatial engendering leading to another everyday life.

Early issues of arq in the mid-1990s were preoccupied with the possibilities for researching architecture through design: how design research might be constituted and communicated, and – practically for architecture schools at that time – how design might be counted as research in the newly-introduced metrics used to judge research quality in UK Universities.

Debates around design research in arq in the 1990s reflected uncertainties about its position in both practice and academic culture at that time. Since then, design research has gained traction, becoming increasingly accepted and acquiring greater capital in architectural academe. Key texts in architectural design research are increasingly leaving behind the question ‘is design considered research or not?’ to search instead for how to secure the status of design as a rigorous mode of academic inquiry. There is increasing confidence in the architectural field about the potential and power of design as a research method. Yet the notion of design research in architecture remains broad, with a diversity of approaches echoed in a diversity of distinct but overlapping terminologies. Taking its cue from arq's early focus on design research, this paper sketches-out its contemporary methodological landscape in architecture, surveying key sources in design research scholarship.

A founding member of the Computer-Aided Design Group at the University of Cambridge, UK, and a student and collaborator of CAD pioneer Steven A. Coons at MIT, Robin Forrest occupies an important place in the history of computational design. Along with important contributions to the mathematics of shape representation, his coining of the term ‘computational geometry’ in 1971 offered a handle on design techniques that started to emerge – somewhat uncomfortably at first – in the interstices of engineering, mathematics, and the fledgling field of computer science. Initially fostered by governmentsponsored research into Computer-Aided Design for aircraft and car manufacturing, the methods he helped develop have since been encoded in countless commercial software systems for 3D modelling and simulation, helping structure the intellectual work – and the professional identity – of architects, engineers, and other practitioners of design.

The Korean Pavilions for the 1964 New York World's Fair and the 1967 Montreal International Exposition were designed by Chung-Up Kim (1922-88) and Swoo-Geun Kim (1931-86) respectively, two pioneers of modern architecture in Korea. Both pavilions’ designs raise a widespread architectural question about the modern representation of tradition. In contrast to earlier pavilions in Chicago (1893) and Paris (1900) that replicated poorly supposedly ‘authentic’ Korean architecture, these 1960s entries modernised traditional architecture from their architect's creative viewpoint. While Chung-Up Kim noted the formal qualities of the Korean sloped roof, especially its curvilinearity, Swoo-Geun Kim emphasised the traditional timber structure underneath the roof, exaggerating its horizontal layers. In other words, the former's pavilion was more expressive and sculptural, which reflected the architect's Corbusian and even Aaltoesque tendencies. Conversely, the latter pavilion was more logical and systematic. However, Swoo-Geun Kim's interpretation of tradition was also ultimately about the form, though he soon became more interested in space. With regard to the form, the two Kims shared the fundamental idea that the past must not be imitated as it was, but re-created in a modern sense. This underlying argument is reflected in the contemporary ‘debate on tradition’ ignited by the design competition for the National Museum of Korea in 1966. It also relates to to the ‘Japanese-Style Scandal’ of 1967 in which Swoo-Geun Kim suffered for his design of the Buyeo National Museum, 1965-68, due to the inclusion of Japanese nuances in the design of the Montreal Pavilion. Swoo-Geun Kim's later high-tech style pavilion for the 1970 Osaka Expo, alongside recent projects by Minsuk Cho in Yeosu (2010) and Venice (2014) has more recently suggested alternative ways to represent Korea in architecture. Therefore, these two pavilions from the 1960s can be understood as unique inflection points in Korean architectural history.

That architects leave the profession is something that seems ‘known’. In addition, there has been continuous concern that women in particular leave. However, the extent of departure is unclear. Much of the information around these observations come from surveys, is anecdotal or study women in isolation from men. This paper provides some firmer data on the movement of men and women into and out of the profession using Australia as a case study. It collates and analyses historical and contemporary data to delineate the complex patterns of participation in and leaving of architecture.

While the sources of data are often limited and approximate, this analysis nonetheless highlights a number of factors affecting the tenure of architects in their profession. The economy is an obvious factor and the data mirrors the economic fate of the country. The paper firmly demonstrates that gender is a factor with a strong impact on leaving the profession – a movement that clearly adversely affects the diversity of the profession. A further factor in leaving is age, which interacts with gender: women begin to leave when young and men when older. Diversity is increasingly proving to be an important factor in the ability of an organisation or a profession to survive, let alone meet, the challenges and opportunities of the globalised twenty-first century.

The paper concludes with a plea for better data sources to better clarify how, and to what extent, biases nudge many architects out of the profession. Understanding the extent and nature of these biases helps the formulation of tactics to foster greater diversity to engender a more resilient profession.

Despite the many studies on the everyday in social theory and in architecture, it remains wanting as to how the everyday – as an idea, concept or methodology – can be employed, if at all, for a new conceptualisation of architecture and a new ethic and aesthetic for design action. In this context, Jacques Rancière – who suggests that modern art is about daily life rather than formal abstraction and that a political aesthetic has been with us since the nineteenth century – stands out as a fresh and challenging voice that seems to have a great potential. This paper is a reading of Rancière for architecture, in the interest of searching for a new design agenda, and a new understanding of what was modern and progressive in architecture.

After a reading of Lefebvre and others’ studies on the everyday, this paper introduces Rancière's understanding of a longer-standing visibility on the common and the anonymous in everyday life since the early nineteenth-century. To explain, Rancière's main framework is introduced; this includes his basic argument of a distribution of the sensible – a subjective, perceptive and material ordering of the socio-political world that is also aesthetic, his differentiation between police and politics, and his third regime of art in the European history, the ‘aesthetic regime of art’, dominating after 1800 and ongoing today. Emphasising a few points and providing a discussion on four issues, the paper concludes with the proposal of a new approach. This paper critically revises established views on Marxist critique of commodification and of modern architecture as abstraction. It promotes a political aesthetic of ‘horizontal’ perspective, with openness, inclusivity and heterogeneity. It discusses as well how a non-western world, such as China, can and should be incorporated into a heterogenous field of discussion.

In recent decades, the interrelations between architecture and computation have fostered new design concepts and design methods, which challenge existing design and building processes. Specifically, the increased use of parametric methods and scripting allow for the development of modelling and fabrication techniques, which in turn challenge the role of drawing as one of the main tools for conceptualising and realising architecture. In 1975 Chuck Eastman proposed the conceptual basis for a more complete and effective role for the use of the computer in architecture with his ‘Building Description System’. During the 1980s, software developer Robert Aish contributed to the development of RUCAPS – one of the earliest applications based on the concept of ‘building modelling’. Later developments of building modelling envisaged further modes of collaboration between architecture, engineering, and construction in the (AEC) industry.

Are current definitions of ‘research’ stifling ideas that might be relevant to our discipline? This paper explores how a drive toward empirical research - while linking architecture to issues, facts, and data important to architecture's relevance - also drives architecture away from speculative ideas necessary to imagining a better future. This observation is briefly examined in the four spheres of design, history/theory, teaching, and advocacy. In design, the move in research from program to production to mapping may be seen as a form of avoiding the very thing most needing ideas/research – how to change the way we conceive of design work. In history/theory, the drive to archival specificity may be seen as fear of speculation. In teaching, empirical models emphasising sustainability that are evidence of ‘real research’ may leave behind theory altogether. And in advocating for a more empowered profession, the requirement for financial data and economic validation as proof for necessitating change may miss the larger problem of our current self-imposed identity as architects. Ideas that are not justified by current norms of research are still necessary.

This is a paper about the architecture of a concept: the concept of the political. Through the built environment, we come to re-imagine the concept of the political not as a set of institutions, or as an array of governmental forms, or even a series of rational choices, but in terms of affective energy flows. It is in interrogating this that I will turn to the built environment and analyse two ways of regulating the cadence of affective flows in relation to the political, through two machines: Britain's nineteenth century Crystal Palace and the Landlord Manor House Museum of Liu Wencai.

If Liu Wencai's Manor House Museum turned affective energy flows into political intensities that could drive the Maoist revolution, the Crystal Palace dissipated these same energy flows by turning them into commodity desires that would drive market growth. With the Crystal Palace, our attention is focused on how the channelling of energy into dissipated market desires produced a dispersal that, in turn, contributed to a political quietism. Such political quietism appeared as, at best, a ‘side-effect’ of an economic relation but, in placing this machine next to the Maoist Manor House Museum, we realise the centrality of this ‘side-effect’ in the formation of the political. The built environment, therefore, offers a set of heuristic devices that, read alongside each other, reveal two quite distinct modes of being political.

Despite their radical differences, these two machines share a ‘family resem-blance’ insofar as they exemplify how the built environment contributes to political discourse through the disciplining of social subjects. What these two sets of machinery open onto is a new understanding of the discursive field of modernity and the treatment of affective elements within any modern concept of the political.

Vincent Scully's recent death serves as reminder that the discipline of architectural history is not so old, with only a few intellectual generations needed to skip back to the turn of the twentieth century. Heinrich Wölfflin died in 1945 and Scully started writing his dissertation the following year, under the supervision of Henry-Russell Hitchcock. James Ackerman, whose death was also recent, co-taught with Scully in those years while being advised by Richard Krautheimer, who had completed his own dissertation under Paul Frankl. Students of both Scully and Ackerman are today adjusting the contours of the field with their books, articles, and lectures.

The scope of the development of architectural history is perhaps more limited than chronological age might suggest, and certainly that in comparison to the existence of its presumed subject matter – architecture – has barely made it to infancy. Without diminishing the hours of archival labour, field work, and writing that have been undertaken over the past century and a half, and without understating the contributions to knowledge and understanding those efforts have produced, the implication should be admitted: there really isn't very much architectural history. Not that many architectural historians, not that many books, not that much history, relatively speaking. This is not necessarily to say that architectural history is marginal, for it has attained points of instrumentality and effect along the way, but the admission is the necessary starting point for reflection on the future of the discipline, because architectural history needs to think about how to get bigger.

This paper investigates the interaction between reality and imagination in the architectural design process. It engages with four inter-related inquiries. First, the interplay between reality and imagination in the architectural design process in student design-build live projects. Second, the interplay of reality and imagination for different agents in the architectural design process. Third, how the work of John Hejduk (1929-2000) enables a reappraisal of conceptions of reality and imagination in architectural design. Fourth, we address a live project for The Story Museum in Oxford, UK – a physical architectural space concerned with imaginary spaces – that suggests how an understanding of reality and imagination might be deepened in the architectural design process.

The text reappraises the interplay of reality and imagination in architectural design as a cognitive process. There are two aims: to reassess empirical responses and received wisdom about what is real and what is imagined in architectural design; and to reassess the perception of differences between imagination and reality occurring across education and practice. ‘Thing Theory’ is proposed as a conceptual framework which allows us to improve our understanding of how architectural designs emerge, are transformed in the designer's mind, how architects communicate them to others and how they are understood and shared by others. Reference is also made to interviews with prominent architects. The term ‘thing’ was repeatedly used by these architects to describe moments in the design process when a break from reality had occurred. In these moments, subject and object seemed at their most intertwined. This moment is strong because it is so flexible in responding to change and managing complexity. It is also weak because it is a time when the designer tends to neglect vital everyday constraints such as occupation and ethics. However, this is a key moment because it allows possible future realities to emerge.

Reinhold Martin has been writing about industrial corporate architectures and the ways in which they function as technologies of organisation. Looking at the military industrial complex of the postwar period, he connects the discourses of cybernetics, system theory, and architecture. His studies offer a historical and theoretical understanding of architecture as a material complex with its own internal logic that integrates formats of vision, hearing, cognition, and communication into a semi-coordinated ensemble. In his publications on the history and theory of modern and contemporary architecture he deals with structures that characterise the design, the perception, and the communication of architecture, but are often beyond visibility and control. Rather than limit his scope to individual media, he takes up architecture as ‘apparatus of intermediation’.

This paper traces the rising and falling significance of twenty-two topics in digital architectural research. These topics, which are divided into seven primary themes, are examined using a longitudinal analysis (1995 to 2017) of research in the CumInCAD database. This database, which indexes more than 12,000 publications spanning the last four decades, is the largest dedicated resource for digital architectural research. The primary themes examined in this paper include research into: documentation and representation; environmental immersion; transformative methods or approaches; industry applications and impacts; pedagogy and interaction; and cross-disciplinary and sub-disciplinary focus. Some of the specific topics examined within these themes include research trends in BIM, virtual reality, parametric design, rapid-prototyping, the design studio and space syntax. In addition to these primary themes and topics, the longitudinal analysis is also used to examine a further twenty social, cultural and philosophical topics. Some of these secondary themes include crime, homelessness, politics, poverty, gender, emotions, ethics and violence. From this two-part analysis of the prevalence (or lack thereof) of various themes in the last twenty-one years of digital architectural research, the paper identified several challenges for the future. These challenges include the dangers of self-referentiality and insularity, the possible loss of grounding in industrial or professional needs and applications, and the lack of consideration of a growing number of problems facing the modern world.