Navigation – Plan du site

AccueilDossiers19Uses and Users of Architectural a...

Uses and Users of Architectural and Urban Space: A Research Topic in Its Own Right

Introduction
Gauthier Bolle et Enrico Chapel
Cet article est une traduction de :
Usages et usagers de l’espace architectural et urbain : la présence d’un sujet de recherche [fr]

Texte intégral

Residents in Front of the Display Model of the Créteil Mont-Mesly Grand Ensemble (C.-G. Stoskopf, 1955-1978)

Residents in Front of the Display Model of the Créteil Mont-Mesly Grand Ensemble (C.-G. Stoskopf, 1955-1978)

Archives Caisse des Dépôts © Jean Biaugeaud, undated photo.

  • 1 In France, Paul-Henry Chombart de Lauwe, Henri Lefebvre and Henri Raymond, Philippe Boudon, Michel (...)
  • 2 Here we use the definitions proposed by Jean-Michel Léger (2012), op. cit., p. 30.

1This issue of Les Cahiers: Journal for the Study of Architecture, Urbanism and Landscape focuses on the role of uses and users in the conception, implementation, transformation and evaluation of architectural and urban design projects. Investigating contemporary forms of the seminal work begun in the 1970s—which sought to understand the role of users in the city and housing, as well as in the thinking behind actions such as marking, appropriation and development1—the goal was to question the relevance and future of these methods and concepts. Thus, the terms “use’ and “user” were left open-ended. The former encompasses both a society’s “normative” use of space and an “effective” one, and the latter reflects the diverse characters who receive and reinterpret structures, buildings and urban spaces (individuals, people, actors, agents, subjects, inhabitants, customers, etc.).2

2An important underlying assumption embedded in the call for papers was the relative marginality of these topics in Architectural history. The latter has often focused on the technical and aesthetic aspects of architectural and urban projects, or on designers themselves, exploring their roles, ideas or working conditions. Thus, we initially proposed three areas of investigation to uncover other types of sources, explore other phases of the design project process, and develop transdisciplinary approaches: uses and users in the production of the built environment; uses and users in theory and critique; and perceptions, practices and misappropriations.

  • 3 Among the authors, Élodie André, Frédéric Firreri, Natacha Issot and Lucie Prohin are currently com (...)

3The widespread reception of our call for papers underlined the renewed interest in this topic within architectural, urban and landscape research circles. This issue contains ten articles selected from a total of twenty-seven submissions, featuring contributions from emerging researchers, including current works underway3 and recently defended dissertations.

4While the authors are primarily from French institutional spheres, international perspectives are also investigated. Moreover, the diversity of the subject matter is striking, ranging from specific architecture that integrates the question of use into the design process; the absence of architects in certain architectural productions; the spatial interlacing of urban and territorial scales; and commercially or mass-produced buildings that have faced criticism—such as grands ensembles (large-scale housing estates) and necessitating adaptation for better their appropriation (see this issue’s cover image illustrating the distance between users and designers in these contexts). Some cases aim to question the long-term viability of systems specifically designed to integrate the question of use. A large portion of the articles, however, focus more on how use is measured, understood and utilized, or on the relationship between designers and residents within processes of transformation and improvement in existing spaces. Though this instrumental approach is not unprecedented, it is currently taking on a different tone due to the impact of digital, climatic and environmental transitions on research, design and planning processes.

5An array of approaches and methods to question the notion of use and the place of the user is also present. Several articles go beyond simply discussing and analyzing buildings, exploring the foundational imaginaries, discourses and concepts. The methods used thus combine or draw upon architectural and social science approaches, including interviews, Housing surveys, narrative analyses and historical investigations.

6Despite having initially called for a long-term perspective, the articles selected cover just one century. Seven of the ten articles deal with subjects that emerged after the 1960s, thus bringing particular attention to the period following the emergence of user/inhabitant in architectural theory and practice. However, a number of contributions shed light on earlier periods. Even though the call for papers encouraged a broader analysis across all types of building projects, the vast majority of articles focus on housing.

7Lastly, while we initially proposed to explore the role of use in the academic construction of architectural history and theory, as well as in pedagogy, criticism, politics and the media more generally, only one contribution directly addresses this issue. All of the articles, however, investigate how representations and narratives of use are shared by those involved in spatial planning. Furthermore, most articles are based on field surveys and case studies, bringing into question the theoretical ambition that has characterized some of the research carried out over the last century.

8The articles selected often fell into several of the original categories outlined and were therefore rethought. The first section questions the role of uses and users into design process and into the development of an academic representation of architecture. The second section explores the ways in which certain stakeholders have attempted to quantify and objectify practices, in order to provide a basis for analysis and design tools. The third section includes a number of reflections aimed at renewing the ever-present question of inhabitant appropriation and its effects on built space.

  • 4 Daniel Pinson, op. cit., p. 108.

9The forward of this issue is an article by Daniel Pinson, one of the authors responsible for the thorough and undoubtedly prolific period of reflection on the relationship between space and use. Never before translated or published in English, it first appeared in the Cahiers du LAUA (Laboratoire “Architecture, Usage, Altérité”) at the Nantes School of Architecture in 1993, tracing back the various meanings of the notion of use in architectural theory and practice. While criticizing the functionalist standpoint that limits use “to the strict requirements of biology and reproduction-consumption,” it also addresses the complexity of this concept embedded in social representations, myths and rituals of domestic and urban communities.4 Pinson argues that attention to use should not be considered a constraint in the design process, but rather an essential tool for achieving architectural quality, in which residents participate by aligning the space to their own practices. Indeed, in this alignment through appropriation process, “there is a formidable demand for aesthetic pleasure and not just practical necessity.” This opening statement thus serves as a theoretical foundation, reflecting a vision rooted in a particular historical context, in which the intention was to question the paradigms of architectural design at a time when the legacies of modern movement were under fire.

Representing and integrating use in academic design and construction

  • 5 Philippe Boudon, op. cit.
  • 6 Christian Moley, L’Architecture du logement : culture et logiques d’une norme héritée, Paris, Anthr (...)

10Drawing on historical approaches, several of the contributions explore the place of users in the design process, as well as in the creation of an academic representation of the user. Lucie Prohin investigates the history of a group of houses built in the early 1920s by architect Jacques Bonnier for the Société anonyme coopérative d’habitations à bon marché du parc de Montsouris. Other housing history studies have examined inhabitants’ views of certain projects, or have analyzed the renovation strategies behind them—such as Philippe Boudon’s groundbreaking work on Pessac.5 However, research exploring the potential and actual involvement of users at the design stage has been few and far between, despite experiments being carried out as far back as the 19th century, as the author points out. The case studies and the sources used in Prohin’s work allow us to identify stakeholders, from “tenant-buyers” to the various professionals for whom Bonnier had provided with sample plans as part of this ”intermediate“ operation. In these homes, appearance, layout and distribution principles appear as surprisingly diverse, even with regard to the finer details—such as materials used and finishings. Through an analysis of annotated plans, Prohin carefully elucidates how these dissimilarities correspond to the professions, hobbies and tastes of the future occupants, illustrating a certain degree of user agency as well as methods of dialogue with the designer. This step away from the inherited norm6 was relatively unprecedented in the social and popular housing landscape of the interwar period.

11Frédéric Firreri investigates the role of users in L’Architecture rurale française book collection, an offshoot of the rural architecture survey projects initiated in the early 1940s, led by Jean Cuisenier from 1977 to 2001. Exploring the emergence of an academic representation of vernacular architecture, it illuminates the inner disciplinary and institutional workings of this vast undertaking through an analysis of the first volume, which was coordinated by ethnologist Henri Raulin and focused on the Dauphiné region. As an anthropologist and successor to Georges-Henri Rivière at the Musée national des arts et traditions populaires (MNATP), Jean Cuisenier sketched out the broad contours of users as we question them today: “users, in fact, are manifold, their points of view more or less contradictory, their consensus more or less broad.” As such, understanding housing, landscapes, and especially the history of rural architectural forms can only be achieved through acquiring knowledge about the people who shaped them. The exploration of user as a concept in terms of its academic construction and application also highlights the mechanisms, tools and actors that make it possible to describe, identify and analyze users. Straying away from the idea of architect as designer, this article depicts the academic, the expert, and the intellectual as figures who combine analyses of built forms with a socio-cultural understanding of users. Moreover, it is worth pointing out that the subject matter covered in this corpus—that is, modest, non-expert buildings with no identified or claimed architect—has frequently been called into question by architects themselves, particularly since the 1970s.

  • 7 Inlcuding the following programs: PAN, Programme architecture nouvelle (1972-1987); REX, Réalisatio (...)

12Francesco Bogoni explores the role of use when thinking about housing quality, particularly through the housing experiments initiated in France by the Plan Construction in the early 1970s. The analysis is based on a broad definition of use, encompassing everything from the relationship between architectural forms and family life, to the inclusion of residents’ needs, aspirations, practices and representations in housing projects. Use is identified in the discourses of these experimental programs’ objectives as well as in responses from architecture competitions’ winning teams.7 The study includes over 500 projects, which the author complements with outstanding projects identified in trade publications and interviews with award-winning architects. The findings show the ongoing importance of use in public policy and among the developers involved in these experimental projects. They also illustrate the evolution of approaches to use over time, which have been guided by “cycles of reflection” resulting from organizational shifts in housing production, the structure of the players involved, and difficulties in surpassing the experimental framework. This theme, however, is also linked to other emerging issues, underscoring the historical roots of issues such as remote working, the management of common goods, generational diversity and the adaptation of existing facilities to current challenges.

  • 8 See the analysis of the user and the expert in the introduction of Kenny Cupers, La Banlieue, un pr (...)

13A fourth contribution by Louis Vitalis revisits the ambiguous status of use and user in the design process, analyzing the thinking behind design statements and discourses. In these cases, reference to use and users signifies a reality that does not yet exist and that must be anticipated, constituting an element of undecidability that Vitalis defines as a driving force within the design process. Use would thus appear to be simulated through fictional discourse—or semi-fictional discourse, as it is also based on references to reality—with design ultimately aiming at a concrete transformation of the latter. Thus, the ambivalence and paradoxes highlighted call into question the real possibilities and limits of taking use into account in the design process. The author points out that the recent development of new tools (Big Data, Neuroarchitecture, etc.) and the revival of participatory or the 1:1 design processes tend to eliminate or minimize the undecidability of use, thereby risking oversimplification, since the very nature of use in the design process cannot escape a degree of indeterminacy. The contributions in this section depict the ways in which use is integrated or defined, providing a wealth of insight into the portrayals and understandings of experts and designers themselves.8

Pinpointing the “reality” of use through tools and measurement

14Looking beyond the understanding of particular objects or discourses, a number of contributions seek to shed light on how some attempt to understand use—or a limited and measurable part of it—in order to feed analyses and design tools. Based on scientific and technical research, Antonella Mastrorilli and Roberta Zarcone’s contribution on the management and transformation of existing buildings explores the discrepancies between energy simulation findings, based on “standard behavior” versus actual consumption and use. To underline how this awareness could benefit the implementation of dynamic energy simulation processes, it draws on surveys carried out among social housing residents in the Vieille-Motte district of Neuville-en-Ferrain in the Nord department of France, a project built in 1975 by Jean Willerval and Omer Lecroart. Given the limitations of standard calculation models, this specific analytical method provides the basis for intervention strategies tailored to current environmental objectives. Its purpose is to assess the impact of a wide variety of behaviors on actual energy consumption, as well as differences in needs depending on the type of dwelling. The creation of a personalized database for each resident enables a detailed analysis of data currently neglected by regulatory calculations. In order to turn these measured occupancy variables into a genuine factor in improving energy efficiency, the authors devised a model that includes the identification of “resident energy profiles.” In this way, the collected and simulated data led to energy use recommendations which were proposed to residents. During a second phase, this allowed them to assess the impact of their daily behavior in terms of energy use and lifestyle. Thus, the approach is underpinned by dialogue and awareness-raising with users and grounded in an analysis of consumption behavior.

  • 9 Emmanuel Amougou, Les Grands Ensembles: un patrimoine paradoxal, Paris, L’Harmattan, 2006.

15Similarly, Natacha Issot’s research focuses on analyzing the “respectful” transformation and upgrade of the Ancely grand ensemble in Toulouse, built in the 1960s by the Société Coopérative HLM de la Haute-Garonne under the direction of architect Henri Brunerie. The author argues that a consideration of uses and users is essential to achieve transformations that reflect the specific character of the site. Given the site’s current involvement in the complex heritage preservation process9 and the existing disconnect between architectural design intent and inhabitant practices, the author’s aim is to reveal the uniqueness of this site by linking an analysis of the built environment with an understanding of uses. Initially constructed following the “cooperative rental” principle, the residence has since been transformed into a sprawling condominium complex (the largest in the Haute-Garonne region), and is now mostly privately owned. The author uses field observations and local residents’ accounts to offer a diagnosis of the situation. Changes in use and appropriation are identified through inhabited surveys and interviews, once again in order to grasp “the effective occupation of space.” Based on this preliminary analysis, the author intends to create a book of recommendations as a decision-making and prescriptive tool.

  • 10 Maxime Quentin, Éric Henry and Patrizia Laudati, “Prise en compte de l’occupant dans une démarche i (...)
  • 11 Here we refer to the articles on BIM found in the double issue “The Architect’s Offfice (18th-21th  (...)

16Élodie André and Hafida Boulekbache explore the place of users within new design tools, examining designers’ perceptions of Building Information Modeling (BIM) as a tool for communicating with users. According to the authors, BIM processes have the potential to provide added value for users, assuming they are able to capture and transform sensitive use-related data into usable form. Thus, to ensure that use is taken into account in the design process, one must objectify their perspective towards usable parameters for actors involved in construction.10 The interviews conducted by the authors reveal mixed perceptions regarding BIM’s capacity to handle dialogue with users, despite the fact that integrating this type of data ”must be led by the designer, as only he/she can give it meaning.“ Ultimately, all the processes and techniques to better assess and integrate uses in both analysis and design discussed in these articles11 call into question the very position and skills of architects within a wider network of expertise and design.

Perception, appropriation and transformation

17This last section contains three contributions demonstrating the vigor of a research tradition focused on understanding inhabitant thinking and practices, investigating the impact of user action on architectural or urban spaces. What do users have to say about the living environment intended for them and which they use on a daily basis? What occupation and appropriation tactics do they adopt? How do they transform and reshape it? These articles provide examples of appropriation—that is, the personal and thoughtful translation and interpretation of a space by its consumers—applying methods drawn from the social sciences. Interviews and inhabited surveys, are often combined with graphic analyses of the designed space and photo documentation. Despite the varied fieldwork and analytical perspectives, all the surveys presented are driven by the idea of bringing the design of housing and cities closer to their users.

18Taking a critical-historical approach, Juliette Pommier and Nathanael Thomas investigate the intermediate housing complex built by Dutch architect Herman Hertzberger between 1968 and 1973, in the urban district of Haarlemmerbuurt, Amsterdam, a renowned architectural work designed as an ”appropriable structure.“ Combining theory, interviews with the architect and residents, as well as graphic and photographic analyses, the authors retrace the life of the dwellings from their design to their reception by residents. Studying the devices designed by Herztberger to encourage use and social relations, along with users’ practices of identifying, impacting and transforming these same devices, the extent to which the architecture corresponds to the architect’s thinking becomes clear. However, we also discover a multifaceted, complex and nuanced characterization of appropriation processes. Interestingly, although the architect’s devices are indeed appropriated, some other elements not designed for this purpose are misappropriated and reveal resident’s creativity.

  • 12 Pierre Bourdieu, La Distinction. Critique sociale du jugement, Paris, Minuit, 1979.
  • 13 Jean-Michel Léger, op. cit., p. 33. See also Henri Raymond, Nicole Haumont, Marie-Geneviève Raymond (...)

19Martin Minost’s article focuses on a recently constructed neighborhood inhabited by Chinese elites in Thames Town, located in the Songjiang District on the outskirts of Shanghai. The neighborhood’s distinctive character—as a sort of parody on British-inspired domestic spaces and styles—was described as unsuited to the local cultural context and a pure expression of Chinese westernization. Thus, inhabitants have been considered as mere passive consumers in search of a foreign illusion. Minost, however, puts forth a different reading. Based on an ethnographic study carried out between 2011 and 2016 on the remodeling of kitchen and laundry areas, he measures the impact of residents’ representations and behaviors on the material and symbolic production of these spaces. The results astonishingly reveal that improvements made by residents enable them to reconnect with their “lifestyles.”12 As such, their actions are part of a process of self-distinction and self-representation, or even “liberation” from the Chinese social context, considered overly restrictive by some. Albeit contradictory, this can be seen as a reflection of Henri Lefebvre’s ideas, who saw commitment to daily life as a means of resisting the alienation and determination brought about by a given social and spatial system,13 instead of a work by-product.

  • 14 Experiments and strategies that have shaped architectural design culture include F. Carreri, Walksc (...)

20Xavier Dousson and Sandra Parvu’s contribution serves as an interesting overture to conclude this issue, delving into how a particular territory is used by Denis Moreau, an architect and surveyor who has been living in the Paris suburbs for over thirty years. The authors divulge an interview transcript conducted while walking alongside him, similar to those carried out by anthropologist Jean-Yves Petiteau. The goal was to highlight a unique experience—a life itinerary—and to emphasize the more general scope of repeated urban exploration processes that are capable of overcoming preconceived ideas and producing delicate, in-depth and subtle knowledge of inhabited territories. These personal recordings are an important means of detecting the existing, the practices at work, and even possible futures.14 Through them, the idea of appropriation grows considerably richer, taking on a more versatile and instrumental character.

21Ultimately, the articles in this issue do not revisit the role and influence of user-citizens in participatory processes, social struggles and contemporary controversies, as the call for papers originally intended. They do, however, confirm this subject’s significance and its methodological renewal in architectural, urban and landscape research circles.

Haut de page

Notes

1 In France, Paul-Henry Chombart de Lauwe, Henri Lefebvre and Henri Raymond, Philippe Boudon, Michel De Certeau, Marion Segaud, Daniel Pinson, Monique Eleb and Jean-Michel Léger have all contributed to the emergence of this field of research. See in particular Henri Raymond, Nicole Haumont, Marie-Geneviève Raymond, Antoine Haumont, L’Habitat pavillonnaire, Paris, CRU, 1966; Philippe Boudon, Pessac de Le Corbusier, Paris, Dunod, 1969; Henri Lefebvre, La Production de l’espace, Paris, Anthropos 1974; Michel De Certeau, L’Invention du quotidien, t. 1 “Arts de faire,” Gallimard, Paris, 1990 [1981]; Anne-Marie Châtelet, Monique Eleb, Thierry Mandoul, Penser l’habité, le logement en question ?, Paris, Mardaga, 1988; Jean-Michel Léger, Derniers domiciles connus. Enquête sur les nouveaux logements. 1970-1990, Paris, Créaphis, 1990; Daniel Pinson, Usage et architecture, Paris, L’Harmattan, 1993; Marion Segaud, Anthropologie de l’espace. Habiter, fonder, distribuer, transformer, Paris, Armand Colin, 2007; Jean-Michel Léger, Usage, Paris, Éditions de La Villette, 2012.

2 Here we use the definitions proposed by Jean-Michel Léger (2012), op. cit., p. 30.

3 Among the authors, Élodie André, Frédéric Firreri, Natacha Issot and Lucie Prohin are currently completing dissertations dealing with topics related to the articles published in this issue.

4 Daniel Pinson, op. cit., p. 108.

5 Philippe Boudon, op. cit.

6 Christian Moley, L’Architecture du logement : culture et logiques d’une norme héritée, Paris, Anthropos, 1988.

7 Inlcuding the following programs: PAN, Programme architecture nouvelle (1972-1987); REX, Réalisations expérimentales; Habitat 88 (1981-1989); CUH, Conception et usage de l’habitat (1983-1989); Europan (1989-2019); HQE, Haute qualité environnementale (1993-1995); LQCM, Logement à qualité et coût maîtrisés (1996-2002); VUD, Villa urbaine durable (2001-2007); CQFD, Logements optimisés coûts, qualité, fiabilité, délais (2005-2012); CQHE, Concept qualité habitat énergie (2007-2010); REHA, Requalification à haute performance énergétique de l’habitat (2008-2021); LDT, Logement design pour tous (2009-2015).

8 See the analysis of the user and the expert in the introduction of Kenny Cupers, La Banlieue, un projet social. Ambitions d’une politique urbaine, 1945-1975, Marseille, Parenthèses, 2018, p. 9-36.

9 Emmanuel Amougou, Les Grands Ensembles: un patrimoine paradoxal, Paris, L’Harmattan, 2006.

10 Maxime Quentin, Éric Henry and Patrizia Laudati, “Prise en compte de l’occupant dans une démarche interdisciplinaire de réhabilitation durable: Focus sur la perception du confort thermique dans l’habitat social,” Développement durable et territoires, 8/2, 2017, p. 4.

11 Here we refer to the articles on BIM found in the double issue “The Architect’s Offfice (18th-21th century)”: Aurélie de Boissieu, “Super-utilisateurs ou super-spécialistes ? Cartographie des catalyseurs de la transformation numérique en agence d’architecture,” Les Cahiers de la recherche architecturale urbaine et paysagère [online], 9|10 | 2020, [http://journals.openedition.org/craup/5551]. Elodie Hochscheid et Gilles Halin, “Les Agences d’architecture françaises à l’ère du BIM : contradictions, pratiques, réactions et perspectives,” Les Cahiers de la recherche architecturale urbaine et paysagère [online], 9|10 | 2020, [http://journals.openedition.org/craup/6201].

12 Pierre Bourdieu, La Distinction. Critique sociale du jugement, Paris, Minuit, 1979.

13 Jean-Michel Léger, op. cit., p. 33. See also Henri Raymond, Nicole Haumont, Marie-Geneviève Raymond, Antoine Haumont, op. cit.

14 Experiments and strategies that have shaped architectural design culture include F. Carreri, Walkscapes. Camminare come pratica estetica, Turin, Einaudi, 2006 (French translation: 2013).

Haut de page

Table des illustrations

Titre Residents in Front of the Display Model of the Créteil Mont-Mesly Grand Ensemble (C.-G. Stoskopf, 1955-1978)
Crédits Archives Caisse des Dépôts © Jean Biaugeaud, undated photo.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/craup/docannexe/image/13888/img-1.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 856k
Haut de page

Pour citer cet article

Référence électronique

Gauthier Bolle et Enrico Chapel, « Uses and Users of Architectural and Urban Space: A Research Topic in Its Own Right »Les Cahiers de la recherche architecturale urbaine et paysagère [En ligne], 19 | 2023, mis en ligne le 20 décembre 2023, consulté le 13 avril 2026. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/craup/13888 ; DOI : https://doi.org/10.4000/craup.13888

Haut de page

Auteurs

Gauthier Bolle

Gauthier Bolle, architecte DPLG, is Professor HDR in architectural history and culture at the École nationale supérieure d'architecture de Strasbourg, and a researcher at the UMR ARCHE (ENSAS /université de Strasbourg). His research touches upon architectural forms and theories, as well as the professional milieu in 20th century France. Main publications: C.-G. Stoskopf (1907-2004), architecte: les Trente Glorieuses et la réinvention des traditions, Rennes, Presses universitaires de Rennes, 2017; with L. Chevallier, L'École d'architecture de Bordeaux au XXe siècle, héritages et perspectives, Bordeaux, Presses universitaires de Bordeaux-Montaigne, 2021; with A. Diener and N. Lefort (dir.), L'École d'architecture de Strasbourg (1921-2021) : une douce modernité en Alsace, Riotard, Lieux Dits, 2022; with A. Diener and S. Abadie (dir.), Pour une histoire culturelle de l'architecture. Essais offerts à Anne-Marie Châtelet, Geneva, Metis Presses, 2023; with A. Diener (dir.), Dessins d'élèves architectes aux Beaux-Arts. Des programmes aux projets (1906-1968), Riotard, Lieux Dits, 2023.

Articles du même auteur

Enrico Chapel

Architect, Enrico Chapel is Professor HDR at the École nationale supérieure d'architecture de Toulouse, attached to the TESC doctoral school and a member of the Laboratoire de recherche en architecture (LRA EA 7413 CNRS), and and associate member of IPRAUS (UMR AUSser) at the École nationale supérieure d'architecture de Paris-Belleville. His work focuses on the history of architecture and urban planning, discourses and project processes in the 20th and 21st centuries. He has published several works, including: Jean-Pierre Buffi. Réalisations et projets (1994), L'Œil raisonné. L'invention de l'urbanisme par la carte (2010), Toulouse Territoires Garonne. Habiter en bord du fleuve (2012). With C. Ringon, he also edited the collective publication L'Enseignement de l'architecture à Toulouse. Prémices d'une histoire (2019). He has contributed to several books, including Raisons d'écrire. Des architectes et des livres (2013), Atlas of the Functional City (2014), Le Marais en héritage. 50 ans de sauvegarde depuis la loi Malraux (2016), Le Monde nouveau de Charlotte Perriand (2020), L'Architecture en ses écoles (2022). He has been curator and scenographer of exhibitions, including Urbanités inattendues, CMAV, Toulouse (2011), and with T. Mandoul and R. Papillault, Chandigarh 50 ans après Le Corbusier. Le devenir indien d'une ville moderne, Cité de l'architecture et du patrimoine, Paris (2015/2016). He has been a visiting researcher at the Canadian Centre for Architecture (CCA), in Montreal.

Articles du même auteur

Haut de page

Droits d’auteur

CC-BY-NC-ND-4.0

Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont susceptibles d’être soumis à des autorisations d’usage spécifiques.

Haut de page
Rechercher dans OpenEdition Search

Vous allez être redirigé vers OpenEdition Search