115 Bernhard Schneider, “Daniel Libeskinds Architektur im Stadtraum,” in Alois Martin Müller,
ed., Daniel Libeskind. Radix—Matrix(Munich: Prestel, 1994), pp. 128–135.
116 “Jacques Derrida zu ‘Between the Lines,’” in ibid., pp. 115–117.
117 Office for Metropolitan Architecture, S M L XL(Rotterdam: 010 Publishers, 1995), p. 581.
118 Geert Bekaert, “Lessen in architectuur,” in Bekaert, ed., Sea Trade Center Zeebrugge
(Antwerp: Standaard Uitgeverij, 1990), p. 21.
119 For a lucid analysis of the impact of networks on dwelling and the city, see Bart Verschaf-
fel, “De kring en het netwerk,” in Verschaffel, Figuren / Essays(Leuven: Van Halewijck,
1995), pp. 105–120.
120 Fredric Jameson, interview with Michael Speaks in Assemblage, no. 17 (1992), pp. 30–37.
121 Jürgen Habermas, “Modernity’s Consciousness of Time,” in Habermas, The Philosophical
Discourse of Modernity(Cambridge: MIT Press, 1990); quoted in Office for Metropolitan
Architecture, S M L XL, p. xxviii.
122 Office for Metropolitan Architecture, S M L XL, p. 601. At an earlier stage when there was
still a possibility of the project being implemented, the story of construction techniques
was quite different. In 1990 there were two different possibilities for the dome: a classical
one based on a steel and glass construction and a more revolutionary, pneumatic structure
with a thin skin consisting of a transparent fiber-reinforced coating that would keep its con-
cave shape due to a slight pressure generated inside the building. See Bekaert, ed., Sea
Trade Center Zeebrugge, p. 32.
Afterword: Dwelling, Mimesis, Culture
Epigraph: Jean-François Lyotard, “Domus and the Megalopolis,” in Lyotard, The Inhuman:
Reflections on Time(Cambridge: Polity Press, 1988), p. 200; translated from “Domus et la
mégalopole,” in L’inhumain. Causeries sur le temps(Paris: Galilée, 1988), p. 212: “On
n’habite la mégapole qu’autant qu’on la désigne inhabitable. Sinon, on y est seulement
domicilié.”
1 Walter Benjamin, “Theses on the Philosophy of History” (1940), in Benjamin, Illuminations
(New York: Schocken, 1968), p. 256; translated from “Über den Begriff der Geschichte,”
in Benjamin, Illuminationen(Frankfurt: Surhrkamp, 1977), p. 254: “Es ist niemals ein Doku-
ment der Kultur, ohne zugleich ein solches der Barbarei zu sein.”
2 Heidegger never questioned his support of the Nazi regime—he was a member of the
party from 1933 to 1945 and rector of the University of Freiburg in 1933–1934. Despite re-
peated pressure from many people—Karl Löwith, Paul Celan, and Herbert Marcuse to
name but a few—he refused ever to condemn the Holocaust publicly. For a clearly written
survey of the issue, see Richard Wolin, ed., The Heidegger Controversy: A Critical Reader
(Cambridge: MIT Press, 1993). The cat was really set among the pigeons with the publi-
cation in France of Victor Farias, Heidegger et le nazisme(Paris: Verdier, Lagrasse, 1987),
translated as Heidegger and Nazism(Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1989).
3 Theodor W. Adorno, The Jargon of Authenticity(Evanston: Northwestern University Press,
1973), p. 68; translated from Jargon der Eigentlichkeit(Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1964), p. 59:
“Keine Erhöhung des Begriffs vom Menschen vermöchte etwas gegen seine tatsächliche
Erniedrigung zum Funktionsbündel, sondern bloss die Änderung der Bedingungen, die es
dahin brachten und die unablässig erweitert sich reproduzieren.”
4 Theodor W. Adorno, Aesthetic Theory, trans. Robert Hullot-Kentor (Minneapolis: Univer-
sity of Minnesota Press, 1997), p. 197; translated from Adorno, Ästhetische Theorie(1970;
Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1973), p. 293.
5 Jean-François Lyotard, “Introduction: About the Human,” in Lyotard, The Inhuman
(“Avant-propos: de l’humain,” in L’inhumain).
6 Lyotard, “Domus and the Megalopolis,” p. 200; French text: “Baudelaire, Benjamin,
Adorno. Comment habiter la mégapole? En témoignant de l’oeuvre impossible, en al-
léguant la domusperdue. Seule la qualité de la souffrance vaut témoignage. Y compris,
Notes to Pages 193–222