Lec 12: Transformations V: Panopticism, St. Petersburg and Berlin

Flash and JavaScript are required for this feature.

Download the video from iTunes U or the Internet Archive.

Description: This lecture explores the enlightment of people as individuals, separation of work and home, and the organization of complex space. Panopticism, implied meanings in façade, spatial comparison, and transformability are illustrated through case studies.

Instructor: Julian Beinart

The following content is provided under a Creative Commons license. Your support will help MIT OpenCourseWare continue to offer high quality educational resources for free. To make a donation or view additional materials from hundreds of MIT courses, visit MIT OpenCourseWare at ocw.mit.edu.

JULIAN BEINART: First of all, we did case studies of five cities with reference to the 19th century primarily, and how they dealt with similar of the fundamentals change. Any thoughts before we move on? Any comparisons that strike you-- London, Paris, Barcelona, Vienna, and Chicago?

AUDIENCE: I think it's interesting with Paris and Vienna how their interventions were, in the end, more integrated and sort of on top of what was there before, whereas Chicago is was all new, and Barcelona-- you have a medieval city and then the Cerdá plan as two completely separate.

JULIAN BEINART: Yeah. Yeah. The Cerdá model, as I argued, is probably the most conventional model. That is you leave the center of the city and its walls, where you take down the walls because everybody took down the walls. The taking down of the walls in Barcelona was before Cerdá's competition. So it was really moving in the direction of expansion. But the scale of Cerdá's expansion plan is phenomenal. How it is that the city, model city, would undertake such an enormous expansion under such a rigid control is remarkable. It puts Barcelona in a category almost all of its own.

Chicago's expansion was from 1830 onwards. You built a house. You built another house. You built another house. There was no city involvement in the expansion of Chicago. It was purely a market driven phenomenon.

AUDIENCE: But wasn't the grid where you could build that house already established through the government division of land?

JULIAN BEINART: Well, I didn't know the history well enough to know what is government subdivision. It's a tract of land which is developed by a developer often according to-- the weakness of Chicago's governance is significant in the history. It separated out completely from the other cities. European urban control is a much more significant than American urban control.

[INAUDIBLE] has argued that the American layout often included larger pieces of land than was required. And this he argued, was a good investment in that you could then double up or expand over time. Seeing how only half the lot was built, you could double up the density for instance.

I did a studio project many years ago here in Cambridgeport, where I argued that one could densify without changing the existing buildings. That there was enough space to do-- and the reality of the situation is that Cambridgeport is absolutely resistant to any plan which is densifies it's area for one reason mainly-- automobile traffic. You cannot in Newton, if you have built yourself a palace and have half another lot free, you cannot even rent out another property because of the fear of an increase in density automobiles.

AUDIENCE: But that is changing. I mean slowly, but the fight over laneway housing is going--

JULIAN BEINART: It may over time-- I don't know whether ownership of property sets up a greater lack of indulgence in change. Pullman, Illinois was an example of him not wanting to let home ownership exist because he felt that home ownership would stand in the way of the people changing their psychological apparatus and living much cleaner lives-- as he is a paternalist-- were unwanted. I don't know.

I was just reading again about EUR. Do you know EUR-- 1942? Michaela, you know what EUR stands for.


JULIAN BEINART: Yeah. Exposizione Universale Roma. EUR was intended as a fascist commemoration exposition 20 years after the origins of fascism in Italy and the Mussolini. Anyway, we'll deal later with this. I want to now shift gears a bit and do three classes which reflect backwards on these case studies.

The first one today deals with a very difficult proposition. And that is the expression of power. The second one, on Thursday, will deal with utopianism because the 19th century was a very hotbed of utopian attempts to change the form and social structure of cities. And thirdly, I will conclude this section by looking at England-- the New Towne's proposition in England after the '46 war-- and Russia between 1917 and 1932-- pre-Stalinist Russia-- as examples of attempts to counter the problems that the 19th century city provided in a sense.

I think the material I'm doing today and the next two classes suggests much more interaction with you. I would want your opinion on things which I'm going to propose-- difficult things. Things which are very difficult to establish in fact. I start off with a quotation. "In 16th century Paris a popular form of entertainment was cat burning, In which a cat was hoisted on a sling on a stage and slowly lowered into a fire. According to historian Norman Davies, the spectators, including Kings and Queens, shrieked with laughter as the animal was howling in pain was singed till roasted and finally demolished. Such sadism would be unspeakable in today."

Another French example, "Damiens, the incompetent would be assassin of Louis XV--" Louis XV was an incompetent man himself. He had an incompetent assassin, Damiens. "He was sentenced to be torn to pieces by 6 horses, to be stabbed and have his wounds soiled with burning sulfur and molten lead, and a good deal more in the same vein." Why don't we do that anymore?

According to the best writer on the subject, Michel Foucault in his book Discipline and Punish, we have substituted hard measures for soft measures. And in his view, soft measures introduced by liberal society where punishment is less obvious and less brutal is nevertheless curtailing our freedom in society.

So let's look at that proposition a little more. Let's look at the proposition of the facade in architecture. And then let's look at two case studies. The one of the proposed five mile rebuilding of the center of Berlin by Albert Speer and Hitler in which we find some very interesting components of ideology which one might relate to fascism or not. And the other example is the 2 1/2 mile Avenue in St. Petersburg in Russia. The Nevsky Prospekt named after Alexander Nevsky who was a 19-year-old leader of Russia, defeated the invading forces from the North many years ago.

So let's start with this soft replacement of the hard with the soft. Let's look at first order a couple of characteristic of the 19th century which appear in these cases. First of all, the Enlightenment is-- and of people as individuals-- the specialization of places. The work which shows how the integrated house-- which include craftsmen, families, and all together in the medieval Guild-- was replaced by separate rooms and typologies of houses-- a special places for servants-- upstairs, downstairs, in the British movies-- warehouses for workers, and most importantly, separation of work and home. The journey to work becomes a phenomenon of contemporary society. It's still is.

In the land of the salt mining, salt processing town of Chaux-- C-H-A-U-X-- built in the late 18th century in France, you will see there are houses for blue collar workers and houses for white collar workers. There is a typology associated with each. And Ledoux designed Chaux-- the architect of the Ancien Régime. I would show you a house for an intellectual that he designed. Imagine conceiving of a project of a house for an intellectual. There is a typology associated with each category of human beings.

The concept of typology has stuck with architectural thought. It's been revived in our own times, but in a different kind of sense. When we talk about Aldo Rossi, we will go back into the contemporary meaning of the typological experiment.

A second characteristic of 19th century space was the organization of complex space. The census in 1801 in England used the cadastral system for measuring land-- maps of boundaries and ownership, specialized sewage plants, and the capacity of a new management to organize complex space.

Thirdly, new forms for institutions-- here we go back to our story about punishment. Fire no longer needs to be violent. Killing no longer needs to be seen symbolic in public. The guillotine is used for the last time in 1789, I think, more or less. Torture is no longer visible. Well yeah, I'm generalizing.

Modern society attempts to teach you to reform and change your habits rather than persecuting you. In order to do that, you have the new idea of panopticism. Panopticism being a system where an individual is watched from a central position, but doesn't know when he or she is being watched. A series of louvers separates the prisoners. The prisoners are isolated from each other so they cannot communicate. The prisoners are either workers, schoolboys, or madmen. Light enters from the outside, and creates a silhouette which allows the person doing the envisioning to see the person being watched.

I quote from Foucault, "The prisoner is seen, but he does not see. He's the object of information, never a subject in communication. Power should be visible, but unverifiable. Institutions can now move forward from being dungeons, to being light structures. A new prison preserves only the enclosure, but eliminates the need to deprive the patients of light or to hide them. No bars, no chains, no heavy locks-- fortress-like architecture is replaced by economic geometry. This is parallel with taking down the city walls."

You know what a panoptagon looks like? I've just described it in words. Shall I draw it on a-- can you imagine what this is-- yeah, of course. I'm sorry, I forget what I'm doing. There are many variations. Those are two from Mexico, I think. Elaborate structures all maintaining a certain central idea. That you can watch a patient or schoolboy or prisoner without locking him up in the sense of using every instrument for preserving his security.

According to Foucault, this creates an environment in which institutions of health, institutions of production-- I will talk about the salt extraction city Chaux near Switzerland, 1775, 1779-- and so on and so on. Foucault uses the analogy of what happens during the plague. This is a fairly long. I'm going to go through it very quickly.

When the plague appears in a town at the end of the 17th century, first the strict spatial partition, the closing of the town and its outlying districts, prohibition to leave the town on pain of death, the killing of all stray animals, the division of the town to district quarters each governed by an attendant. Each street is-- and he goes on and on about the details of how food is distributed, the powers of each street superintendent, death is often the punishment inflicted on somebody who doesn't obey. It is a segmented, immobile, frozen space-- each individually fixed in his place. And if he moves, he does so at the risk of his life, contagion, or punishment.

He analogizes this was the panopticon space. This enclosed segmented space observed at every point in which the individuals are inserted in a fixed place, in which the slightest movements are supervised, in which all events are recorded, in which an uninterrupted work of writing links the center and periphery. Power is exercised without division according to a continuous hierarchical figure. All this constitutes a compact model of the disciplinary mechanism.

It's [INAUDIBLE] that the possible outcomes of contravening the orthodox environment of the plague superimposed upon a place-- if he moves he does so at the risk of his life, contagion, or punishment-- three awful results. In the sense that when it requires a specialization of types, as well as a sense of geometry of control, one can find no better example than the salt extraction factory at Chaux.

I draw it on here-- actually only two or three blocks-- the gate and the director's house are on axis. The geometry is that the director, with his gaze-- here is he-- over the workers who live on the edges. Nobody knows whether the director is watching or not. The trick is that you're constantly under the threat of being supervised. The gate is decorated on the outside, not on the inside. What that means I don't know.

AUDIENCE: The decoration isn't for the workers?

JULIAN BEINART: No, the decoration is for whoever gazes from the outside. Blue collar workers-- sorry, reverse-- white collar workers, blue collar workers-- this is a crude diagram of a factory town. One of the first factory towns ever built. In fact, it may be the first one on record prior to the 18th century. Have you seen this plan before? Where do you run into it?

AUDIENCE: I think I stayed in this same town.

JULIAN BEINART: Yeah. So you have a typology of specialized space for categories of people. You know this typology in a location in the dormitory for the director. You have the automatic, constant and subtle examination process by the director.

These could be a bunch of children being watched in a laboratory through a screen which makes them not realize that they're being watched. Oh sorry, the louver system would be here. The light would reflect the people back to the central observer. OK, enough bad drawing. We will see in the pictures some more detailed examples of Chaux

A French contemporary writer by the name of Paul Virilio I don't know if you've ever run into any of his writing, he extend this notion of inconspicuous examination to the contemporary city. If you want an example of somebody who's applied it to the American city, there's a thesis done in 1989 by Daniel Glenn called The Moral Society, Inclusion, Exclusion, and Control in the Urban Center. I think he does a case study of the John Hancock building, and a couple of examples of where insidious control is maintained whilst done in a very elegant signifying way.

Virilio writes a piece called The Overexposed City which I'm not sure I agree with completely. But he says that we should be conscious of the fact that our behavior is now examined and processed through environmental controls, which are subtle and not so obvious. Take the question of congestion control. Congestion control implies that your movement in an automobile has to be rationed. Therefore you pay a fee when you pass a cordon of a kind. That fee is processed by virtue of you having some identification tag on your car-- electronic identification tag on your car. It happens on the Mass Turnpike-- if you live beyond the Mass Turnpike entrance into city.

The objection to congestion pricing has often been that it locates you in space without you being aware that it's happening. If a telephone bill arrives at home, and your wife says, I see that you were on the main road in the city and at 2 o'clock in the morning of Thursday the 22nd. What were you doing there? And you stumble and say, well, I-- it's a mistake. I wasn't there. The truth is I was visiting my girlfriend. It's a set of controls which can be elaborated enormously, and deprive you of your individual liberty.

That issue will continue to exert its force on the control system. The amount of freedom that we will give up in order for us to maintain a sane environment is at the issue. I remember being on a small group here at MIT where one of the famous computer control people was on the panel. And he made the statement of the following kind-- he could reduce murder in the society by at least 50% by having everybody forcibly wear a bracelet which located them in space.

The fact that you can locate yourself freely in space is, of course, subverted by a control system of a kind. But a liberal control system will not maintain your position in space as a record. Some of you may not care whether your movements are controlled, in space or not. The payoff of the declining rate of murder to the extent that everybody who commits a murder can be located in space.

It's an intriguing trade off. And the modern city is going to increasingly-- the modern society-- Virilio are and others-- Foucault amongst others-- argues that it's going to become a more and more pervasive phenomenon in the contemporary city. These are maybe symbolic as well as actual phenomena.

I go on to another aspect of the story. And that's a piece of writing by David Friedman who is a Professor here in the the history area. Friedman argues that the medieval street was a functioning street. In other words, that it maintained the processes of commerce, expansion of individuals into the street, random affairs, loose furniture. A whole range of things characterized the medieval street. Not only with the medieval street, the street of multi-use, its facades which enclosed the street were democratized and varied

It is not until the Renaissance that street and palace-- and this statement is also true for modest domestic architecture-- were set into the more or less symbiotic relationship which they continue until the 20th century. What he's saying is the word fachada-- the facade of a building or a street plays the same expressive role as the head does in the human body, it is the face of what you see and implies meanings which the street is meant to produce towards its users.

There were rules in the medieval street system for how many movable objects to allow to attach to a house or shop. Movable tables or carts are potentially so disruptive to the social committee order, were explicitly banned later on. We still make arrangements around the use of a street-- in Italian streets, in Italian piazza in summer.

In this country we have now introduced the possibility of doing it even in the city of Boston. Prior to recently it was not possible to do it in Boston because of health related legislation. Only a place could only be considered healthy if it maintained certain proprietary sanitary laws. Now there is a relationship possible between the use of the street as a temporary device while maintaining the facade of the street.

There are transactions. For instance, on the relatively new hotel on the waterfront is an arrangement whereby the hotel looks after that park that's been created. In return of which, it may serve drinks on the terrace outside its own property. The emergence of a facade as a factor is interesting. It promotes the expression of meaning differently from improperly organized environment. Rather than loose furniture, it was also possible above 10 feet to project your house into the street itself to gain more space.

So there was a variety of disruptions in the medieval street to the constant orthodoxy of the street. Orthodox of the street being non-facade driven. According to Friedman, this changed. You have for the first time, the organization of the street facade largely for palaces and large domestic environments, as being constant.

He cites the 1444 Medici Palace in Florence-- recognized as the first great palace of the Renaissance. He goes on to argue about it's effect. Facade then represents a new relationship with buildings in the city. It is a concept born in the 14th century and matured in the Renaissance.

He argues, if he's correct, in a changed identification of the effect of the built world on individual behavior. Aztecs of the Street of the Dead in Teotihuacan didn't have constant facades, but they had pyramids of the moon and the sun and the strict notions of behavior along an axis.

The projects-- the two projects which I want to look at with you use the Friedman idea of the facade as a powerful tool in different ways. Hitler's ideology was in part based on the permanence of power. The EUR in 1942 under Mussolini, was merely an exhibition. It later became a town or part of Rome-- the Southeast part of Rome.

Under Hitler there was no end to the permanence of power. Power was constant and everlasting. There's a wonderful story that Speer tells of working in Nuremberg and seeing a building being taken down, and looking at the ruins, and saying, we must not have ruins as ugly as this. So he invent something called the theory of ruined value. Imagine a theory which forces you to make sure that the permanence of your situation is going to be beyond the life of the building. That the ruins will ruin like great ruins of Caracalla or the great Roman ruins.

This is only one example of a ideology which is not temporary, but which is seen to be permanent. The style of buildings is considered to be neo empire. Again, it's got to do with everlasting circumstance. According to Speer, they start with the Doric order and keep on inventing new orders as they go along. Again, Hitler is the beginning of a continuity.

Hitler himself says to Albert Speer, whom he chooses as his architect when Speer is 26 or 24 or something, he says I need somebody who will understand when I'm dead. Meaning again, that the normal projection of nature-- of life, death, ruin, and change-- is disestablished.

There are a number of examples of it. Hitler hated glass. Glass was too ephemeral. The 1936 games were Hitler's great international triumph. And he had a stadium which he was being modernized with glass and so on. He hated it and told them to stop and put back the stone.

Speer, in his spare time, designed a stadium for 400,000 people, which is an impossible artifact anyway. You cannot have 400,000 people in a place, and have them see. The distances become too long. But when Speer shows Hitler this model, Speer apologizes and says, I'm sorry, Herr Fuhrer. The Olympic games will not be able to be held in this stadium because I have changed the base of the platform. So that the games, according to the rules, will have to change. Hitler says, don't worry. The 1944 games are supposed to be in Tokyo. After that they will return to Berlin and be held here forever. Forever, meaning forever-- meaning and at the same time, of course, we will change the Olympic rules. We will change the process in order to secure the fundamental fact of the construction.

So you get his ideology expressed in terms of an interminable notion of continuity. No end is in sight. This is manic. It's anti-natural. We strive like hell to keep things going. But none of us have [INAUDIBLE] and ideas about infinite time unless we are so obsessed with the inability to control nature, such as death.

The second set of relationships between spatial performance and the physical form-- special performance and the physical form-- resonating with this ideology-- is the comparison system. Speer constantly talks about comparing things. He talks about a project he's doing Hitler which is 2,300 feet by 3,400 feet. He says, oh well, Darius the first-- one of the great rulers of Persia-- I forget the first century BC probably-- only had 1,500 feet by 800 feet. He says, we will erect a tower. Nero had a tower of 119 feet. The Statue of Liberty is 151 feet. Our Hitler statue will be 197 feet.

When Leni Riefenstahl, who made the great film Olympia asked for more money from Goebbels, and then Hitler was a great protagonist that they make this film. She said, look 1932 Olympic games were in Los Angeles. That's where Hollywood controls the world of film. They couldn't make a movie. All they did was still photographs. We need to show the world that we are superior. And she made this extraordinary film.

The film starts off-- has anybody seen Olympia? Yeah.

AUDIENCE: A lot of the techniques she used the triumph of the film.

JULIAN BEINART: Yes. Yes. Yes. One of the interesting things too is the-- what is the other? Oh, my mind just slips. I'll think of it in a while. This comparison notion-- there was also ideology in the film. The film starts in with pictures of static sculptures, which slowly start moving, and they turn into a running trip between Olympia in Greece and Berlin. The first carrying of the flame ever in the Olympic games-- modern Olympic games.

That represents not only a move from an alien world of Greece to the modern Aryan world of Hitler, but it also indicates a connection in the film between why Hitler has the Shepherd, who won the marathon in 1896 in the Athens games, on the stand with him in '36 when he opens the games. The ideology of this regime is amazing. It is consistent and very adventurous. Speer became the minister of munitions towards the end of the war, and talks in his book about the relationship between how much money it costs to build and how much money it costs to destroy. It's interesting, again, that he would put that into perspective as the Reich was declining, and it was clear to him that they were going to fail.

Another comparison, which is interesting-- comparisons go on forever. One of the major buildings in the North axis of the new center for Berlin is a domed hall. This domed hall is 825 feet diameter, which is colossal. St. Peter's would fit into it a couple of times. 150,000 people could be accommodated standing-- how do you get such a size?

Well, Hitler thought it necessary to explain to me that the size of the meeting hall should be governed by medieval conceptions. in. The cathedral town of [INAUDIBLE], for instance, in southern Germany, 30,000 square feet of area-- when there were only 15,000 people living in all. He used that relationship-- 150,000 people for a size hall for a city of a few million people is absolutely correct.

There's a tendency in professional practice to constantly demonstrate relationships. I do it all the time. I'm embarrassed often when I'm doing it. I'll say this is 3/4 of the length of the last highway which was built under Roosevelt or whatever. It establishes for your clients a kind of sense of location in time. It's often foolish. What is the relationship between Eisenhower's building of roads and the modern road. But comparisons have a funny kind of effect. They stabilize. They put you in touch with a realm larger than your own realm. Often that's, for a fascist, a great achievement.

Hitler speaks elegantly of his visits to the Vienna Opera when he was a student. He talks about gone is the interior of the French opera when he visits Paris in 1940. This is the constant notion that if you are in a position of power, you have to not only relate yourself to other people you've been in a position of power, but you have to exceed them. There's an algorithm which moves in the direction of larger, better, different, more powerful, and so on.

So Nazism was as much-- the ideology as expressed in spatial terms was as much to do with an evolutionary idea that we are here to change time. We are here to influence time, and we are going to do it through spatial comparison.

If you look at this map, there are large-- 150,000-- technologists have done some-- Hitler actually put down the foundations for some of these buildings. And environmental engineers now calculate that this domed building with 150,000, 180,000 people in, it would start raining inside the building because of the-- it would have to be air conditioned to take care of the advent of rain. You see some curious things.

There are cinemas. There are opera houses. There are concert halls all spread throughout-- from this railway station in the bottom, through the Triumphal Arch which was borrowed from Napoleon, but many times bigger than Napoleon. There's millions of signatures on it. There's a philharmonic hall. Berlin still as the best Philharmonic orchestra in the world. The Reich's opera is next door. There's a hotel-- there are various number of hotels. There are restaurants and museums. There's a large amount of culture built into the system. Except for residents and industry, it virtually produces all the forms of a town-- all the uses of a town.

What's wrong with this? Could you imagine this being built, and after the war the ruler is imprisoned or dies. And this is taken over by a new liberal city of Berlin. And Starbucks is located somewhere. And the Pritzker hotel family are in here somewhere. We reuse elements of our special world which have punished people in the past. We think very little of taking an old prison and modifying it into residential accommodation today although there's a little bit of a stigma attached. But there's no stigma attached to taking Christian church and making it into a restaurant in Newton.

So transformability is possible under all circumstances. Could something at this five mile scale be transformed over time-- partially in part? Could a personality environment ever be changed formally. You go to one of the buildings in the world I like most, The Ducal Palace in Urbino, if you go into the basement, you see the qualities that the servants must have endured in crushing ice for this great Ducal family. I don't evaluate the Ducal Palace on the basis of the tragic condition of the labor which must keep the place in order.

So what are your standards? Memory plays a part in this. Memory. is kept alive through monuments, memorials. We'll do a class on memory later on in this class because it's become a much more interesting aspect of this discourse. There's no memory embedded in this project. Shingle is not reintroduced or played upon spatially. It's an ultimate controlled environment.

For Jews and gay people and gypsies and others who suffered enormously under the process of this regime, it's difficult to talk about this without involving procedural questions. There's a wonderful book in the Holocaust literature on-- gosh, what's the town-- death camp in Poland on the--

AUDIENCE: Buchenwald, Auschwitz, Dachau

JULIAN BEINART: No, it's not one of those. It's far to the East. It's-- oh, Christ.

AUDIENCE: Treblinka?

JULIAN BEINART: Treblinka. Treblinka. There's a book by a man called Steiner whose parents died in Treblinka. He interviewed some of the old people who escaped from Treblinka towards the end of its life. And he asked the question, which is often asked of the Jews, why they didn't rebel, why they just took it all. And he tells the story of this being the phenomena in Treblinka until a certain point, around 1940 or somewhere, where they started worrying that maybe the Nazi regime was not going to survive. And they started taking down buildings, rebuilding them as parks-- planting grass, putting up hedges, planting trees.

And the Jews, at that point, couldn't take it any longer. They were afraid that the memory of the death situation would not be-- there would be no evidence. And on that basis, they engineered the first revolt-- most were killed. So the whole issue of memory, how long it can maintain itself, is the memory of this building system separable from the memory of the ideology which perpetrated death? These are questions of meaning, which are very difficult to deal with.

Let's look briefly, very briefly, at the regime of St. Petersburg. St. Petersburg-- the Nevsky Prospekt is one arm of three spokes which emanate from the center at the water. You've got a plan in front of you. The plan is anchored at its beginning by 2 connections. The one to the symmetry of Alexander Nevsky, the 19-year-old who saved Russia in 1240 from invasion from the North. The other one is to the interior of Moscow-- to the interior of Russia and Moscow.

The axis on which the building ends is the Admiralty building. Peter was obsessed with water and ships. When he became czar toward the end of the 18th century, he tried to build a Russian fleet which could then go down the Volga towards the Black Sea. He was beaten up and failed. He then turned to Europe. And this was one of his openings-- to Europe he shifted.

He never liked Moscow because like Louis XV, one of his relatives was killed in Moscow in the Kremlin. He then did one of the most manic things ever done-- let's try to build a city the equivalent of it North would be like the United States like building its capital on Hudson Bay. It's so far North, the word [INAUDIBLE] is a swamp in Finnish. Hundreds of thousands of people died in the building of this strange city. He had to impose taxes on people entering the city, that they had to carry stones with them. It's a remarkable story.

It's axis between the water, the admiralty building, and the history of Russia. They are two crossing water bodies-- the Fontanka and the Moika. The Moika is where, in one of the days of the 1917 revolution, the mob came down the street, and there were Russian czarist military waiting for them at this point. And in a significant gesture, the Russian military didn't fire on the mob. There is today a cinema on that point called the [INAUDIBLE] Cinema.

So this is an environment much older than Hitler's, but where time has already intervened and changed the use. Many of the great palaces-- the Belozersky Palace. the Stroganoff Palace, the Mikhailovskiy Palace are now museums. St. Petersburg has a higher proportion of square footage in museums as opposed to population than any city in the world-- largely because they take over so many of the great palaces under Sovietism.

The water is constantly a factor. There's a bypass on the left close to the Fontanka river back to the water. There's another one close to Dvortsovaya Square where the road gives as a bypass to the water. On the building of the public library, the Duma, which is the city hall, the Kazan Church, a bookstore, a lady's store the Passage, the Holland Church -- almost everything that you-- the Alexander Theater, public library, so on.

What about Alexander Nevsky? Peter the Great tsar was a cruel man. He imposed no liberty on his civilian population. He built a city at enormous cost. Nevsky Prospekt, unlike Hitler's, is anchored in Russian history. It's modern history related to the water and to--

Alexander built the beginnings of the Russian army and the Russian Navy. It's another-- first of all, it has mixed uses on it. Well, so does Hitler's. I just spoke about the number of cinemas and performance halls. So that doesn't distinguish. What distinguishes between the two roads as expressions?

The reference to Hitler's practice-- ideological practice renders his treatment of the center Berlin highly suspect. You cannot divorce the two. Over time who knows what will happen to the memory of Hitler. In another 100 years our future will be as much of a building to be visited by the great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great grandchildren of the people who died.

This is the first panopticon of Bentham, the British liberal who considered the idea. Plan for shipyard's-- again where controlling system emanates from a central position. Lecture on the evils of alcoholism in the auditorium of Fresnes Prison. Here is a prison in Illinois. Not many American panopticon prisons were built. Next. Mexico seemed to be keen-- the revised panopticon on the right is a national stamp. Next.

Chaux, the original plans-- Arch of Saline on the left and right. Next. The [INAUDIBLE]-- the fact that you can see the director's house at the back at the same time as you enter-- a connection between the two. Next. Decoration of the director's house. Next.

And these are two other projects. This is a house for an intellectual. Again, the typological exhibit for a character consideration of a person as a type. What is different between a house for an intellectual-- other than you may have a large library-- and any other house? Here is a maison de plaisir-- a kind of pleasure palace-- again, with a kind of centripetal organization.

Next. The extension of this idea-- this is a hospital in Paris as it's grown over time-- added on to by piece by piece by piece. This is a computation entry for rebuilding of it. Now there are two dominant forces. The one is the church at the top. The other one is the entry at the bottom. Everything else is segmented and fixed in place and open to observation. Behavior is now frozen as it is in the panopticon. Next. Same device for children's school and an example of the separation of house and work. Each being a domain, which is individually separated from the other. Next.

Hitler did much of drawing himself. Here he's in Paris, late 1940, with Speer next to him. Next. "Did This Art Student's Failure Change History?" Well, yes. This is Hitler's own drawing of the large domed hall. Next. The Arch of Triumph-- the axis to the doomed hall, and this 400 foot wide avenue on either side. A good decoration to the avenue, wall of guns. Next.

You've got them. OK. Hitler's sketch of the Triumphal Arch. He could draw quite well. Next. Nevsky Prospekt, the yellow stripe on the-- leading from the admiralty building to Alexander Nevsky. The other two spokes added later lead to the barricades, to the army. OK. Next.

We'll go for a walk down this street. This is the Nevsky Prospekt with the admiralty building at the end-- day and night. Next. This is the Railway Station Hotel to Moscow to the center of the country. Next. A small church which is turned into a subway stop. Next. A Fontanka water crossing-- the Menshikov Palace on the left-- Next. The Belozersky Palace, the Passage store-- Next.

It is Alexander Library-- this is Alexander Library on a small road which leads off the Prospekt to the water. Next. The Duma-- the central city headquarters. Next. The Duma-- I'm sorry, this is the Kazan Cathedral. Next. I just give you a sense of the enclosure-- the facade, next. The Moika crossing, [INAUDIBLE] Cinema, a bypass to the Dvortsovaya Square on the right. Next.

Dostoevsky said, St. Petersburg is the most intentional and abstract city in history. Dostoevsky was in prison across the river. I'll start on Thursday finishing this story-- just raising some questions about what this all means.