THRESHOLDS 40

S
O
C
I
O
—

JOURNAL OF THE MIT DEPARTMENT OF ARCHITECTURE

Editorial Policy
Thresholds, Journal of the MIT Department
of Architecture, is an annual, blind peer-
reviewed publication produced by student
editors at the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology. Opinions in Thresholds are those
of the contributors and do not necessarily
reflect those of the editors, the Department
of Architecture, or MIT.

Correspondence
Thresholds—MIT Architecture
77 Massachusetts Ave, Room 7–337
Cambridge, MA 02139

thresholds@mit.edu
http://thresholds.mit.edu

Published by SA+P Press

MIT School of Architecture + Planning
77 Massachusetts Avenue, Room 7–231
Cambridge, MA 02139

Copyright © 2012
Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
The individual contributions are copyright
their respective authors.
Figures and images are copyright their
respective creators, as individually noted.

ISSN 1091-711X
ISBN 978-0-9835082-1-2

Book design and cover by Donnie Luu

www.donnieluu.com

Printed by Puritan Press, Hollis, NH

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
 Thresholds 40

Socio—

Edited by Jonathan Crisman

Cambridge, MA
 Contents

5 Editorial: 67 Tuktoyaktuk: Offshore Oil

Socio-indemnity and and a New Arctic Urbanism
Other Motives
— Pamela Ritchot
— Jonathan Crisman
75 Boundary Line Infrastructure
11 Conjuring Utopia’s Ghost
— Ronald Rael
— Reinhold Martin
83 Dissolving the Grey Periphery
21 Le Corbusier, the Brise-Soleil,
— Neeraj Bhatia and
and the Socio-climatic Project
Alexander D’Hooghe
of Modern Architecture,
1929-1963
91 Park as Philanthropy:
— Daniel A. Barber Bow-Wow’s Redevelopment
thresholds 40

at Miyashita Koen
33 
Move Along!
— Yoshiharu Tsukamoto
There Is Nothing to See

— Rania Ghosn 99 Mussels in Concrete: A Social

Architectural Practice
39 Flow’s Socio-spatial
— Esen Gökçe Özdamar
Formation

— Nana Last 105 Participation and/or

Criticality? Thoughts on an
47 Collective Equipments of Architectural Practice for
Power: The Road and the City Urban Change

— Simone Brott — Kenny Cupers and

Markus Miessen
55 Collective Form:
The Status of Public The Sluipweg and
113 
Architecture the History of Death

— Dana Cuff — Mark Jarzombek

 Contents

121 Extra Room: 217 Edens, Islands, Rooms

What if we lived in a
— Amrita Mahindroo
society where our every
thought was public?
225 The Prince:
— Gunnar Green Bjarke Ingels’s Social
and Bernhard Conspiracy
Hopfengärtner
— Justin Fowler
127 Sculpture Field: From the
233 Beyond Doing Good:
Symbolic to the Tectonic
Civil Disobedience as Design
— Dan Handel Pedagogy

— Hannah Rose Mendoza

135 On Radiation Burn

— Steve Kurtz 237 Aid, Capital, and the

socio—
Humanitarian Trap
163 Cairo di sopra in giù:
— Joseph M. Watson
Perspective, Photography,
and the “Everyday”
245 The End of Civilization
— Christian A. Hedrick
— Daniel Daou
175 Hush
255 Toward a Lake Ontario City
— Steven Beckly and
— Department of
Jonathan D. Katz
Unusual Certainties
189 NORCs in New York
263 Sociopaths
— Interboro Partners
— Jimenez Lai
209 Uncommon Ground:
Aether, Body, and Commons

— Zissis Kotionis
Participation
and/or
Criticality?
Thoughts on an
Architectural Practice
for Urban Change

Kenny Cupers and Markus Miessen

 Kenny Cupers and Markus Miessen
Kenny Cupers
If an increasing number of commentators
declare both partici-pation and criticality as
having run out of steam, how then are we to
rethink social and political engagement in art
and architecture today? Public participation
over the past half-century has been mobilized
by ideals with almost universal attraction:
democracy, social justice, self-determination.
Who can claim to be against such basic
principles? But because of its apparent
universality, many have recently argued
that participation is acutely flawed—both
conceptually and practically. The “tyranny of
participation” has been critiqued in fields as
diverse as development studies and the visual
arts.1 In a similar way, the notion of criticality
has been found in crisis. With the demise of
the once fashionable Critical Theory in cultural
production, some have claimed that the
main tools of criticality have been crippled.2
The question, then, is how to harness the
concepts of participation and criticality in
thresholds 40
a contemporary practice that wishes to be
socially and politically engaged.
Markus Miessen
I propose a post-consensual practice—
one that is no longer reliant on ill-defined
modes of operating within politically
complex and consensus-driven groups, but
instead calls into question the innocence of
participation. The notion of participation is at
a point of transition—within politics, within the
Left, within spatial practices, and especially
within architecture as its tangible and most
clearly defined product. Participation has
typically been read through romantic notions
of negotiation, inclusion, and democratic
decision-making. However, it is precisely
1 See Uma Kothari and Bill Cooke, Participation: The New
Tyranny? (New York: Zed Books, 2001). See also, Claire
Bishop, “Antagonism and Relational Aesthetics,” October 110
(2004): 51-79.
2 See Robert Somol and Sarah Whiting, “Notes Around the
Doppler Effect and Other Moods of Modernism,” Perspecta,
no. 33 (2002): 72-77; Michael Speaks, “After Theory,”
Architectural Record (June 2005): 72-75; George Baird,
“‘Criticality’ and Its Discontents,” Harvard Design Magazine,
no. 21 (Fall 2004/Winter 2005): 16-21; and Reinhold Martin,
“Critical of What? Toward a Utopian Realism,” Harvard Design
Magazine, no. 22 (Spring/Summer 2005): 1-5.
106
this unquestioned mode of inclusion—used
by politicians as one of never-ending retail
politics—that precludes critical results. I
am instead promoting a conflictual model
of participation: one that opposes the herd
mentality of consensus and that has to
assume—at times—non-physical violence,
dissensus, and singular, first-person decision-
making in order to produce change. This is an
ongoing project. I am attempting to open up
a new language of practice by essentially
presenting architectural thinking as method.
KC
In order to chart new ways of how
participation can produce critical alternatives,
perhaps we should begin by asking how
it became the new tyranny. Why can
participation be so easily explained as the
oil of a democratic political machinery that
also happens to work remarkably well with
global capitalism? Are architects to blame,
who sniff dismissively when they hear calls
for participation, pointing at the unimaginative
architecture it has proven to produce?
I think it is a mistake to cast participation
solely as the emancipating response “from
below” to the evils of authoritarianism. This
myth overshadows the historical forces
that gave rise to participatory processes
in architecture and urban planning. The
rhetoric of participation was hardly born on
the barricades of May 1968. By that time, it
had already become a mainstream political
idea in the context of postwar economic
development and of a budding consumer
culture in the social-democratic West. It was
fostered “from above,” by state policy-
makers and technocrats as much as by the
social movements subsequently idealized
by leftist intellectuals. If it is true that power
cannot be given, then the institution-alization
of participation since the 1970s—certainly
in the French context—hardly amounts to
the distribution of power its advocates
claim it to be. Yet, in architecture, calls for
participation actually did correspond to a
critical rethinking of the discipline. It was at
a point in time when professional ideologies
and ruling beliefs were being dismantled and
architecture’s social and political role came
 Participation and/or Criticality?
to be fundamentally questioned. And it is
precisely at this opening up of architecture’s
critical potential where the importance of
participation lies today.
MM
This was one of the starting
points of my inquiry into contemporary forms
of participatory practice—and, especially,
politicians’ love affair with it. As demonstrated
by the UK’s New Labour and the Dutch Polder
Model, participation has produced a very
comfortable situation in which politicians have
FIG. 1 —
managed to withdraw from their responsibility
as elected representatives of the general public.
I would call this process the outsourcing
of responsibility. I am not advocating for this
format of participation, based on the idea
of bottom-up democratic principles of an
all-inclusive congregation around a table.
Rather, I am trying to understand the opposite:
a first-person approach to critical engagement
in which the individual—in our case, the
architect—acts upon an urge for political and
social responsibility in one’s practice.
Nothing confounds me more than
that over the last decade everyone started
claiming to be some sort of participatory
architectural social worker. There are,
however, a few examples that demonstrate
this critical participation that interests me.
There is the Winter School Middle East and the
European Kunsthalle, which serve as de facto
cases in which some of these issues have
been scrutinized in their respective
contexts. These cases exemplify a mode
of practice with an end toward the build-
ing up of independent, small-scale institutions
as alternatives to public art institutions and
franchised regional academies Fig. 1 .
3 For more on these interventions, see The Winter School Middle
East, http://www.winterschoolmiddleeast.org; Vanessa Joan
Müller and Astrid Wege, European Kunsthalle 2005 2006 2007
(Cologne: European Kunsthalle, 2007); Markus Miessen, East
Coast Europe (Berlin: Sternberg Press, 2008); Shumon Basar,
Antonia Carver, and Markus Miessen, eds., With/Without:
Spatial Products, Politics and Practices in the Middle East
(New York: Bidoun, 2007).
107
­ W
 ebsite of The Winter School Middle East, founded and
directed by Markus Miessen with co-director Kuwait
Zahra Ali Baba. See www.winterschoolmiddleeast.org.
I would also like to touch upon the
experience of institutionalizing myself in
formal political settings on a governmental
scale, through East Coast Europe,a project
commissioned by the Govern-ment of Slovenia
during Slovenia’s presidency of the European
Council in 2008, and through a research project
commissioned by the Dubai government
socio—
think tank Moutamarat that resulted in the
publication With/Without: Spatial Products,
Politics and Practices in the Middle East. Both
of these projects attempted to understand
space as something that is inherently
imagined and, consequently, produced and
acted upon as a result of this imaginary. In the
case of East Coast Europe, this was proposed
through a fictional territorial shift, and in the
case of With/Without, it was through producing
a counter-reading of spatial practices in the
Middle East to that of Al Manakh. We were
interested in a narrative approach on the scale
and level of the street, to understand everyday
practices and how they formulate and shape
change. Rather than prescribing a recipe,
this opens up a field of potential departures
for participants. Indeed, this is what sets the
architect’s approach apart from other fields of
knowledge: models are seen to be a platform
for operation, for moving beyond those very
models, rather than findings or truths in and
of themselves. We are providing a common
starting point from where we can begin to
disagree —a theory of how to participate,
without squinting at constituencies or voters
but, rather, instigating critical change.3
 Kenny Cupers and Markus Miessen

KC agency can be involved, in what quality,

Both as a political theory and a spatial and to what effect. In the context of widely
practice, participation implies a series of accepted xenophobia and increasing
fundamental preconditions: a neutral ground economic precariousness, the design of new
for participants to meet; the definition of a vending carts—which has been architects’
community, constituents, or interest groups; first instinctive response—appears as an
a shared place; a common project. None of almost laughably impotent gesture.5 A better
these apply in the volatility of contemporary response is to ask where design should enter
urban space. Take for instance the mundane into such contested spatial conditions.
case of street vending Fig. 2 . In cities like Meanwhile, a new generation of middle-
Los Angeles, where street sales are banned class entrepreneurs and gourmet chefs
outright and the majority of the more than have begun to alter the dominant cultural
ten thousand vendors are Central- and perception of street vending with their
upscale treats—from organic
ice cream to Korean-Mexican
fusion. In the same way,
the arrival of New York’s
“Vendy Awards”—a yearly
awards event for street
food—in Los Angeles is
another occasion promising
to lift some of the stigma that
tends to categorize Latino
thresholds 40

food vending as dirty or

FIG. 2 — S
 treet vending in Los Angeles. Photo courtesy of and copyright Kenny Cupers.
Latin-American, this everyday urban practice
is as much about the “right to the city”
as it is about the contested nature of the
city’s identity.4 Compared to the organized
regulation of vending in New York City, LA
vendors’ exceptional mobility—at once
urban and transnational—renders traditional
notions of engagement, such as stable
community organization or struggle based on
conventional notions of citizenship, largely
obsolete. Not surprisingly, participatory
planning attempts have thus far failed to
free vendors from the plight of enforcement.
Vendors’ mobility makes it impossible
to assume an a priori political project or
participatory process in which design can
be involved. We need to first ask whose
poor. By developing forms
of cultural production and
consumption that creatively
destroy the dominant public
perceptions of street vending
as “out of place,” designers
might locate openings for
transforming vendors’ urban
imaginary altogether. This
fundamentally superficial
approach, ironically, is able to cut across the
very core of some of the city’s social issues.
It is at once aesthetic and political, superficial
and transformative, critical and participatory.
MM
I absolutely agree with you. When it
comes to participatory approaches, one needs
to be aware that they are often based in a
certain romanticism. Such nostalgic longing
is very dangerous as it is neither pro-active
nor propositional. It does not produce or make
4 See Henri Lefebvre, Le droit à la ville (Paris: Anthropos, 1968).
5 See John Chase, Margaret Crawford, and John Kaliski,
Everyday Urbanism (New York: Monacelli, 1999).

108
 Participation and/or Criticality?
decisions, but simply reflects the status quo.
While we still need critical reflection, I strongly
believe that in order to practice, one also
needs to be projective.
My proposed model of the “crossbench
practitioner” encourages an uncalled
participator who is not limited by existing
protocols, and who enters the arena with
nothing but creative intellect and the will
to generate change.6 I am arguing here
for an inversion of participation, a model
beyond modes of consensus. Instead of
reading participation as the charitable
savior of political struggle, I prefer to reflect
and act upon the limits and traps of its real
motivations. Rather than breeding the next
generation of consensual facilitators and
mediators, I argue for allowing conflict as an
enabling force. Through a conflictual mode,
participation is no longer a process by which
others are invited “in,” but becomes a means
of acting without mandate, as an uninvited
irritant, a forced entry into fields of knowledge
that might benefit from exterior thinking. Some-
times democracy must be avoided at all costs.
KC
I would not characterize our
current condition at all as “Harmonistan.”7
In any newspaper on any given day, I see
extremes of confict and opposition—the
only exception is the culture section. It is
disappointing to see how pacified cultural
production is today in the face of global
conflict and catastrophe, and in this sense,
I do agree with you about the need for
dissensus. I am still surprised at how inviting
your friends for pad thai in an art gallery
has been celebrated as a participatory,
progressive, or critical form of art.8 This
retreat from the social world by mimicking it
in the art gallery has parallels in architectural
production. Despite the rise of sustainability
as a new promise for architecture’s societal
relevance, architecture culture continues to
shy away from negotiation with complex
realities for, instead, the solitary games
of form. This threatens to perpetuate the
fallacies of architectural autonomy while
undoing it of even the last remnants of
critique. Rather than simply inserting
109
participation as the redeeming element in
such a practice, we need to come up with
alternative ways of doing and thinking about
architecture. As much as the past generation
has theorized architectural autonomy—the
ghost of which is more than alive in the
elite academic institutions of the Northeast
US—current architectural thinkers should
theorize conflict, mediation, negotiation, and
compromise. That said, I am not proposing
to replace outright the architect-as-form-
maker with the architect-as-mediator. We
need to ask how experimentation is both
an architectural and a social process. It
is remarkable how little the discipline is
currently interested in the interrelations of
spatial form and social dynamics. My current
research attempts to provide a historical and
theoretical perspective to such concerns by
looking at architecture’s encounter with the
social sciences in the construction of mass
housing and new towns, and the emergence
of paradigms such as programming,
participatory planning, and user-oriented
socio—
design in the era of the postwar welfare state.9
I think we can change architectural production
today by offering tools for rethinking archi-
tecture’s historically situated social agency.
What we have not touched upon so far is
the distinction between architecture and art
in this critical and projective practice. Art is
often said to offer more potential for criticality
as it seems more free than architecture from
the depend-encies and compromises of
intervention. At the same time, some strands
of socially engaged or political art today
offer little more than a set of allusions whose
ultimate effect is a surplus of art market
capital. Markus, your practice inscribes itself
in what has been called “critical spatial
practice”—which is neither easily subsumed
within the categories of art or architecture,
6 See Markus Miessen, The Nightmare of Participation:
Crossbench Praxis as A Mode of Criticality (Berlin: Sternberg
Press, 2010).
7 Ibid.
8 See Bishop, “Antagonism and Relational Aesthetics.”
9 See Kenny Cupers, “Designing Social Life: The Urbanism of
the Grands Ensembles,” Positions: On Modern Architecture and
Urbanism/Histories and Theories, no. 1 (Spring 2010).
 Kenny Cupers and Markus Miessen
nor within social or cultural activism. Would
you agree that it is more fruitful to position
yourself still more in the visual arts and new
cultural industries, than in the traditional
outlets of architectural production? Do
these more fluid realms have more critical
potential than that of architectural culture?
Or is “critical spatial practice” ultimately
less powerful than architecture because it
is often more about media than about actual
intervention in the spaces of everyday life?
MM
I would not position myself more in the
visual arts than in architecture. I find this
distinction fairly problematic. It raises the
issue of interdisciplinary or “transdisciplinary”
approaches, which I think, by now, we are
beyond.10 We should think about architecture
more as an open field or a territory of tools
which one can access through collaborative
practice. We are facing what I would call a
thresholds 40
 arkus Miessen, The Nightmare of Participation: Crossbench Praxis as a Mode of Criticality (Berlin: Sternberg
FIG. 3 — M
Press, 2010). Photo by Hannes Grassegger.
110
post-disciplinary form of spatial practice,
one which no longer understands itself as
a form of cultural activism as in the ‘60s or
‘70s, but also one which understands the
plethora of tools available in order to apply
them in an appropriate context. What you are
describing here is precisely the conservative
view of architecture that often prevents it
from generating change: that architecture, by
default, is understood as a physical practice.
I do not believe this holds true—I actually
think it never did. An alternative practice must
acknowledge this—and this is, for the lack of
a better word or term, what I would call critical
spatial practice Fig. 3 .
Architecture is not a discipline that
necessarily has a scale or professional body
but, rather, is something that one does—it is
a practice. Most architects, from my point of
view, do not produce architecture at all.
They produce buildings, sometime lame,
sometimes otherwise.
 Participation and/or Criticality?

KC within the territory of the production of

I agree with the need to move beyond space—it is just that it is transgressing
these often outmoded distinctions, but it its former professional borders. In fact,
is wishful thinking to generally say we are this act of opening up practice beyond
facing a post-disciplinary form of practice. artificial borders may be the very essence
Rather than dividing these realms in a of critical participation.
normative way, I am interested in under-
standing the mechanisms of distinction that
actually exist and the politics they set up.
Divisions between art and architecture—
and between architecture and the built
environment—continue to structure not only
our ways of thinking but also practice itself.
Who benefits from these distinctions, or
benefits from transgressing them? There
seems to be an inherent ambiguity in what
you call critical spatial practice, which on
the onehand opens up architecture to the
multitude of social or spatial practices that
make up people’s lives, while on the other
hand continues to celebrate authorship and
intentionality in a neoliberal and entrepre-
neurial manner. While it threatensto dress
these conservative notions in a more

socio—
fashionable cloak, this notion of critical spatial
practice is most promising when it is able
to allow new forms of collectivity to emerge.
This is where the real politics of contemporary
practice lie—not in the mimicry of the political
served up by the Biennale industry, but in the
messiness of the contemporary city.

MM
Sure, at the end of the day, critical
spatial practice is simply acknowledging the
fact that architects are not the only actors
or protagonists in a vast territory called
“the production of space.” 11 Critical spatial
practice attempts to undo this myth and tries
to open up a field for debate, which hopefully
will unpack different sets of knowledge.
To be honest, I don’t think that this way of
working is any more individualist, neoliberal, or
entrepreneurial than any other job-description

10 See, for example, Mark Linder, “TRANSdisciplinarity,” Hunch,

no. 9 (2005).
11 See Henri Lefebvre, The Production of Space (Oxford, UK:
Blackwell, 1991).

111
 Kenny Cupers and Markus Miessen
thresholds 40

Markus Miessen with Kenny Cupers conducting the Urban States “The Space of Politics”
workshop and symposium at USC, Los Angeles, August 2011.

***
Kenny Cupers teaches architectural history, theory, and urban
studies at the University at Buffalo, where he was the 2010-
11 Reyner Banham Fellow. He received his PhD from Harvard
University. Forthcoming books include The Social Project:
Modern Architecture, Social Science, and the Postwar Suburbs in
France, Paris: Life Forms, and Use Matters: An Alternative History
of Architecture (Routledge, 2013).

Markus Miessen is an architect, spatial consultant, and writer,

operating from his practice Studio Miessen. He is also Visiting
Professor of Critical Spatial Practice at Staatliche Hochschule
für Bildende Künste, Städelschule. He received his BArch
from Glasgow School of Art, DiplHons from the Architectural
Association, MRes from the London Consortium, and is currently
a PhD candidate at Goldsmiths College.

Both have been published in collaboration and individually in

numerous journals and books.

112
THRESHOLDS 40
SOCIO—

Editor Patrons
Jonathan Crisman James Ackerman
Imran Ahmed
Designer Mark and Elaine Beck
Donnie Luu Tom Beischer
Yung Ho Chang
Assistant Editors Robert F. Drum
Ana María León Gail Fenske
Jennifer Chuong Liminal Projects, Inc.
Antonio Furgiuele Rod Freebairn-Smith
Irina Chernyakova Nancy Stieber
Robert A. Gonzales
Advisory Board Jorge Otero-Pailos
Mark Jarzombek, Chair Annie Pedret
Stanford Anderson Vikram Prakash
Dennis Adams Joseph M. Siry
Martin Bressani Richard Skendzel
Jean-Louis Cohen
Charles Correa Special Thanks
Arindam Dutta To my family,
Diane Ghirardo Mark Jarzombek,
Ellen Dunham-Jones Sarah Hirschman,
Robert Haywood Adam Johnson,
Hassan-Uddin Khan Donnie Luu,
Rodolphe el-Khoury Nader Tehrani,
Leo Marx Adèle Santos,
Mary McLeod Rebecca Chamberlain,
Ikem Okoye Jack Valleli,
Vikram Prakash Anne Deveau,
Kazys Varnelis Kate Brearley,
Cherie Wendelken Deborah Puleo,
Gwendolyn Wright Michael Ames,
J. Meejin Yoon and all of the authors, the
editorial team, the advisory
board, and the patrons.
This issue would not have
been possible without you.

Opposite: Intergalactic Sculpture, 1994.

Copyright Ezra Orion.
5 SOCIO-INDEMNITY 127 SCULPTURE FIELD
AND OTHER MOTIVES — DAN HANDEL
— JONATHAN CRISMAN
135 ON RADIATION BURN
11 CONJURING UTOPIA’S GHOST — STEVE KURTZ
— REINHOLD MARTIN
163 CAIRO DI SOPRA IN GIÙ
21 LE CORBUSIER, THE BRISE-SOLEIL, — CHRISTIAN A. HEDRICK
AND THE SOCIO-CLIMATIC PROJECT
175 HUSH
— DANIEL A. BARBER
— STEVEN BECKLY AND
33 MOVE ALONG! JONATHAN D. KATZ
THERE IS NOTHING TO SEE
189 NORCS IN NEW YORK
— RANIA GHOSN
— INTERBORO PARTNERS
39 FLOW’S SOCIO-SPATIAL FORMATION
209 UNCOMMON GROUND
— NANA LAST
— ZISSIS KOTIONIS
47 COLLECTIVE EQUIPMENTS OF POWER
217 EDENS, ISLANDS, ROOMS
— SIMONE BROTT
— AMRITA MAHINDROO
55 COLLECTIVE FORM
225 THE PRINCE
— DANA CUFF
— JUSTIN FOWLER
67 TUKTOYAKTUK
233 BEYOND DOING GOOD
— PAMELA RITCHOT
— HANNAH ROSE MENDOZA
75 BOUNDARY LINE INFRASTRUCTURE
237 AID, CAPITAL, AND THE
— RONALD RAEL
HUMANITARIAN TRAP
83 DISSOLVING THE GREY PERIPHERY — JOSEPH M. WATSON
— NEERAJ BHATIA AND
245 THE END OF CIVILIZATION
ALEXANDER D’HOOGHE
— DANIEL DAOU
91 PARK AS PHILANTHROPY
255 TOWARD A LAKE ONTARIO CITY
— YOSHIHARU TSUKAMOTO
— DEPARTMENT OF
99 MUSSELS IN CONCRETE UNUSUAL CERTAINTIES
— ESEN GÖKÇE ÖZDAMAR
263 SOCIOPATHS
105 PARTICIPATION AND/OR CRITICALITY? — JIMENEZ LAI
— KENNY CUPERS AND
MARKUS MIESSEN
113 THE SLUIPWEG AND THE
HISTORY OF DEATH
— MARK JARZOMBEK

121 EXTRA ROOM

— GUNNAR GREEN AND
BERNHARD HOPFENGÄRTNER