UIA 2017 SEOUL

1^er Día - Futuro
Futuro urbano: “Vivir en la ciudad”
Regeneración de arquitectectura urbana para la integración y sostenibilidad

Fecha: Lunes, 4 de septiembre de 2017

Panélistes

Cristiane Muniz

São Paulo, 1970
Founding partner of Una arquitetos since 1996, in architectural practice. Architect and Urbanist graduated in 1993 from the University of São Paulo (FAUUSP), where finished her Masters degree in 2005.

PRACTICE
Since its formation Una arquitetos has developed projects in different scales and programs like equipments for public transportation as well as urban projects such as cultural centers, schools, commercial buildings and residences. Una currently works in association with other architects, engineering groups and consultants, thus assuring a space for a comprehensive and multidisciplinary discussion with focus in architecture and urbanism.

Una has received 1st prize in the national competition for Post Office Cultural Center, São Paulo (1997) and Gold Medal in the Prague Quadriennale Set design, Costume and Theatrical Architecture, for this project. Received 1st prize in the national competition for Experimental Theater and Performing Arts School to University of Campinas (Unicamp, 2002). Received 1st prize in the competition for CIESP regional headquarters (2010). Received 1st prize in the national competition for Redevelopment of vulnerable communities in Sapopemba, east zone, São Paulo (2011). Una was awarded at 5th Iberoamericana Architecture Biennale, Montevideo, 2006, for School in Campinas. The office received several awards from Brazil Institute of Architects, in 2008 received the top prize of this institution, Carlos Milan award, for the Piqueri New Railway Station project. Studio was also awarded in International Biennale of São Paulo Architecture: Eighth edition, for Joanopolis House; Seventh edition, second prize for Mooca and Ipiranga districts Reurbanization project; Fifth edition, for Maria Antonia University Center _USP.

In 2003 Una was part of team invited by architect Paulo Mendes da Rocha for the competition between SP and Rio, for hosting 2012 Olympic Games.

Una has participated in three editions of Venice Biennale of Architecture; in 2004, as part of the Brazil Pavilion, as a national representation; in 2006, as part of Arsenalle Pavilion, selected by international board of curators, and in 2014, part of the Brazil Pavilion again. In 2010 Una was invited to exhibit at Lisbon Architecture Triennale a housing strategic project called Caranguejo Tabaiares, in the city of Recife, which was specially developed for that exhibition. Was one of the selected six offices to be part of the exhibition “Coletivo (Collective – Paulista Contemporary Architecture). The exhibition was first shown in São Paulo and then in Rio de Janeiro, Lisbon, Zurich, Santiago, St. Louis, Braumschweig. Participated in "Encore Modern: 1928-2005 Brésiliennes Architectures", Paris, 2005; "Building connections: Brazilian design for real cities", Cervantes Institute, Chicago, 2010; "Fronteiras", Spain Cultural Center, Guatemala, 2009, among others. www.unaarquitetos.com.br

EDUCATION
Cristiane Muniz is Coordinator of postgraduate course at Escola da Cidade, called "Architecture, Education and Society", since 2014.
Coordinator and teacher of undergraduate design studios at Escola d
a Cidade, since 2008. Associate teacher since 2004. Guest teacher at Mackenzie Presbyterian University, for postgraduate course in Architecture and Urbanism _ Infrastructural Projects, in 2006.
Guest teacher at Taller Sudamerica, School of Architecture, Design and Urbanism (FADU), University of Buenos Aires, in 2006.

Lecturer at Quito; Santa Fe, Paraná e Córdoba; Bogotá; Berlin; Seville; Merida; Mendoza; Santiago; Pescara e Boario; Lisbon; Barcelona; Austin; Buenos Aires.

MUNIZ, Cristiane

Brazil
Architect
Founding Partner of UNA Arquitetos

“LEARNING FROM SAO PAULO: ENDURING AND RESISTANCE”

WANG, Wilfried

With Barbara Hoidn, founder of Hoidn Wang Partner in Berlin. Since 2002, O’Neil Ford Centennial Professor in Architecture at the University of Texas at Austin. Born in Hamburg, studied architecture in London; partner with John Southall in SW Architects. Founding co-editor with Nadir Tharani of 9H Magazine; co-director with Ricky Burdett of the 9H Gallery. Director of the German Architecture Museum. Taught at the Polytechnic of North London, University College London, ETH Zürich, Städelschule, Harvard University, and the Universidad de Navarra. Author and editor of various architectural mono- and topographs. Co-editor of the O’Neil Ford Mono- and Duograph Series. Chairman of the Erich Schelling Architecture Foundation; adjunct member of the Federation of German Architects; foreign member of the Royal Swedish Academy of Fine Arts, Stockholm; member and deputy director of the architecture section of the Akademie der Künste, Berlin; honorary doctorate from the Royal Technical University Stockholm; honorary member of the Portuguese Chamber of Architects.

WANG, Wilfried

Germany
Architect Hoidn Wang Partner,
O'Neil Ford Centennial Chair in Architecture at the University of Texas at Austin Berlin Deputy Director of the Architecture Section at the Akademie der Künste, Berlin

“ENVISIONING GROWTH: BERLIN, FROM MODEL TO LABORATORY”

“ENVISIONING GROWTH”

Cities shrink and grow, depending on their image as places of possibilities. Can one find a job, can one find a place to live, can one find friends and establish a lively social and cultural network? Can one grow, develop as a person, grow old, in the way one had always dreamt of, as a contributing member of a civilized society?
Cities were formed in specific, once natural settings. They are places with a past and a present, with an infrastructure and built fabric that were built a long time ago and which will continue to serve for some time to come. Cities have their own physical and socio-cultural inertia. Cities can be malleable if persuasive visions can be unfolded, and if enough social and political pressure and collective intelligence are applied.
Berlin has grown and shrunk in the recent past, and it is once again growing at a rate of about 50 000 people a year. Berlin's density is at the lower end of the international scale of large cities. In 1939 (under Nazi rule), Berlin had a population of 4.338 million, nearly one million more than it had in 2015, accommodated on a smaller total built area than in 2015. The per capita residential area rose from about 14 m2 in 1950 to about 40 m2 in 2015. The share of single households rose from about 19% in 1950 to about 40% in 2015.
Metropolitan agglomerations have now reached a dimension that impact directly on the ecological system of a respective region. Cognizant of the previous growth patterns of the city of Berlin and its agglomeration, as well as the urban and regional development plans, and aware of the ecological, economic, infrastructural, social and cultural potentials, which development strategies should be pursued over the coming decades for the city as a whole and neighborhoods in particular?

PEPONIS, John

John Peponis was born in Athens, Greece, in 1955. He is a professor of architecture at the Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, USA. He has contributed to the development of theories, methods and measures for the analysis of built space and its human functions at the scale of buildings and urban areas, to assist the formulation and evaluation of designs. He is one of the founding leaders of the field of space syntax. His research has been funded by the National Science Foundation, the General Services Administration, the Ministry of Research in Greece, the Georgia Tech Foundation, Steelcase, Perkins+Will and Dar Al-Handasah. As a registered architect in Greece he collaborates with Kokkinou and Kourkoulas Architects. His papers address the geometric and computational foundations of space syntax; the cognitive and organizational performance of museums, work environments, healthcare environments and environments for learning; design formulation and design languages; urban layout and its functions; spatial cognition.

PEPONIS, John

USA
Architect & Professor,
School of Architecture, Georgia Tech

“THE OPEN CITY”

At a time when more than 50% of the world’s population lives in cities we confront three major questions: First, social inequity, due to the internal and geopolitical dynamics of economies and societies, continues to be associated with areas of urban plight and with the fragmentation of cities. Second, man-induced climate change threatens environmental sustainability, health and well-being. Third, digital technologies transform the ways in which we inhabit built space and require us to re-assess the functions of face-to-face society and of place. Against this background, the relationship between cities and civilization cannot be taken for granted but must be actively built according to shared values.

Based on thirty years of research I will discuss the ways in which the physical design of cities contributes to social, cultural and cognitive openness. First, I briefly review the systematic relationships of the spatial structure of street networks to the cognitive mapping of environment, to patterns of movement, and to patterns of land use. Based on this, I suggest four principles of urban design: 1) the creation of patterns of visible co-presence in public space; 2) the creation of an intelligible environment that encourages open search and the pursuit of individual, collective or organizational creativity; 3) the creation of distributed patterns of centrality, attraction and interest, so that every part of the city is rich in opportunity; 4) the interfacing of scales of organization so that the identity of local places is enmeshed with metropolitan connectivity. These principles are fundamental to the creation of dense, inclusive and diverse cities that enrich the lives of their citizens.

KIM, Sunghong

KIM Sung Hong is a professor of architecture and urbanism at the University of Seoul. Studied architecture at Georgia Tech, the University of California at Berkeley and Hanyang University in Seoul; Fulbright Visiting Scholar at the University of Washington in 2006; Provost of Planning and Research Office, University of Seoul from 2007-2008; Organizer of the exhibition, “Megacity Network: Contemporary Korean Architecture” in Frankfurt, Berlin, Tallinn, Barcelona and Seoul from 2007-2010; Author of research papers, essays and books about contemporary Korean architecture and urbanism including ‘Future Asian Space: Projecting the Urban Space of New East Asia’ (2012), ‘Street Corner Architecture’ (2011), ‘On Asian Streets and Public Space’ (2010), ‘New Imagination of Urban Architecture’ (2009), ‘Megacity Network: Contemporary Korean Architecture’ (2007); Field Editor for the Journal of Asian Architecture and Building Engineering from 2010-2012, and currently a Chief Editor for SPACE Academia; Columnist for the Korea JoongAng Daily from 2011-2013; Juror for the several international competitions for architecture, urban and landscape design. Curated “The FAR Game: Constraints Sparking Creativity,” for the Korean Pavilion, Venice Biennale in 2016.

Moderator & Speaker

KIM, Sunghong

Korea
Professor of Architecture and Urbanism
University of Seoul

“SEOUL RE-VISIONED”

Seoul Re-Visioned

Sung Hong KIM

Seoul stands today as a city rife with architectural contrast. On the one hand, mega-scale urban projects have spawned the modern high-rise apartment buildings that are ubiquitous across the cityscape, leading some outsiders to criticize Korea as the “Apartment Republic.” On the other hand, Seoul has long fostered the development of medium-size multifamily houses which were designed on purely pragmatic grounds by local builders and developers without professional design training. These structures may well have all been replaced by high-rise apartment buildings if not for the global economic crisis of 2008 that served a death blow to Korea’s construction market. Economic profits of large-scale redevelopment and reconstruction were no longer guaranteed, and so many of the urban projects fell into gridlock and have since been cancelled. As it stands today, more households still live in medium-size multifamily houses than in apartment buildings.

Besides the economic uncertainty that remains today, architectural development in Seoul is impacted by demographic changes brought on by lower birth rates, a decrease in population, an increase in the number of single households, and an increase in the number of elderly. Given these factors, what hopes and aspirations can be held by architects and urban planners seeking to enhance the city’s character and improve the openness and inclusiveness it offers its inhabitants?

One promising sign has been a new focus of the younger class of Korean architects since the economic crisis: the reconstruction and regeneration of the traditional small and medium-size typology, one building at a time. A decade ago, these types of projects got little attention from professional architects, as it was thought that this form of architecture would become outmoded and swept away by the large-scale modernization projects that were so prevalent. However, partly due to economic conditions, partly due to demographic changes, and even perhaps with an eye to climate concerns, this kind of architectural endeavor is gaining momentum in Seoul today. While the buildings constructed respond to market demand—the desire for maximum floor area and volume—they also demonstrate innovative design strategies and tactics that help create a richer interface between architecture and the city. A whole range of diversity in the size of residential units, the mixture of programs, the processes of design and construction, and the extent of public/private cooperation is now being covered by this growing initiative.

It is hard to say whether the city of Seoul will permanently turn its attention to piecemeal transformation, but it seems that we are seeing the emergence of a distinct urban architecture, one that provides an important opportunity for budding development agencies and young architects in Korea. It represents a slow but resilient form of urban regeneration that is welcome in Seoul’s irregular urban fabric, as it not only puts a new emphasis on the quality of the lived space, but also creates architectural links to Seoul’s unique urban culture. (The ideas presented here were adopted, modified and merged from the research papers, books, and essays of Sung Hong KIM. A complete set of references will be included in the UIA 2017 Seoul proceedings.)

A través del programa académico ‘Futuro urbano: Vivir en la ciudad’, que marca el preludio del “UIA 2017”, se discutirá las experiencias, lecciones, ideas y esfuerzos de diferentes ciudades y regiones. En la coyuntura actual en la que es imperativo gestionar y revertir el cambio climático provocado por el hombre, ¿en qué forma podrá contribuir la arquitectura urbana a la mejora de la calidad ambiental? y, ¿cómo las morfologías urbanas y las tipologías de construcción podrían contribuir a la ‘apertura’ y la ‘inclusión’ de personas que tienen estilos de vida diferentes?; ¿cómo se podrá alcanzar el urbanismo pluralista mediante la regeneración de la arquitectura urbana?; ¿de qué manera afecta el diseño individual de un edificio en la formación del espacio público frente a la gentrificación y la comercialización?; ¿hasta qué punto los arquitectos pueden convertir la motivación privada de buscar beneficios privados a corto plazo en la realización de beneficios públicos a largo plazo?; ¿en qué forma pueden insertarse los edificios en las infraestructuras urbanas para mejorar los sectores ordinarios de las megaciudades y hacer funcionar las redes de vecindad?

Cuatro oradores - John Peponis, Wilfried Wang, Alvaro Puntoni y Sung Hong Kim - presentarán casos específicos y ejemplos de Europa Occidental, América del Norte, América Latina y Asia y abrirán un debate sobre las funciones y el liderazgo de los arquitectos en un mundo globalmente conectado en el que nos enfrentamos a problemas locales y globales interrelacionados que integran la agenda clave del congreso mundial de la UIA

2^do Día - Cultura
“Diseño con historia”

Fecha: Martes, 5 de septiembre de 2017

Panelistes

LI, Xiaodong

Li, Xiaodong, graduated from School of Architecture at Tsinghua University in 1984 and did his PhD at the School of Architecture, Delft University of Technology between 1989-1993, is a practicing architect, educator and researcher on architecture. Li Xiaodong’s design ranges from interior, architecture to urban spaces, he has won both national and international, among which: his design for Bridge School in Fujian Province was the winner of 2009 AR(review) emerging Architecture award and winner of 2010 Aga Khan Award for Architecture; he was awarded the Honorary Felloship by AIA in 2012; his Liyuan Library was the winner of inaugural Moriyama RAIC International Prize of Architecture (2014) and winner of Culture category of WAF in Singapore(2012) and winner of Architecture of Necessity in Sweeden(2013) ;his Yuhu elementary school won UNESCO Jury Award for Innovation, EDRA/Places annual design Awards (US)，AR+D Awards (UK) highly commended，ARCSIA Gold Medal, and Business Week/Architectural Records China Awards best Public Building. He also teaches architecture, he has won prestige international awards: RIBA tutor’s prize (2000) and SARA tutor’s prize (2001) for his inspirational teaching at the Department of Architecture, National University of Singapore. Currently, he is now professor of architecture at the school of Architecture, Tsinghua University, in Beijing.

LI, Xiaodong

Architect & Professor,
Tsinghua University

“TOWARDS A REFLEXIVE REGIONAL ARCHITECTURE”

In Chinese history, ‘change’ had never been the apt term to describe the ‘zeitgeist’ of its culture until the last three decades, when China gradually opened its doors to the outside world. This paper firstly discusses the development of Chinese architecture in the transitional period since 1979 in order to trace out key issues, which creates a framework for locating, describing and interpreting Chinese architecture in the ‘new era’. However, the notion of architecture will not be taken as an autonomous discursive entity, offering an exhaustive theoretical account. Rather, I see it as an historical genre responding to and defending the historical experience of Chinese society. The strategy is thus to map the most salient developments of the period through a critical reading of the various ‘new trends’ in Chinese architecture that emerged during the last two decades of the 20thcentury and beginning of the21th century. And then...
Reflexive regional architecture – my response
Based on what is prescribed in the analysis, it is the moment to initiate some tests in practice, from which, what was discussed in text could be reflected in ‘forms’. However, I have no intention here to promote the ‘form’ as a blueprint. It, at most, opens up possibilities. This is why that I dare not to use the word “contemporary Chinese architecture” to describe my practice, but “reflexive regionalist architecture”. Here, to be “reflexive” as in ‘dialogue with’ a situation, through which, an objective understanding of the situation could be established; to be “regional” is here different from the ‘picturesque’ or, ‘iconic’ regionalist architecture (by which, architecture was understood as a tool to demonstrate a cultural presence as a fixed entity), what we are proposing is to understand the “regional” as comprehensive, dynamic and sustainable ‘condition’ of place – a tabula rasa, that solutions could be based on and emerged from.
As such, each project should be unique and should add uplifting spiritual characteristic of the project to the built environment. The design of building, starts, in the creative spatial organization of life – not in style choices or concept analyses, but in the identification of new spatial constellations; not in the spatial allocation and accommodation of a given program, but in helping to create a spatial organization for multiple programs; not in making things in space, but in organizing processes in time; in short, not in the object, but in performance. This architecture is not about superficial beauty, but about results. Eventually, architecture turns out to be an unparalleled field of innovation.
Our design strategy starts with a careful analysis of the program and site in relation with the resource which will play central role in the overall integration of ideas. The concepts are conducted by both cultural and climatic environment of context and seek to capture the spiritual essence of "place". The designs strive for tranquility and harmony suggested by space, light and structure order. Fixed architectural styles are avoided, as they limit potentials to be unique and creative. However, precedents of past experiences and knowledge are important for us to study to provide a solid background to solve new problems in hand. We believe that a good design product is the result of spiritual exploration of ideas with rational thinking, it engages with both technical knowledge and artistic judgment，the richness of a good design rely on how the matrix of detail, scale, proportion and commonsense are carefully orchestrated.

SEUNG, H-Sang

Born in 1952, graduated Seoul National University and studied at Technische Universitaet in Wien. Worked for Kim Swoo Geun from 1974 to 1989 and established his office "IROJE architects & planners' in 1989. He was a core member of “4.3 Group” which strongly influenced Korean architectural society, and participated in founding “Seoul School of Architecture” for a new educational system. He is the author of 'Beauty of Poverty(1996 Mikunsa)', 'Architecture, Signs of Thoughts(2004 Dolbegae)', ‘Landscript(2009 Yoelhwadang)’ and 'Graveyard of Roh Muhyun(2010 Nulwa)', and was an Visiting Professor of North London University and taught at Seoul National University and at Korea National University of Art. His works are based on his own critical concerns on Western culture of the 20th century whose subject is 'beauty of poverty'. He won various prizes with his practice and works, and was the coordinator for 'Paju Book City'. The America Institute of Architects invested him with Honorary Fellow of AIA in 2002, and Korea National Museum of Contemporary of Art selected him as 'the artist of year 2002', first time for an architect and had a grand solo architecture exhibition. He, gained world-wide fame as architect with his architectural achievements and through various international exhibitions, has spread out his architectural field over Asia, Europe and America. In 2007, Korean government honored him with ‘Korea Award for Art and Culture’, and he was commissioned as director for Gwangju Design Biennale 2011 after for Korean Pavilion of Venice Biennale 2008. He was commissioned as the first City Architect of Seoul Metropolitan Government in 2014 and finished his term in 2016.

SEUNG, H-Sang

Architect, IROJE

“지문 / 地文 / LANDSCRIPT”

A tall building that is called a skyscraper. The Korean term macheollu has the same arrogant connotation. What kind of confidence allows one to scrape the sky? Was it a wish? Yes, it was. The will to reach the heavens was a single-minded destiny. Man wishes to walk from the moment of birth. This erect stance, which distinguishes him from other animals, is a denial of the natural law of gravity. The will to reach higher ground, standing against the universal order that all things must fall, was the beginning of human history and civilization. The record of this is the history of technology. Unfortunately, the price for these achievements has always been very high.
It was not easy to build tall buildings without advanced technology. Like the Tower of Babel, tall buildings often collapsed. The tower emerged as an architectural form of compensation. The stupa has its origins in Hindu language. It was where the sarira of Buddha was preserved. As the resting place of Buddha’s sacred remains, the stupa consisted of multiple stories, thus distinguishing it from ordinary buildings. But because of the limits of technology, the scale of the stupa was reduced. Furthermore, following the rules of perspective, the stupa was scaled to look taller than it actually was.
The longing to ascend was a universal human instinct. In the Gothic period, this pan-civilizational aspiration came to fruition. In architectural history, the Gothic and Roman periods, saw the greatest technological achievements. The first technological challenge of architecture was the creation of interior space. The crucial task was to lift the roof, the central element in the interior space, against gravity. The more ancient the architecture, the less advanced the technology, and the smaller the interior and the openings. In order to build something tall, the walls would sometimes become as thick as the room itself. The Gothic solved a problem that had frustrated architects for a millennium. The Gothic was truly an age of high-tech architecture. The next stage for Gothic man, which had seemingly attained deity, was self-reliance. Thus came the age of the Renaissance. In the Renaissance, the age of humanism, the idea of man was different from our understanding of mankind. Obviously, slaves were not included in the category of man and only the few privileged classes were provided the status of man. Hence the architecture of the Renaissance was dedicated only to the powerful few.
The Renaissance obsession with centrality was not limited to residential architecture. For example, let us look at the city structure of Palmanova south of Venice. Here the idea of centrality is clearer. Because its surroundings were considered the enemy, a moat was dug out and a high castle wall was built around the city to ward off invasion. Entering the city through three city gates, the radial network of streets focuseson one central point. The highest ranking person lives in the center. This is the mono-centric city. As a matter of course, as one moves further from the center, the lower the class the humbler the status. The city is thoroughly hierarchical and segregated.
Palmanova was certainly not the only hierarchical city. Under the banner of utopia, these monocentric cities appeared all over Renaissance Europe. In modern times, the castle walls were taken down and large boulevards were built in their place. Yet the emphasis on centrality is remains visible.
The utopian city was a Western conception. It reflected a social organization that had been created in the mind and realized. After the mental diagram was completed, the search for the site led appropriately to a flat piece of land. Because nature is an object to be conquered, rough terrain would have to be leveled and a natural waterway would have to be turned into a geometrical composition. The savagery of the original land had to disappear. On this transformed site, only centrality, hierarchy, and axis were to be accentuated. This was a completely diagrammatic city.
The problem was that this masterplan, discarded by the West, had begun to trample the peerless landscape. In the West, at least the masterplan had a purpose. It was born from a long tradition of building urban communities and the fierce debates over the nature of societal organizations. However, the new towns in these days were the product of land transfigured by the blind belief that the masterplan was some kind of treasured inheritance.
New towns were built on ground that sustained a rich and unique history.
They were totally ignored. These historical traces were inconveniences that had to be erased. Together with their architecture, the old living places quickly disappeared. If there was a mountain, it had to be leveled; if there was valley, it had to be filled in; if there was a river, it had to be redirected. Yet we rejoiced in believing that we had created a new era. There was no sense of community. Because the absolute goal was to reach a certain number - a campaign promise that must be kept - only quantities and numerals were defined. This was never a city in the first place. It was merely an amassing of real estate. It was a crippled city. The modern Western city of the masterplan is different from the city of plural democracy. A city with a central axis, central park, central plaza, central business district, a city with words for class and taxonomy has in principle not departed from the feudalistic city. If so, where are the different cities?
Our idea of the city has been too long dominated by a Eurocentric view. If we open our eyes we will see cities with a variety of social communities. Fez and Marrakesh in Morocco are such cities. Islamic cities believe that all are equal under Allah. From the air, the square and L-shaped houses are organized like a beehive. Streets are like blood vessels that form a labyrinth.
They organize the city. Though there are small differences in size, these houses have a structure in which each is equal to the others. In this city of collective houses, there are no central parks and central plazas, no place of centrality, no central axis, and no main street.
There is no taxonomic distinction between commercial and residential areas. The roads are narrow and when they are wide they become public gathering places or open markets. A group of small houses and a public building comes together to form a minimum collective unit. These units, adjusting to the levels of the land, coalesce to form the city. Therefore, one need not see the whole to see the city; one small unit may be enough.
That is, one may take away one small unit or add another. These cities started appearing in 800 BCE. We must underscore that even now, after 1200 years, they continue to sustain healthy urban communities. Though built long ago, are they not the true embodiment of plural democracy?
In Korean, the word “teomunee” is a pattern inscribed on the ground. When one says that “There is no teomunee”, it means that there is no reason for something. It has a fascinating meaning. At the very least, the term signifies that our ancestors understood life as inseparable from the history inscribed onto the land. Nomadic life is a life separated from the land. Could that be the reason? Our architecture and our houses, no longer values that express cultural form and the identity of the family, have long since degenerated into real estate to be bought and sold. That is why we live a nomadic life, moving from this apartment to that in order to amass more riches. Martin Heidegger (1889-1976) declared that being is achieved through dwelling and that only poetic man can dwell. Dwelling leaves traces on the land; it is a process that stores memory. Because the memory inscribed on our land was considered a product of bad customs and evil practices, they had to disappear. In order to create a new history, amnesia was forced upon us. We live a life without teomunee, a life without any basis. The past exists because we have passed through it. But we think that it has merely passed by.
Theodor Adorno (1903-1969) used the word Kulturlandschaft to speak of the beauty of the history inscribed onto the land. “By disengaging the notion of landscape from its strict association with land and interpreting it in a tradition of an understanding of urbanity may open the possibility to find qualities in the existing that lie beyond scientific limits and parameters…Perhaps the most profound force of resistance stored in the cultural landscape is the expression of history that is compelling, because it is etched by the real suffering of the past…Without historical remembrance there would be no beauty. The past, and with it the cultural landscape, would be accorded guiltlessly to a liberated humanity, free especially of nationalism.” History inscribed on the ground; that is the landscape that makes us true. The ruin, a space where the flow of history has ceased, is a beautiful piece of fossilized landscape. In The Necessity for Ruins J. B. Jackson (1909-96) expands the classical meaning of landscape to the modern idea of cultural landscape. “That is what I mean when I refer to…the necessity of ruins to origins…The old order has to die before there can be a born-again landscape…History ceases to exist.” Indeed, like our fingerprints and the lines in our palms, the memory of the past remains imprinted on all land. As every fingerprint is unique, so is every piece of land. Sometimes its pattern is created from natural history, sometimes it is a pattern imprinted through the continuity of human life. The record and story of our lives are written on the land. The land is thus a grand and noble book of history, and thus is precious. This is the landscript.
This landscript is an ever-changing organism and a life force that demands that something be added to it. It has a soul, a spirit, and it speaks.
According to Susanne Langer (1895-1985), if architecture is the visualization of the character of a place, architecture must begin by carefully listening to the new demands of the land. It is a land that has experienced the great expanse of history. Architecture is the respectful act of revealing its fascinating language; it is the act of thinking deeply and then humbly adding to the land by building on to it a new poetic language.
Architecture will inevitably fail. Monumental architecture is built to glorify its patron. Boasting their great technological achievements, they may rise into the sky in the service of people in power. Yet as everyone dies, architecture cannot defeat time. Only the memory that we were once there remains. That is the only specific truth.

KUMA, Kengo

Kengo Kuma was born in 1954 in Yokohama (Japan). He completed his master’s degree in architecture at the University of Tokyo in 1979. From 1985 to 1986 he studied at Columbia University as Visiting Scholar. He established Kengo Kuma & Associates in 1990. He taught at Keio University from 2001 to 2008 as professor, and in 2009 he was installed as Professor at the Graduate School of Architecture, University of Tokyo. Among Kuma’s major early works are Kiro-san Observatory (1994), the guest house Water/Glass (1995, received AIA Benedictus Award), the Noh Stage in Forest at the Toyoma Center for Performance Arts (received in 1997 Architectural Institute of Japan Annual Award), the Nakagawa-machi Bato Hiroshige Museum of Art (2000, received The Murano Prize), Great Bamboo Wall in China (2002).
Recent works include Suntory Museum (2007), Nezu Museum (2009, Tokyo), Yusuhara Wooden Bridge Museum (2010, Yusuhara), Asakusa Culture Tourism Information Center (2012, Tokyo), the Nagaoka City Hall (2012, Nagaoka), The 5th Kabukiza (2013, Tokyo), Kyushu Geibunkan (2013), Tokyo Central Post Office KITTE (2013), Toshima City Hall (Tokyo, 2015), Toyama Kirari – Toyama Glass Art Museum and City Library (2015) and Komatsu Seiren Fabo (2015). Completed projects outside Japan include: Besançon Art Center and Cité de la Musique (2012) , FRAC (Fond Regional d’Art Contemporaine) Marseille (2013), Darius Milhaud Coservatory of Music (2013), Entrepot Macdonald (Education and Sport Complex, 2014), Lyon Confluence HIKARI (2015), China Academy of Art’s Folk Art Museum (2015). A number of large projects are also in progress internationally, such as the Victoria & Albert Museum building in Dundee (Scotland), University Multifunction Center at EPFL in Lausanne (Switzerland), Saint Denis station (France), Albert Kahn Museum (France), Padova Convention Center (Italy).
Kengo Kuma was awarded with the International Spirit of Nature Wood Architecture Award in 2002 (Finland), International Architecture Awards for the Best New Global Design for Chokkura Plaza and Shelter in 2007 and Energy Performance + Architecture Award in 2008 (France). He is an International Fellow of RIBA in UK and Honorary Fellow of AIA of the US.
He has also written numerous books and most of the titles have been translated into Chinese and Korean. His major writings, Anti-Object, Natural Architecture, Small Architecture have been published in English from AA Publications, the book department of AA School, UK’s prestigious architecture institution.

KUMA, Kengo

Architect
Professor, University of Tokyo

“MEMORY OF PLACES”

JEON, Bonghee

JEON, BongHee is a professor at Department of Architecture and Architectural Engineering, Seoul National University. He did a Ph.D at Seoul National University, graduating in 1992. He was a Harvard-Yenching Institute Visiting Scholar at Harvard University from 2003 to 2004, a Fulbright Visiting Scholar at U.C. Berkeley from 2010 to 2011, and a visiting professor at the Institute of Korean Studies, Kyushu University in 2015. His major publications include ‘Three Bay by Three Bay (Distinguished Books of the Year 2006 chosen by the Korea Academy of Science, Seoul National University Press, 2006),’ ‘A Guide to Korean Traditional Architecture (Dongnyok Publishers, 2006),’ ‘Hanok and the History of Korean House (Distinguished Books of the Year 2012 chosen by the Ministry of Culture and Tourism, Dongnyok Publishers, 2012),’ and ‘A Cultural History of the Korean House (Seoul Selection, 2016).’ He has received various awards and recognitions from several organizations, including a special award for an architectural historian called Nampa Prize by the Architectural Institute of Korea in 2012 and the Commendation from the Minister from the Ministry of Science, ICT, and Future Planning of Korea in 2014. This year, Seoul National University honored him with an Excellence Teaching Award which is given to professors who highly contributed to the SNU community through passionate teaching career and academic activities in the society. Prof. Jeon was the head of organizing committee for EAAC GWANGJU in 2015 and currently an academic committee member of UIA Seoul 2017, and a cultural heritage committee at Cultural Heritage Administration of Korea.

JEON, Bonghee

Professor, Seoul National University

“CULTURAL MEMES AS MEANS OF REGIONALISM”

UIA Keynote Forum: CULTURE: “DESIGN WITH HISTORY”

Cultural Memes as Means of Regionalism

Contemporary frontiers of 21st century mostly pay attention to the modern period closer to this moment when ‘history’ is brought into conversation. There are two different shades behind this tendency of pursuing the nearest past. One would be the ‘traditionalism,’ and another is so-called regionalism or locality. The blind drive to chase after the tradition or regional distinctiveness in architecture was especially strong in East Asian countries. It is mainly because our modernization process happened rather rapidly with the undefined stance between internationalism and imperialism and also because modernization was almost equated with westernization. As a result, traditionalism appeared in return for sympathies generated from sudden rejection. Identifying the difference in traditionalism and regionalism is challenging, but there is a certain contrast in the attitude of how to carry on the legacy while inducing contemporary values. Traditionalism often sinks into the pit of one-dimensional mimicry of form, space, and/or material while for the means of regionalism, tracing cultural memes shown in various aspects such as lifestyle, cosmology, philosophy can be helpful in featuring the nowness of contemporary architecture.
Memes are an extensive network of historical evidences deeply rooted in our culture. To understand its role in overcoming the unilateral traditionalism and build up proper attitude towards the regionalism, it is imperative to look at the trajectory of East Asian architectural traditions. China, Korea, and Japan share the wooden tradition of East Asian architecture, the use of post-and-lintel wooden architecture. The most distinctive feature comes from the roof construction; it consists of layering horizontal and vertical components rather than braces to support roofs as shown in European timber architecture. Other than roofs, another notable feature is the use of brackets on the pillar heads to fix the end of pillars, beams, and purlins in place. China, Korea, and Japan all use them, but the composition and ornamental style of bracket units differ according to region and time period. Even though East Asian countries share the same origin, alterations also have arisen through the times. From the Middle Ages, in contrast to China, Korea and Japan actively utilized raised floors, lifting the floor from the ground with supporting wooden pillars. This may have resulted from climate issues or greater exposure to the dissemination of maritime culture. Furthermore, Koreans developed a unique type of floor based on the heating system called ondol. An ondol floor is made of stone, which is hard as the ground, unlike tatami, a Japanese floor mat soft as the carpet. These differences in floor types eventually influenced the space usage patterns, thus proven to be intrinsic memes of each country that convey distinctive characteristics.
East Asian countries not only share the wooden structural traditions, but also the materialization of philosophical backgrounds stemming from teachings of Confucianism and Taoism from ancient China and partly Buddhist doctrines originating in India but also indirectly influenced by Orient civilization’s symbolism when transmitted into Asia. East Asian traditional architecture has fewer buildings of monumental scale compared to other civilizations that boast of such structures as pyramids or ziggurats, gothic cathedrals, and baroque palaces. The ideology on ‘eternity’ lies here. Our ancestors believed that eternity lies in spirit, not something with tangible form like architecture. Also, instead of monumentality shown through height like the Babel Tower of Christianity, the ideal land of Taoism emphasized depth. The term “nine-fold palace” (九重宮闕) emphasizing a deep, multi-layered space through aligned doors for enclosures is a Confucian adaptation of Taoism ideals. This spatial layout is concerned with the establishment of a hierarchic system for buildings with an axis as well. Buddhism and Christianity take East-West axis while Confucianism sticks to North-South. For example, Buddhist temples in India strongly show the East-West axis, and some of earliest temples in East Asia also had a similar orientation due to their influence. However, soon, most of temples implemented North-South axis, conveying Confucian values.
However, there was also the time when Buddhism was covetous of height shown through pagodas, especially in Tang Dynasty which took the stance of internationalism. Then, the next generations of Neo-Confucian scholars in 12th century began to accentuate nature. They regarded nature as tour-de-force and accepted the fact that human beings are a part of it. Many extant cases reflect how much Neo-Confucians dreamt of “naturalness” or the oneness of people and nature. Korean gardens like Soswaewon, Japanese villas like Katsura Rikyu, and Chinese landscape paintings are the perfect manifestations of this ideal of minimal structures in the midst of nature. Then, since 14th or 15th century, Chinese, Korean, and Japanese architecture began to diverge the developmental directions. For example, planning of Edo(Tokyo) in Japan, Seoul in Korea, and Beijing in China are all distinctive examples of each country. While sharing the same origins and philosophy of East Asian architecture, China, Korea, and Japan had shown regional differences and divergent historical evolutions during the 2nd millennium and the respective twentieth century which has formed our nowness. Our modernism started with westernized modernism but now finally has become ‘Eastern modernism.’ Our former generations regarded traditionalism as their duties to find our own distinctiveness in the turbulence of rapid Westernization, thus sinking into the shortcomings of the mysticism of tradition or excessive worshipping. Regionalism is still a bit ambiguous and polysemic; it ranges from a rationalist to a formalist as in traditionalism. Even the critical regionalism which aims for achieving the universal values of modernism and pursuing tectonic approaches to disregard the whimsical individualism, it is ambiguous to realize what ‘tectonic approaches’ are unless we thoroughly understand what we have. So we should attain the attitude of selective acceptance of cultural memes considering the present needs and aesthetic means according to individual critical reasoning. In other words, unlike former generations who sought for collective solutions to manifest Zeitgeist, our generations rather value personal reasoning and philosophy such as “reflexive regionalism,” “landscript,” or “memory of places” as mentioned by participating speakers of this keynote forum. These independent longings allow numerous opportunities in expression methods, but what is obvious even in these days is the presence of alive memes. Any architecture clearly demonstrates its identity whether it is due to atmosphere of the region, construction environment, and stance of an architect. Cultural memes have always revealed their metaphysical presence without our acknowledgement, but proper understanding falls to our share.

Este foro de apertura intenta abordar la percepción de los arquitectos contemporáneos de Asia del Este acerca de su larga historia y tradición. Los oradores invitados, cada cual con puntos de vista levemente diferentes sobre la historia durante la era de globalización del siglo XXI serán desafiados a responder a la siguiente pregunta: ¿Cómo se ha reflejado la historia en su práctica de diseño? En vez de mantener una actitud pasiva ante la sombra de la tradición, los oradores invitados adoptan una postura desafiante y expresan sus opiniones en el campo arquitectónico internacional. A su vez, profesan ardiente pasión hacia la historia que forma el trasfondo de su mundo. ¿Cuáles serán sus diferentes interpretaciones sobre el pasado y cómo proyectarán el futuro? Este foro será una óptima plataforma para hacer una reflexión cabal sobre las “similitudes pese a las diferencias”.

3^er Día - Naturaleza
Arquitectura ecológica humana: susurrar con las plantas

Fecha: Miércoles, 6 de septiembre de 2017

Panélistes

Kjetil Trædal Thorsen
Founding Partner & Director, Architect MNAL, AIA, Hon FRIBRA, Dr.H.C.

Biography

Kjetil spent most of his Norwegian childhood on the costal island of Karmøy. After spending his first three school years in Essen, Germany, he moved back to Karmøy. Before finishing his secondary education in Norway, Kjetil spent two years in Sunningdale, England, where he completed his art O-level a year early. At this time he decided he wanted to study architecture.

Immediately after finishing the Gymnasium at Karmøy, he moved to Graz, Austria to studyarchitecture, and completed his Dipl.Ing of Architecture in 1985. The same year he moved to Oslo and started his first private architecture practice. In 1987 he co-founded Snøhetta Architecture and Landscape – a collaboration of architects and landscape architects. He also co-founded Norway’s first architectural gallery, Galleri ROM.

Since the creation of Snøhetta, Kjetil has been a driving partner, and as a board member and project director he has been instrumental in defining and developing Snøhetta’s philosophy and architectural ambition. Many of the projects created by Snøhetta has been inspired or led by Kjetil.

Selected projects

2015 –	The Governmental Quarter, Oslo, Norway. Parallel commission, 177 500m²
2015 –	Le Monde Headquarters, Paris, France. Office building, competition 1st prize
2013	Vestre Production Facilities, Torsby, Sweden. Production & administrative building
2013	M+, Hong Kong, China. Museum, 60 000m²
2013	Nobel Center, Stockholm, Sweden. Culture building, 20 000m2, competition
2013	Maggie’s Cancer Caring Centre, Aberdeen, Scotland. Rehabilitation center, 620m²
2012	Lascaux IV, Montignac, France. Cave museum, 8 000m²
2012	Annecy Congress Center, Annecy, France. Congress center, 7 000m²
2012	Busan Opera House, Busan, South Korea. Opera house, 48 000m²
2011 –	San Fransisco Museum of Modern Art, San Fransisco, USA. Museum expansion

Work experience

1987 –	Founding Partner, Project Director, & Senior Architect / Snøhetta²
2004 – 08	Professor / University of Innsbruck, Austria
1985 – 87	Founder, Private practice
1983 – 84	Ralph Erskine, Stockholm
1982 – 83	Arbeidsgruppen Hus

Education

1985	Master of Engineering in Architecture, Technical University of Graz, Austria

THORSEN, Kjetil Trædal

Norway
Founding Partner & Director, Architect,
MNAL, AIA, Hon FRIBRA, Dr.H.C. , Snøhetta

“AN ATTITUDE, NOT A TYPOLOGY”

TERAYAMA, Thomas

Thomas Terayama received M Arch from Princeton University, and gained professional experience in New Jersey, New York, and Los Angeles before returning to Japan. As a an architect and a project manager at Nikken Sekkei, he has lead teams of architects, planners, and engineers to deliver 90 hectare university master planning, and design for academic buildings grossing over 350,000 sq.m in Makkah, KSA. Informed by practice and academic research, Terayama has explored applications of sustainability and wellness in planning and architectural design.
Past academic appointments include teaching assistant at Princeton University for graduate level studios, and visiting design jury at New Jersey Institute of Technology. Terayama served as an adjunct professor at Temple University in Philadelphia. His personal projects have been published in New York Times, Japan Architect, etc, and has been awarded by Holcim Foundation for Sustainable Construction Award amongst others.

TERAYAMA, Thomas

Architect,
Nikken Sekkei

“CULTIVATING CULTURE FROM NATURE: INTEGRATED PLANNING AND DESIGN CONCEPS FOR ACADEMIC ENVIRONMENT”

MAAS, Winy

Prof. Ir. Ing. BNA HAIA FRIBA (Schijndel, Netherlands, 1959)
Principle Architect / Urban Planner
Director

Merits, received from respective national governments for his contributions to the field of architecture and urbanism:
2011 Chevalier de la Légion D'honneur, awarded by the French Government
2015 Order of the Dutch Lion, awarded by the Dutch Government

Education
1984/1990 Master in Architecture, Delft University of Technology, NL (with honors)
1984/1990 Master in Urban Planning, Delft University of Technology, NL (with honors)
1980/1984 Master in Landscape Architecture, RHSTL, Boskoop, NL

Professional Experience
2008/- Director and Founder The Why Factory, Delft, NL
1993/- Co-director and Co-founder MVRDV, Rotterdam, NL
1990/1993 Office for Metropolitan Architecture, Rotterdam, NL
1987/1989 DHV, Amersfoort, NL/ UNESCO, Nairobi, KE
1984/1987 Municipality of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, NL
1983/1984 Bureau Bakker and Bleeker, Amsterdam, NL

Academic Experience
2016/- Visiting Professor GSAPP Columbia, New York, USA
2015/- Visiting Professor IIT Chicago, USA
2015 Visiting Professor Catholic University of Louvain, Tournai Campus, BE
2014/2015 Academic Curator, Strelka Institute, Moscow, RU
2013/2015 Visiting Professor University of Hong Kong
2012 Visiting Professor of Architectural Design, ETH Zurich, CH
2007/- Professor in architecture and urban design, Delft University of Technology, NL
2006/2007 Visiting professor of architectural design, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Department of Architecture in Cambridge, Mas., US
2006/2007 Herbert Baumer Distinguished Visiting professor, Austin E. Knowlton School of Architecture, Ohio State University, Columbus, US
2006 Visiting professor of architectural design, Markus Prize Chair, School of Architecture & Urban Planning, University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, US
2005/- Researcher, Delft School of Design, Delft University of Technology, NL
2003/2004 Visiting professor of architectural design, Eero Saarinen chair, Yale University, School of Architecture, New Haven, US
2000/2012 Staff member, researcher and thesis tutor Berlage Institute, Rotterdam, NL
1998 Visiting professor Technical University, Vienna, AU
1997/1999 Design tutor Architectural Association, London, UK
1996/1999 Design tutor Berlage Institute, Amsterdam, NL
1991/1995 Design tutor Delft University of Technology, NL
1990/1997 Design tutor Akademie voor Bouwkunst, Rotterdam, NL

Advisory Functions
2013/- Member of Economic Development Board Rotterdam (EDBR), NL
2012/- Urban Planning Supervisor for the City of Almere, NL
2012/- Member of Advisory Board ‘Conversion Military sites’ for the City of Mannheim, DE
2012 Advisor to Kosovo entry, Venice Biennale, IT
2010/- Editorial Board, Architecture d’Aujourd’hui, Paris, FR
2009/2012 Curator of The Vertical Village©, museum of the future, JUT Foundation for Arts and Architecture, Taipei, TW
2008/- Supervisor Structure Vision of Almere, Municipality of Almere, NL
2007 Curator of Indesem 2007: The Legacy. Faculty of Architecture, Delft University of Technology, NL
2007/- Member of Research Board, Berlage Institute Rotterdam, NL
2007/2011President of Spatial Quality Board, Municipality of Rotterdam, NL
2002/2005 Member of the Research Board of the National Planning, RPB, The Hague, NL
2003/- Supervisor of the Barcode Urban development Bjørvika, Oslo, NO
2000/2002 Member of the Quality Committee, City of Barcelona, ES
2000/- Supervisor of Flight Forum, Eindhoven, NL
1998/2004 Member of the Program Board of the National Design Group, RPD, The Hague, NL
1995/1997 Board member of Items magazine, Amsterdam, NL
1994/1997 Member of the editorial staff of Forum magazine, Arnhem, NL

Awards
The work of Winy Maas and MVRDV has received numerous awards and distinctions. In 2015 alone, various aspects of the Rotterdam Markthal received awards – the parking garage, the cable net façade, the retail concept, the artwork, the archaeological museum, its urban regeneration impact – and the entire building itself received the Rotterdam Architecture Award for its innovation and iconic value.

Lectures, juries, stage sets and exhibitions
Since 1987 Winy Maas lectures in numerous places and occasions all over the world and participates in competition and award juries. He designs stage sets and curates exhibition, as most recently the ’Vertical Village’ which has been exhibited in various locations all around the world.

Publications
Over the last two decades, the work of Winy Maas/MVRDV, their projects, research, exhibitions and lectures have been published and reviewed in many nationally and internationally acclaimed magazines, newspapers, and websites, including the New York Times, The Guardian, l’Architecture d’Aujourd’hui, Domus, Blueprint, and many more.

Think Tank ‘The Why Factory’
Winy Maas is professor at and director of The Why Factory, a research institute for the future city, he founded in 2008 at TU Delft and is run in collaboration with MVRDV. It explores possibilities for the development of our cities by focusing on the production of models and visualisations for cities of the future.
Together with The Why Factory, Winy Maas has published a series of research projects, titled ‘The Future City Series’ on subjects such as ‘The Green Dream’, ‘Vertical Village’, ‘City Shock’, ‘We Want World Wonders’, and most recently ‘Barba’, which discussed the potentials of applying nanotechnology in architecture.

MAAS, Winy

Architect
Co-Founding Director, MVRDV

“WHAT’S NEXT”

JEONG, Youngkyoon

Mr. Young Kyoon Jeong, as CEO and Chair of the Board of Heerim Architects & Planners, has been in forefront for making Korean Architecture to be known in Global arena. With education from Seoul National University and University of Pennsylvania in architecture, and Professional working experiences in United States, he holds both AIA and KIRA qualifications. Some of outstanding global projects of Heerim under his leadership include SOCAR Headquarter and Baku National Stadium in Azerbaijan and Incheon International Airport Terminal 2. While Heerim carries out solid and consistent experiences in Korea, Vietnam, Azerbaijan, China and Bangladesh, it has recently successfully pioneered into Central Asia and the Middle East markets (Kazakhstan, Qatar, Kuwait, etc.) to further expand its horizon. In his role as CEO of Heerim, Mr. Jeong continues to broaden the firm’s global growth and meet new challenges at the same time to secure the global presence of Korean architecture.

JEONG, Youngkyoon

Architect
CEO, Heerim Architects & Planners

“CONNECTING CULTURE AND NATURE”

El último foro de apertura de la UIA 2017 Seúl tendrá lugar bajo el título de ‘Arquitectura ecológica humana: Susurrar con las plantas’ y en dicho marco los ponentes seleccionados intercambiarán sus diálogos, ideas y experiencias para la realización de la arquitectura ecológica y sostenible. De esta manera podremos descubrir sus esfuerzos holísticos, sus aproximaciones experimentales en la búsqueda de una relación más satisfactoria con la naturaleza, respetando la arquitectura original, comprometiendo las características regionales distintivas de cada localidad traducidas al lenguaje moderno a través de la práctica y la tecnología arquitectónica. ¿Es posible lograr la coexistencia armoniosa entre la ciudad y la naturaleza? ¿Cómo se vincula la cultura autóctona de una región con la arquitectura ecológica y sostenible? ¿Cómo se puede lograr el equilibrio entre el rendimiento energético y la agenda de sostenibilidad desde un punto de vista holístico? ¿Cómo abordar el tema de la arquitectura sostenible en las escalas macro y micro? ¿Qué significado tiene el conocimiento olvidado durante largo tiempo sobre la arquitectura autóctona en los edificios contemporáneos? ¿Hasta qué punto pueden las nuevas técnicas de diseño inteligente encarnar la sabiduría del pasado en la arquitectura moderna de hoy?

Cuatro arquitectos de América, Europa y Asia - Hani Rashid, Thomas Terayama, Winy Maas y Young Kyoon Jeong - están invitados a presentar, compartir y debatir sus pensamientos e ideas sobre cómo una ciudad se comunica, interactúa y mantiene el equilibrio con la naturaleza y el papel de los arquitectos en la construcción de esa relación.

Keynote Forum Venue: Hall D, 3F, COEX

Keynote Forum
Venue: Hall D, 3F, COEX