Das industriell entwickeltere Land zeigt dem minder entwickelten nur das Bild der eignen Zukunft. (Marx 1867)The epoch of consumption in which we live, characterized by the globalisation, by the tearing down of life’s certainties and by the fickleness our existence, more and more hectic and forced to keeping up with the inclination of the group to avoid feeling out of place or outright excluded, is well described by Zygmunt Bauman, in the Liquid modernity (2000), and it recalls what a few years previous Jean-François Lyotard recognized as the postmodern condition (1979). In both cases the most relevant aspect of it all is the impossibility to pinpoint a center of reference.
Besides the brief digression of the skyscrapers, the huge
industrial buildings and infrastructures – so very much
praised by Loos (1921), Le Corbusier (1923, 1937) and Mendelshon (1926)
– for a long time it was believed that American architecture,
as well as the culture, was dependent and heavily influenced by the
European one. As observed by Peter Blake (1993, 1996) Besides the brief digression
of the skyscrapers, the huge industrial buildings and infrastructures
– so very much praised by Loos (1921), Le Corbusier (1923,
1937) and Mendelshon (1926) – for a long time it was believed
that American architecture, as well as the culture, was dependent and
heavily influenced by the European one. As observed by Peter Blake
(1993; 1996) and Tom Wolfe (1981), at the end of WWII the
US university colleges and the schools of architecture
adjusted to the principles postulated by Mies, Gropius and the Bauhaus.
Before the arrival of the European masters, the "modern" schools in America were probably only two – Frank Lloyd Wright’s Taliesin and Eliel Saarinen’s Cranbrook (who had moved to the US in 1923) – in the 40s they had almost all made the grade. Also, after the arrival of the European masters, the American teaching system that had been so strongly inspired by the Ecole des Beaux-Arts, did not seem to exist anymore, and the ones that had supported it were by then oriented elsewhere (Blake, 1993: 44).
Mies van der Rohe arrived in the US in 1937 thanks to the invitation of the young Philipp Johnson to build a country-house for Stanley Resor in Jackson Hole, Wyoming. In 1938 he settled down in the States for good, accepting, this time, the invitation made by John Holabird to take the position of director of di Armour Institute School of architecture in Chicago (which later on became the Illinois Institute of Technology).
Walter Gropius, after the distancing from the Bauhaus because of his political leanings to the left, found shelter in London, where he worked with Maxwell Fry from 1934 until 1937. Invited to the United States, he took over the department of architecture at the Graduate School of Design in Harvard until 1952, when he was invited by MoMA to organise the exhibition: Bauhaus: 1919-1928.
In 1932 New York’s MoMA had organized the
Modern Architecture: International Exhibition, curated
by Henry-Russel Hitchcock, Philip Johnson, Alfred H. Barr and Lewis
Mumford, aimed at documenting the birth and the growth of the Modern
Style that from that moment on became known as “International
Style” (Hitchcock-Johnson, 1932). An exhibition that more
than any other initiative had promoted the Modern Movement (the
European one in particular) in the US (Riley, 1992). From that moment
on the International Style became known as “the new American
style”, as reminded us by Tom Wolfe (1981) and Peter Blake
At that time, the most important publications fulfilled some sort of "didactic" purposes, in order to allow audiences and architects to approach the “new style”: The International Style: Architecture since 1922 (Hitchcock, Johnson, 1932); An Introduction to Modern Architecture (Richards, 1940); What is Modern Architecture? (Bauer Mock, McAndrew, 1942); they also witness its promotion: An outline of European architecture (Pevsner, 1943); Architecture: Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries Modern Architecture (Hitchcock, 1958); or else they introduce the the modern masters: Pioneers of the Modern Movement, from William Morris to Walter Gropius (Pevsner, 1936).
Henry Hobson Richardson, Henry Louis Sullivan, Frank Lloyd Wright were included in marginal chapters, amid Romanticism, Art Nouveau and the proto-modern. Lewis Mumford stated in his The Brown Decades (1931), «There is still no accurate, authentic, intelligent, and fairly exhaustive history of American architecture» (Mumford, 1931: 254).
Bruno Zevi’s first publication Verso un’architettura Organica (1945) and the following Storia dell’architettura moderna (1950), are the original evidence of an initial and exhaustive study that puts together architecture and American masters.
For the first time in the history of architecture, the characters and the newly born discourse around American architecture, assumed a determinant and paradigmatic role aimed to observe and interpret the growth of modern architecture. Zevi wrote (1945), "Numerous histories of modern architecture have been published in the last few years, mainly in the US and in England, and some of them are really excellent. Generally speaking though, those histories come to a conclusion after having dealt with the first generation of modern architects and the major masters who worked mainly in Germany and France […] I propose instead to search for a guideline delving through the architecture of the most recent years; rather than a sort of history, it should appear as a chronicle, even though it is already obvious that we can see an intellectual and artistic attitude towards architecture worthy of expression. The best contemporary architects are heading forward, towards a kind of architecture that here has been given a name: organic" (Zevi 1945: 11-12).
The meaning given to the term organic in Zevi’s book (1945: 63-64), was changed by William Lescaze’s words: "Organic is the word which Frank Lloyd Wright uses to describe his own architecture […] This adjective was first applied to architecture by Wright’s first employer, Louis Sullivan […]. As Claude Bragdon […] explained […] architecture throughout the world and down the ages has been bisected by an inevitable duality, having been either organic (and as such following the law of natural organisms) or arranged (i.e. according to some Euclidean ideal devised by man)" (Lescaze, 1942: 78-79).
With Zevi, Wright and the Organic Poetics of the architects of the Bay Region, Aalto and Scandinavian Empiricism became the reference point of Modern architecture; instead of Giedion and Gropius mechanization, instead of the CIAM and Le Corbusier. America, according to Zevi, became the cultural epicenter, the country able to put forward an alternative in opposition to the scientific assumptions and the regulations imposed by the Existenzminimum and the CIAM.
The last catalogue of the exhibition, OfficeUS Manual
(Gilabert, Miljački, Carrasico, Reidel, Schafer, 2014), a showcase of
all the American firms’ "good practices’’
aimed to ultimate, undisputed success; a proper manual of business
management for architects. Visitors, walking through the US pavilion at
the XIV Architecture International Exhibition of Biennale di Venezia,
were literally invested by the humongous quantity of projects that
Americans had carried out all over the globe.
An unnecessary sort of revelation, as the awareness and perception of American supremacy in the field of architecture, and not just in that one, was already a global phenomenon that did not need any further demonstration.
Armand Mattelart clearly stated (2000) that the only country in the world that, because of its sphere of influence, deserved the name of “global society” was the United States. Because of its maturity, American society was the one that was enlightening the path of the other nations. In political terms it was not possible anymore to talk about the US’ "cultural imperialism” at the expense of the rest of the world because its cultural industry together with its models of organization were actually recognized as universal. What the US offered was a global paradigm of modernity, a behavioral model of values destined to be imitated all over the planet, which led Mattelart to prospect a new global society extrapolated from the archetype born and bred in the New World.
In terms of architecture it suffice considering how common it is the practice of building skyscrapers; originally an American archetype, an exclusively American construction - the only examples of tall buildings, prior to the 1920’s, were visible in New York and Chicago – today skyscrapers are the "new" constructions most commonly displayed on the planet. Its great success comes essentially from the simultaneous representativeness of modernity, a symbolic value and the "Reklame Arkitektur" (Hilberseimer, 1927), because «The Medium is the Massage» (McLuhan, 1967).
The skyscraper though, is not the only protagonist of such a phenomenon. Enormous has been the success of chained-brand hotels, clothing franchises, fast food chains, large groceries stores, shopping malls, multinationals’ headquarters (other buildings "originally" American), that nowadays they are globally widespread and adopted in geographical contexts very different from one another, promoting the creation of urban landscapes that little by little end up denying their original peculiarities and contributing to the creation of what the French anthropologist Marc Augé called the Non-Lieux [non places] (1992). Buildings, or multi units constructions elevated to be representative of modern societies, as well as developing countries, for their unfamiliar flair and their intrinsic quality to be endlessly repeated, easily transmigrated anywhere in the world without exceptions, which for people it is very comforting, because we feel protected from the "risk" of being "surprised" by "unusual" or "unknown" environmental contexts, and, at the same time, alienating because a it appears as a universal place exactly the same anywhere we go.
During the early years of this third millennium, we have registered the increasing realization of edifices that deliberately resort to exceptional and daring solutions, as well as to sophisticated techniques to make those solutions the more possible, creating environmental contexts explicitly artificial and disengaged from locally affecting situations. At the basis of the most recent guidelines in terms of research, planning and the building techniques to make it all possible, is the belief that construction models do not necessarily need to be rooted in their own local contexts (the most appreciated aspect that has contributed to its great success and global promotion), ultimately severing the more direct ties with the local communities.
In the US, the number of building initiatives characterized by works of the highest technological standards have more and more multiplied since the 1950s. Besides the skyscrapers, that we have already mentioned, in the labs of MIT, researchers have developed study programs and prototypes of houses powered by solar energy (Barber, 2014; Barber, 2016) and prefabricated, modular ones made of plastic (Behrendt, 1958; Plastic Houses, 1956). Gradually – at the MIT Media Lab – thanks to the extraordinary development of digital technologies, AI and domotics, it was soon possible to think about self-sustainable homes and to the Cities of Bits: the Smart Cities (Mitchell, 1995).
It was soon noted (McLuhan, 1962) that worldwide media literacy would have facilitated globalisation, but also that the newly acquired electronic interdependence reproduced a kind of image of the world that recalled a global village (McLuhan, 1962: 31).
According to McLuhan, the technocratic discoveries have recreated the "field", whereby we live in a single restricted space resounding with tribal drums. That is why, today’s preoccupations regarding the "primitive", are just as banal as those ones for "progress" in the nineteenth century and just as irrelevant if we think about our problems (McLuhan, 1962: 31), McLuhan states clearly that Ours is a brand-new world of allatonceness. "Time" has ceased, "space" has vanished. We now live in a global village ... a simultaneous happening (McLuhan, 1967: 63).
However, this kind of global model of modernity imposes, on one side, a consideration on the very concept of development, and on the other, on the issue of the cultural, regional and identity instances that Kenneth Frampton exposed in Critical Regionalism: modern architecture and cultural identity (Frampton, 1980: 313-327).
For a long while now, it has been believed that the current process of development – the so-called linear one – has almost exhausted and dissipated the resources of the planet and that globalization has jeopardized, if not actually annihilated, the diversities and cultural complexities of the many nations and countries of the world.
If the first statement may be true though, the second one still needs to be verified. Oddly enough, globalization is a phenomenon that has given a great propulsion to most identity instances in the last few decades, and it is also very noticeable that the issues pertaining the depletion of the planet resources and the consequent worldwide crises, correspond to the increasing, counter actions taken as measures of compensation and resilience advocated by Critical Regionalism.
For those reasons, today, we ask ourselves if the US model of growth, and of all of those that look at them as an example, can be actually replicated; in other words, can the developing countries, or the less developed ones – like Marx believed – follow on the footsteps of the United States of America? A country of huge dimensions, with unlimited (it was thought) mineral underground deposits and enormous oil fields. A land of abundance, projected towards a great future with endless possibilities.
At this point, the answer is very predictable and the question is a rhetorical one. Of course the opportunity nowadays, can not be anymore, and for almost anybody, the ones that have given the US such unquestionable leadership. The historical digression of linear development and consumerism of which the US have represented the model (Galbraith, 1958), is no longer (and has been so for a long time) viable and sustainable, not only for ethical reasons but also for the necessity to preserve the balance, already distraught and almost [?] irreversibly compromised of our planet (Schumacher 1973).
However, today, the most popular buildings in the world are precisely skyscrapers, shopping malls and, by association, the redeeming, almost "salvific", Smart Cities, elevated to role models for a new equilibrium: city, society and the planet. Models brought about and developed in the United States and, in time, scattered and assimilated all over the world, so that, as stated by Mattelart (2000), global society is nothing but the extrapolation of an archetype born and bred in the New World.
Those buildings though, as well as the Smart Cities, that have been adopted as global models, require huge amounts of power and highly functioning scientific, technical and IT systems. A paradoxical, ridiculous, if not tragic predicament, whereby countries much less developed use those models unconditionally, as pointed out by Richard Sennett and bringing about the obvious question in terms of planning of how it can be possible, that a country such as India, with a larger part of the population that has no access to drinkable water or to local medical surgeries, a country that has no sewer system, tries to follow on such path doomed with failure, by planning one hundred brand new Smart Cities (Sennett, 2018: 162).
Clearly, the inertia with which developing countries, or less developed ones than the US, want to reach the highest tops of developmental growth is a still open issue. Unfortunately, though, the linear model and global economic development – models adopted by all the industrialized countries, and supposedly not just them – have wasted and eroded the planet’s resources, produced an incredible quantity of waste materials and almost erased regional and local cultural diversities.
In those simple terms, the culture of Critical Regionalism that also belongs to all the individuals that sensed that the possibility of a continuous and endless growth was purely delusional, will probably find today a renewed and necessary collocation.
In order to hinder the current growth model, perhaps will not be enough to apply the suggestions of Critical Regionalism or the research for a more circular model of consumption based on a smaller scale, regional standard of production – as put forward by Ernst Friedrich Schumacher (1973); but it is certainly very probable that the many countries of the world will need to formulate new models of – critical – rethinking following each one their own inclinations, opportunities and local, (possibly regional ?) culture.
Critical Regionalism tends to flourish in those cultural interstices which in one way or another are able to escape the optimizing thrust of universal civilization. Its appearance suggests that the received notion of the dominant cultural centre surrounded by dependent, dominated satellites is ultimately an inadequate model by which to assess the present state of modern architecture (Frampton 1980: 317).
That would be very reassuring and we would be very happy to believe it.
 The country that is more developed industrially only shows to the less developed, the image of its own future.
 Generally speaking the beginning of the Cold War is chronologically set in 1947 with the ratification of the National Security Act (18 September, 1947) and it symbolically ends with the fall of the Berlin wall (1989) and the dissolution of the URSR (1991). Here instead, we indicate 1945 as the beginning of the Cold War, in juxtaposition with George Orwell's text, that as a reaction to the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaky, writes the article “You and the Atomic Bomb” (1945): «The atomic bomb may complete the process by robbing the exploited classes and peoples of all power to revolt, and at the same time putting the possessors of the bomb on a basis of military equality. Unable to conquer one another, they are likely to continue ruling the world between them, and it is difficult to see how the balance can be upset except by slow and unpredictable demographic changes […] that is, the kind of world-view, the kind of beliefs, and the social structure that would probably prevail in a state which was at once unconquerable and in a permanent state of “cold war” with its neighbours»..
 In the USA were to emigrate: Theodor W. Adorno (1939), Josef and Annie Albers (1933), Herbert Bayer (1938), Peter Blake (1940), Max Beckmann (1933), Marcel Breuer (1937), Serge Chermayeff (1940), Albert Einstein (1938), Enrico Fermi (1938), Walter Gropius (1937), George Grosz (1933), Victor Gruen (1938), Max Horkheimer (1933), Fritz Lang (1934), Claude Lévi-Strauss (1940), Peter Lorre (1935), Thomas Mann (1939), Erich Mendelsohn (1941), László Moholy-Nagy (1937), Sibyl Moholy-Nagy (1937), Piet Mondrian (1940), Mies van der Rohe (1933), Berta and Bernard Rudofsky (1941), Josep Lluís Sert (1939), Hans Richter (1940), Arnold Schoenberg (1933), Georg and Maria Ludwig von Trapp (1938), Oskar Wlach (1940), Bruno Zevi (1940) and many others (the date indicates the year of arrival in the USA).
 Peter Blake's observations pertaining to the influences of the European masters that emigrated to the US, belong to rather recent publications, although they go back to the early 1950s as documented in No Place Like Utopia (Blake, 1993), risalgono ai primi anni Cinquanta..
 Bauhaus: 1919-1928 [MoMA Exhibition. #82, December 7, 1938-January 30, 1939].
 Road to Victory [MoMA Exhibition #182, May 21-October 4, 1942], Airways to Peace [MoMA Exhibition #236, July 2-October 31, 1943].
 Modern Architecture: International Exhibition [MoMA Exh. #15, February 9-March 23, 1932]
 Let us not forget that Zevi, because of the fascist government racial laws, left Italy in 1939, going first to London and then, in 1940, to the United States, later graduating at the Harvard University Graduate School of Design, directed at the time by da Walter Gropius, and discovering Frank Lloyd Wright. In 1943 he went back to Europe aboard a naval ship that arrived in Glasgow. As a refugee he then goes back to London and the US Army puts him in charge of the planning of military camps and prefabs in preparation for the D-day in Normandie. In London he attends the RIBA library and puts together his first book, Verso un’architettura organica.
 Modern Architecture, U.S.A. [MoMA Exhibition #767a, May 18-September 6, 1965].
 The work of Albert Kahn, Ford's architect (Bucci, 1992), is very emblematic, especially pthe construction of the industrial compounds in Russia.
 The question mark indicates the uncertainty of such a statement. We still do not know if we have irreversibly disrupted the stability of the planet or if we are still in time to intervene on the process already triggered by deforestation, by air and water pollution… caused by the greenhouse effect, by tornadoes, by the rising of the level of the oceans, by the melting of glaciers and the ice cap… by pandemics.
(1956) – “Plastic Houses: new form for a new architecture”. The Canadian Architect, 10, 22-29.
AUGÉ M. (1992) – Non-Lieux. Introduction à une anthropologie de la surmodernité. Seuil, París.
BANHAM R. (1965) – “The Missing Motel: Unrecognized American Architecture”. Landscape, 2.
BANHAM R. (1967) – “Towards a million-volt light and sound culture”. The Architectural Review, 843, (Maj).
BANHAM R. (1971) – Los Angeles: The Architecture of Four Ecologies. Penguin Press, London.
BARBER A.D. (2014) – “Tomorrow’s House: Solar Housing in 1940s America”. Technology and Culture, 55, January.
BARBER A.D. (2016) – A House in the Sun. Modern Architecture and Solar Energy in the Cold War. Oxford University Press, New York.
BAUDRILLARD J. (1968) – Le Système des objets. Gallimard, París.
BAUDRILLARD J. (1970) – Amérique. Grasset, París.
BAUDRILLARD J. (1970a) – Société de consummation. Gallimard, París.
BAUER MOCK E., McANDREW J. (1942) – What is Modern Architecture? MoMA, New York.
BAUMAN Z. (2000) – Liquid modernity. Polity Press, Cambridge.
BEHRENDT E. (1958) – “Plastic House”. Popular Science, April, 144-147; 262.
BLAKE P. (1960) – The Master Builders; Le Corbusier; Mies van der Rohe; Frank Lloyd Wright. Alfred A. Knopf, New York.
BLAKE P. (1963) – God’s Own Junkyard, The planned deterioration of American landscape. Holt, New York.
BLAKE P. (1993) – No Place Like Utopia, Alfred A. Knopf, New York.
BLAKE P. (1996) – “From Mies to Mickey Mouse”. Zodiac 16.
BRZEZINSKI Z. (1969) – Between Two Ages. America's Role in the Technetronic Era. Viking Press, New York.
BUCCI F. (1992) – L’ architetto di Ford. Albert Kahn e il progetto della fabbrica moderna. Cittastudi, Milano.
CABET E. (1840) – Voyage en Icarie. Bureau du Populaire, Paris.
DELEUZE G. e GUATTARI F. (1972) – L’Anti-Oedipe. Les Editions de Minuit, París.
DELEUZE G. e GUATTARI F. (1980) – Mille Plateaux. Les Editions de Minuit, París.
DORFMAN A. e MATTELART A. (1971) – Para Leer al Pato Donald. Ediciones Universitarias de Valparaíso, Valparaíso.
FLORIDA R. (2003) – The Rise of the Creative Class: And How It’s Transforming Work, Leisure, Community and Everyday Life. Basic Books, New York.
FRAMPTON K. (1980) – Modern Architecture: a Critical History. Thames and Hudson, London.
FRAMPTON K. (1982) – Storia dell’architettura moderna, Zanichelli, Bologna.
GALBRAITH J.K: (1958) – The Fluent Society. Harcourt Publishing, New York.
GILABERT E. F., Kubo M., Miljački A., Schafer A. (eds.) (2014) – OfficeUS Atlas. Lars Müller Publishers, Zürich.
GILABERT E. F., Kubo M., Miljački A., Schafer A., Lawrence A. R. (eds.) (2014) – OfficeUS Agenda. Lars Müller Publishers, Zürich.
GILABERT E. F., Miljački A., Schafer A., Mínguez Carrasco C., Reidel J. (eds.) (2014) – OfficeUS Manual. Lars Müller Publishers, Zürich.
GUNDLE S., GUANI M. (agosto 1989) – “L’americanizzazione del Quotidiano”. Quaderni storici, 62.
HARRIS M. E. (1987) – The Arts at Black Mountain College. MIT Press, Cambridge.
HILBERSEIMER L. (1927) – Groszstadt Architektur. Julius Hoffmann, Stuttgart.
HITCHCOCK H.R. (1958) – Architecture: Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries Modern Architecture. Penguin Books, Harmondsworth.
HITCHCOCK H.R., JOHNSON P. (1932) – The International Style: Architecture since 1922, W.W. Norton & company, inc., New York.
KRUFT H.W. (1989) – Städte in Utopia. C.H.Beck, München.
LE CORBUSIER (1923) – Vers Une Architecture. Éditions Crès, París.
LE CORBUSIER (1937) – Quand les cathédrales étaient blanches. Voyage au pays des timides. Éditions Plon, París.
LESCAZE W. (1942) – On being an architect, G.P. Putnam’s Sons, New York.
LYOTARD J-F. (1979) – La Condition Postmoderne: Rapport Sur Le Savoir. Les Editions de minuit, Paris.
LYOTARD J-F. (1981) – La Condizione postmoderna. Rapporto sul sapere. Feltrinelli, Milano.
MARX K. (1867) – Das Kapital. Verlag von Otto Meissner, Hamburg; (1887) – Capital. A Critique of Political Economy. Progress Publishers, Moscow.
MATTELART A. (2000) – L’histoire de l’utopie planétaire. De la cité prophétique à la société globale. La Découverte, Paris.
MATTELART A. (2001) – Histoire de la societe de l’information. La Decouverte, París.
McLUHAN M. (1962) – The Gutemberg Galaxy, University of Toronto Press.
McLUHAN M. e FIORE Q. (1967) – The Medium is the Massage. Penguin, London.
MENDELSHON E. (1926) – Amerika. Bilderbuch eines Architekten. Mosse, Berlin.
MITCHEL W. J. (1995) – City of Bits. Space, Place, and the Infobahn. MIT Press, Cambridge.
MUMFORD L. (1931) – The Brown Decades. Harcourt Brace & Co. New York.
MUMFORD L. (1977) – Architettura e cultura in America. Marsilio, Padova.
NYE J. S. (1990) – Bound to Lead. The Changing Nature of American Power. Basic Books, New York.
ORTEGA Y GASSET J. (1930) – “La rebelión de las masas”. Ediciones de la Revista de Occidente. 39 noviembre.
ORWELL G. (1945) – “You and the Atomic Bomb”, Tribune (October 14).
PEVSNER N. (1936) – Pioneers of the Modern Movement, from William Morris to Walter Gropius. Faber and Faber, Ltd. Price, London.
PEVSNER N. (1943) – An outline of European architecture. Penguin, London.
REPS J.W. (1965) – Town Planning in Frontier America. Princeton University Press, Princeton.
RICHARDS J.M. (1940) – An Introduction to Modern Architecture. Pelican. London.
RICOEUR P. (1961) – “Universal Civilization and National Cultures”. In: History and Truth. Northwestern University Press, Evanston.
RILEY T. (1992)– The International Style: Exhibition 15 and The Museum of Modern Art. Rizzoli, New York.
ROSSI U. (2019) – “The Best of All Possible Worlds. USA 1949–1959: God’s Own Country”. HPA, Histories of Postwar Architecture, 4.
RUSHA E. (1963) – Twentysix Gasoline Stations. Los Angeles.
SCHUMACHER E.F. (1973) – Small is Beautiful. A study of Economics as if People Mattered. Blond & Briggs, London.
SENNETT R. (2018) – Building and Dwelling, Ethics for the City. Farras Strauss & Giroux, New York.
SERVAN-SCHREIBER J.J. (1980) – Le défi Mondial. Fayard, Paris 1980.
SPENGLER O. (1918) – Der Untergang des Abendlandes. Oskar Beck, Münich.
VALÉRY P. (1919) – “La Crise de l’esprit”. La Nouvelle Revue Francaise, August.
VENTURI R. (1966) – Complexity and Contradiction in Architecture. MoMA, New York.
VENTURI R., SCOTT BROWN D., IZENOUR S. (1972) – Learning From Las Vegas. MIT, Cambridge.
WOLFE T. (1964) – “Las Vegas (What?) Las Vegas (Can’t heart you! Too Noisy)”. Esquire, February.
WOLFE T. (1981) – From Bauhaus to Our House. Farrar, Straus & Giroux, New York.
WRENN T. P., MULLOY E. D. (1976) – America’s Forgotten Architecture. Pantheon, New York.
WRIGHT F. L. (1932) – An Autobiography. Faber & Faber, London.
WRIGHT F. L. (2016) – Una atobiografia. Jaka Book, Milano.