The building industry's unmistakable share in climate change ensured that many policies have been implemented to reduce its impact. However, most policies cover the operational energy and -emissions of buildings, and not their upfront embodied impacts. Fortunately, wood-based building products proved to be viable alternatives to more conventional materials such as concrete and steel since they have been attributed a lower environmental impact. Thus, they are often regarded as sustainable. However, the sustainability of wood is not absolute. The research paper explores just how much more sustainable wood-based structures are compared to their conventional counterparts in terms of their embodied impact. It turns out that a sustainable building starts with compact city design which has a lower energy use per capita. This sustainable urbanism paradigm, in combination with timber building design, yields the lowest environmental impact. Moreover, technical innovation in timber engineering ensured that it is now able to compete with concrete and steel, and the added benefit of timbers versatility vouches for its use. In the research paper, Life-cycle-assessment (LCA) is applied to a built case in Rotterdam which illustrates the environmental benefit of multi-storey timber building structures, even in the most unfavorable scenario for the timber variants. The findings of the research directly inform the architectural design. The design proposes a way forward for the TU Delft amidst many contradictory considerations; How can the TU Delft accommodate the growing student population whilst complying with its sustainability goals? The design focuses on the worst-performing building on campus, building 22. It has been redesigned in accordance with the TU Delft ambitions and facilitates cross-pollination between different faculties. Because if we want to truly tackle our most urgent societal issues, we should bring all ideas together, and have a diverse group of people look at them creatively.

In the winter of 1970, Rem Koolhaas visited the architecture collective Superstudio, and he expressed great appreciation towards the studio’s founders Adolfo Natalini and Cristiano Toraldo di Francia. What ensued was a long time of correspondence, especially between Koolhaas and Natalini. They gravitated toward each other, and they celebrated their shared perspectives on architectural design. That is until Koolhaas found out that they silently disagreed in critical moments, and their friendship began to cool off.
This thesis recounts the story of Rem Koolhaas and the architecture collective Superstudio. It delineates how the two crossed paths, how and why they sympathized, what their greatest contradiction was, and how their mutual affinity was partly based on a misunderstanding. Their greatest contradiction regarded the grid and their diverging position was informed by disagreements on multiple levels, on the value of history for example. In this thesis, the juxtaposition of their positions is combined with recently published archival material, giving insight into their personal relationship as well. It appears that in architecture, affinity can start with misinterpretation and it does not have to end with a stupefying consensus either.