The shrunk pro­gramme brought to the light a pro­ble­ma­tic re­la­ti­ons­hip with the lo­ca­tion. The project is si­tua­ted on a fan-shaped site, em­pha­si­zing a ra­dian struc­ture. The lo­ca­tion, in a cor­ner of the large re­si­den­tial area, is one where many axes come to­ge­ther, in­e­vi­ta­bly ma­king the project a focal point wi­t­hin the area. Howe­ver, the ur­ba­nist re­qui­re­ment for high rise on this site was in­com­pa­ti­ble with the de­crea­sed scope of the pro­gramme. Our ef­forts for SWOZ II the­re­fore con­cen­tra­ted on re­con­ci­ling the two op­po­sing de­mands of site and pro­gramme. The two low, asym­metric sli­ces each form a frame­work for a sober in­te­rior ar­ran­ge­ment. The sli­ces are con­cei­ved as com­pact vo­lu­mes with cu­touts for the inner gar­dens. The units, which should re­sem­ble fa­mily hou­ses with their com­mu­nal li­ving rooms and in­di­vi­dual be­drooms, are ar­ran­ged around these gar­dens. The outer walls have openings loo­king on to these gar­dens, sti­mu­la­ting in­te­gra­tion wi­t­hin the area. In the ele­va­tion the frame­work of each slice is fil­led in with a hy­per­pa­ra­bo­lic rib­bon struc­ture of walls and roofs. This fa­cade in­fill was de­ve­l­o­ped with the aid of 3-D com­pu­ter pro­gram­mes and ci­ne­ma­to­gra­phic 'walk around' tech­ni­ques, so that ele­va­tions, sec­tions and plans were de­ve­l­o­ped si­mul­ta­neously and in­te­grally. The fa­ca­des of sprayed con­crete, with their convex-concave cur­ves and win­dings will pro­vide a si­mu­la­crum of height and bulk, thus mee­ting the urban re­gu­la­ti­ons even though it is a low-rise com­plex. In the north east cor­ner a rai­sed sec­tion of three lay­ers forms the only real high point. This little block, con­tai­ning ad­mi­nis­tra­tive func­tions, roofs over the pu­blic and pe­de­strian axis bi­sec­ting the two sli­ces.