Yes, that's it. Is it still in use? I remember (not well as you can see)
that some work by Le Corbusier and Xenakis from around that was abandonded,
and seem to remember a slide of a grand concrete structure with weeds and
trees growing out of it.

It's always been interesting to me why Xenakis downplays his involvement in
Le Corbusier's atelier. I completely understand his reticence about the war,
but not about his architectural work.

> >[....] My memory of modern architecture
> >fails me--I could dredge up a book--but there's a particulr 
> church with
> >irregularly spaced vertical concrete lines on the outside which are
> >completely attributable to Xenakis. The outside lines/patterns are
> >stochastic, a clear Xenakis hallmark of the time. I do think I read
> >somewhere (A liner note?) where IX admitted to this church.
> 
> 
> You are referring to the famous Ronchamp Chapel, near Lyon. 
> (I think the
> real name is something like Notre-Dame-du-Haut). The funny 
> thing is that
> this work is considered one of Le Corbusier's masterpieces, 
> and one of the
> most important works in modern architecture.
> 
> If you think about that, it's ironic that we should refer to 
> Xenakis as one
> of the most important architects in XX Century.
> 
> I also read not long ago an interview where Xenakis admitted 
> he had played a
> decisive role in this and many other important works produced at Le
> Corbusier's studio during those years, some of which were his 
> own designs.
> The interviewer was clearly interested in the subject, and how was it
> possible that Le Corbusier always had tried to hide the fact, 
> but X was
> obviously unwilling to develop this further, that would leave 
> Le Corbusier
> in a very bad spot indeed.
> 
>