Four more years to go.

I don't upload much for lack of time during the year.
Especially this last semester which wasn't that interesting to share.

Heidiger's view might make for a different approach to planning architectural concepts, but it's also a dated, Utopian form of architecture that would be more at home in Athens 500-400BC with the Greek frame of mind during that era.

We deliberately made the distinction between what is ours, and what is everyones - we want a clear definition of what belongs to us, and we don't want to share it with random strangers. That's why we build fences, that's why we have the neighborhood watch, that's why we arm our borders.

With that said, I do agree that when planning a public building, or a city, you should adopt the "Open-Ends" approach to create an anchor point for future buildings - but your gesture should be shared with those who come after you - there's no point in creating a library facade that is open to a housing complex, if the housing complex does not interact with the library.

Roman architectural planning, or controlling the bubble, which defines most of our recent architecture, seems only natural when the future is uncertain, or too big of a variable to consider.

When planning a city, there is no point arguing whether Rome is better planned than NY, or if we should build more cities like one or the other, if both of them are well inhabited. With globalization they're just another flavor for you to choose from. Either one will have its buyers.

Improving on an existing concept is always welcome, and I think we are at a stage where fundamentals should be reevaluated.

We now have the technology to manufacture any kind of shape or form, and I believe that architecture should re-explore what makes a good space so it essentially reworks itself from the inside out.

After reading NOX's book, I was captivated by his description of human interaction with sloped floors. Our search for a "Machine for Living" should take a step forwards. We might even have to redefine the symbols we use in plans and section. In fact, plans and sections should merge into one entity.

The new and more effective computer programs we use can help us make the leap. We should no longer limit ourselves to box geometry.