There is a general misunderstanding about what an architect does. Do they build things out of metal, steel, concrete, wood, and glass or are they building spaces, situations, and places for living? Those I would say are the architect’s real material. When we see Mies van der Rohe’s Farnsworth House (1951), we don’t see the steel beams and floor plates. It’s a building about the relationship between climate conditions, different levels of intimacy, degrees of privacy, the condition of living in a green landscape, and so on.
One essential thing: that there isn't a step between the inside and the balcony. You can have you dining table straddling the two spaces. It's better if there's no springing of beams: you have the feeling the interior space flows uninterruptedly towards the outside.
To think in more lightweight terms, which doesn't mean more fragile or less solid, more in connection with the way one manufactures industrial products, is a preoccupation of ours. When one manufactures a car, one predicts that it will have a life span of ten years, let's say. The cost/usage factor is completely under control. You could reason the same way about buildings! This would make them lighter, more transformable, maybe dismountable, or even involve their disappearance. It's very interesting to work with the idea in mind that you don't build for eternity, or even for fifty years. In this way architecture would lose its heaviness.
Luxury isn’t related to money, but it’s the condition of achieving above and beyond what was imagined to be possible.
More often than not, architectural icons are museums and opera houses, but what if the city’s icons were some truly interesting living conditions or new types of housing? That would be very contemporary.
Cost-effectiveness is above all being able to treat yourself to whatever it is you want. This means that you manage your budget at arrive at this, you don't allow yourself to be taken by surprise and that way you get what you want.
The greenhouses are equipped on the basis of a simple, intelligent technology enabling the indoor climate to be regulated. This technology controls the ventilation panels in the roof, at the behest of the inside temperature. They close automatically in the event of rain and wind.
The different spaces of the house have a variable "climatic" ambience, offering the inhabitants the possibility of migrating from one spot to another according to the season and the time of the day, in order to find the most pleasant of sensations there.
Searching for and deciding upon the site took six months, the building work two days. The wind took two years to destroy it.
According to a review in Science (Enriquez 1998:926), products featuring these “output traits” will blur the distinctions between product sectors: "Soon medical prescriptions may be personalized to our genotype, along with specific nutraceutical foods. Some vaccines will be delivered through foods such as raw potatoes or bananas....These new products may be delivered through your health management organization, a merger of supermarket and pharmacy,or perhaps even through a series of national health club chains."
That is, every present state of the smart city is understood as a demo or prototype of a future smart city; every operation is understood in terms or testing and updating. As a consequence, there is never a finished product, but rather infinitely replicable, yet always preliminary versions of these cities around the globe. Engineers openly speak of these cities as an “experiment” and as a “test,” admitting that the system did not work but could be improved in the next instantiation elsewhere in the world. This idea of the infrastructure as “demo” avoids any actual questions of whether this construction impacts the planet, labor, or its inhabitants, and opens the door to assimilate any difficulty or challenge into the next version by way of deferral. This design logic allows the management and negotiation of risks through derivation (from an imagined origin) in a manner that avoids ever having to finally encounter or take responsibility for the impact of respective events—whether weather, economic, or security. This evasion of encounter with the world happens because the credit has been swapped, or the version already rendered obsolete before anyone can take the time to evaluate the implications of the original bet or question the actual process being deployed. If a prototype “fails,” which is to say is found ecologically or economically sub-optimal or un-resilient, then this failure does not provoke a widescale structural change in approach (for the next development has already been planned), but rather a modulation of current strategy; an assimilation of the adverse event, or any other forms of resistance, into the next model while maintaining the basic operations of the ecology or system the same.
...resilience and technology create a form of preemptive infrastructural governance that naturalizes precarity, sacrifice, and violence as a necessary economic value, rather than as a politically derived option.
Resilience has a peculiar logic. It is not about a future that is better, but rather about an ecology that can absorb constant shocks while maintaining its functionality and organization. Following the work of Bruce Braun and Stephanie Wakefield, it is a state of permanent management without ideas of progress, change, or improvement. The irony is that this hopeless situation is actually met with hopeful speculation, usually through new forms of temporal management in finance and technology.