rafael rozendaal, biglongnow.com@neen
dismissing current architectural practices and possibilities is a lot easier than thinking about current architectural practices and possibilities, about what they might entail. are we out of the drought? have we noticed the drought and started to worry about it, at least? is there anything close to new architectural / design agendas? a recent sort of effervescence (green, smart activism, soft, wired, networky, infrastructure-focused, etc.) can actually be perceived. quite a bit of this excitement could be the result of a scaling conflict of architectural / design values, meanings, ideas and beliefs. not in a mystic or moral sense, but in a more down-to-earth sense of practice, a sense of duty and possibility opposed to the near-faded (koolhaas) dilemma that for some is now simply a justification for selling out and has others fixed on a rheumatoid cynicism. so, instead of dissing we should start asking: how and where does architecture fall between new patterns of city and economy? how relevant or meaningful can architects be as part and players in these scenarios? what is required of architecture in terms of practice? how are these requirements changing the workings and perceptions of design professions?
so basically, the questions remain (stay the same). we just need to keep them working. we just need new answers, propositions. anyone?