Comments on: city, battlesuit, archigram

By: Irvin Spanier

Irvin Spanier — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 19:36:22 +0000

Thanks for the strategies presented. One thing I also believe is always that credit cards presenting a 0% rate often bait consumers with zero interest rate, instant authorization and easy on the web balance transfers, nevertheless beware of the top factor that will void that 0% easy streets annual percentage rate and throw one out into the terrible house rapid.

By: the best architecture of the decade « Vews

the best architecture of the decade « Vews — Sat, 30 Jan 2010 00:42:19 +0000

[...] Matt Jones, whose piece for io9, “The City is a Battlesuit for Surviving the Future”, spawned great conversation last year, you might say that the Groundwater Replenishment System is a small step towards a new [...]

By: the best architecture of the decade - mammoth // building nothing out of something

Mon, 25 Jan 2010 18:06:55 +0000

[...] whose piece for io9, “The City is a Battlesuit for Surviving the Future”, spawned great conversation last year, you might say that the Groundwater Replenishment System is a small step towards a new [...]

By: Geoff Manaugh

Geoff Manaugh — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 19:58:33 +0000

No worries, Enrique; I think we’re basically talking about different methods for different projects. I don’t have any fundamental problem with what we might call a critical-historical approach to writing about architecture; it simply isn’t what I do.

Having said that, I still think it’s important to defend my own “methodology,” if such a word even applies to it, simply because the overriding view seems to be—and probably always will be—that stories, myths, conjecture, speculation, etc., are unnecessarily frivolous and thus unimportant to a real analysis of ideas.

But, again, at least from my perspective, it just seems like different approaches, each of which is appropriate for differently pitched projects.

By: rholmes

rholmes — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 14:24:09 +0000

In short, both have done a lot to set some high bars for online architecture writing.

Exactly. And I think Geoff is doing a lot to expose architects to the value of non-architectural ideas for architecture as well (he might say that there really aren’t non-architectural ideas, but that’s beside the point).

I don’t want to say that being done well should always place work beyond criticism (that would be a real abrogation of criticism in favor of enthusiasm), and, ultimately, I think it’d be best if architectural writing on the internet became a conversation where various ways of thinking are all being expressed well and yet still competing with/critiquing one another. But that’s not where the conversation is right now, and so I’m encouraged by almost anything that’s not just the unthinking reproduction of glossy images.

Off to post some images.

By: Enrique Ramirez

Enrique Ramirez — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 03:57:43 +0000

Thanks for this post. It’s interesting to see all that backchannel chatter Matt’s post and Kazys’ reaction have cause. I think that you are spot on when you suggest that enthusiasm and criticism are both half-cooked. And to clarify a bit (this is because I respect Geoff a lot), though I am critical of Geoff in my response, I also want to stress that he has done a lot to expose other audiences to architectural ideas and architecture culture in general. Also, if you really think about it, Geoff has pretty much invented a kind of web-specific architectural writing that is captivating and never short on ideas. I would like to think that people like Kazys are working the other (read: criticism-oriented) side of the equation. In short, both have done a lot to set some high bars for online architecture writing.