yo, wieść gminna niesie, że na tym blogu pojawią się goście mądrzejsi ode mnie :) dzisiaj pierwszy z -- mam nadzieje -- serii tekstów; zapraszam do lektury.
It’s true, but it can be said about any random system that had occurred in the past. Nevertheless, architecture is undeniably bounded with law. I found an interesting observation about relations between law and architecture, or architecture and public space in Ancient Greece.
The Greeks understood architecture to embody meaning and order. Political order was no the least of the revealed by architecture. Thus, to the Athenians, the significance of civic architecture was a function of political context: the political persuasion of the sponsoring regime determined, to a large extent, the meaning of the building, despite their remarkable formal consistency. The Stoa of Attalos, for example, though a direct descendant of the Classical stoas that symbolized the equality of the citizens of the democratic emblematized the foreign domination of Athens during the Hellenistic era and served to aggrandize the builder at the cost of equality in the . Architecture was a political tool. It served to propel democracy for a short time, and otherwise served to legitimate asymmetrical power arrangements and perpetuate the
John Vanderberg Lewis
Although I admire Egypt events that gave massive hope to everyone for future changes, I am quite averse when it comes to the revolution itself. It always leads to diminishing the “enemy”, what is undoubtedly wrong, because it brings the same behavior hidden under the different names. It’s like fighting with a shadow. Instead a revolution I would rather like see people use logic and calculation. What happened during Arabic Spring, and what is actually happening online: social media, open-source or crowd-founding, is an evidence that we are able to change our societies into the organic/swarm model. Share more and gain more. The hybrid of digital and built environment could help to skip bureaucracy and lead to the habitat without authorities.
According to latest Cities Without Ground book release about Hong Kong (I totally want to buy it and study those diagrams):
Hong Kong is a city without ground. This is true both physically (built on steep slopes, the city has no ground plane) and culturally (there is no concept of ground). Density obliterates figure-ground in the city, and in turn re-defines public-private spatial relationships. Perception of distance and time is distorted through compact networks of pedestrian infrastructure, public transport and natural topography in the urban landscape.It’s going to be a nice rise of the public.