I find it really interesting  that Virilio often refers to postmodernism. I’ll start by quoting him: “If architectonics once measured itself according to geology, according to the tectonics of natural reliefs, with pyramids, towers and other neo­gothic tricks, today it measures itself according to state ­of ­the ­art technologies, whose vertiginous prowess exiles all of us from the terrestrial horizon.” I find this interesting because Virilio is referring to a different speed with which architecture now aligns itself. At one time, architecture was the backdrop of all permanence, and then modernists started looking at flexibility. Postmodernism was a reaction to their solution of generic column grids and flat floor plates which were untied to space-time (and by the way, worked really well-and still do). So, of course, they started again building temples and things as the reaction to the generic and flexible as a statement of permanence (which interestingly enough are falling to the wrecking ball quicker than modernist buildings due to their ugliness, unfortunately). But now we’re reaching this critical point again. Where the speed of technology far outpaces the speed of buildings. Here’s a practical example; even buildings built as recently as the late 90’s, with clients looking to upgrade them, are facing a lot of challenges. Most of these upgrades are technological in nature, and these buildings just plain weren’t designed for this stuff and it’s a massive challenge to retrofit them with it. Their lifespan has been exponentially reduced by the speed of technological development. So we have to be responsible for designing for the speed at which architecture must now adapt-or design the adaptation ourselves; but then again the tension emerges. Is architecture permanent, or flexible? Is it a statement or generic? Or is it something else, could it possibly be responsive to this speed?