“Even more than Architecture” – Richard Coyne

1. Is it justified to compare the number of hits of a YouTube video to number of citations of an academic article? The author mentions there is a difference in content type but other than that there is limitation of access which means YouTube is a free service but most journals are too expensive for a curious uneducated person (uneducated only in that specific field).
2. The author states that architectural research has a relatively small audience and architectural researchers may start to skew their outputs to appeal to a wider audience. Is it really necessary for architecture researchers to deviate from their principles just to attract more audience?
3. Comparing design approach to deliberate introduction of an object to a community that had never before seen such a device: Shouldn’t designs be based on needs? History proves that introducing products that are ahead of their time which are not based on needs are doomed to fail.

An “Artificial Science” of Architecture – Philip Steadman

1. The author states that both John Cristopher jones and Christopher Alexander were leading protagonists of ‘design methods movement’ but distanced themselves from their earlier positions. The reason why is not mentioned and it might be interesting to know. Also, again in this context it is mentioned that deep contradictions in Alexander’s approach was the reason he abandoned the method. Again, nothing about these contradictions are is explained.
2. From 1960s to 1970s, there seems to be a shift in application of computer-aided design (CAD) from generating plans to representation of designs. What are the differences between these two approaches?
3. The outcome of all the three pieces of research in the article was not either a design or a development in design. Therefore, is the outcome of artificial science of architecture suitable for a research studio project or M.Arch thesis?