01_Beer_pg24,89_Beer discusses the nature of individualism and uniqueness of society. He also later goes on to discuss, on inefficiency, that the only way society can become more efficient is to sacrifice freedom and personal liberties. Should the question be asked: “is personal freedom and liberty inherently bad?”; is it a necessity to give up personal freedom to achieve a greater efficiency in society? conversely, would this surrendering of freedom reduce variety, and thereby hinder efficiency?

02_Pask_pg496_Pask discusses, under ‘Speculations’

Concepts in very different disciplines (…..psychology, economics) will be united with the concepts of architecture to yield and adequately broad view of such entities as ‘civilization’…

I think this is an inevitable occurrence as society becomes increasingly connected. However, will this convergence naturally fit into the paradigm of ‘good’ architecture? or will architectural theory as we know it become negatively modified under these outside influences to produce ‘worse’ conditions than we do today?

03_Price_pg56_I take some issue with the concept and design of the Fun Palace; most notably the assumptions made about how people interact and what they find interesting. Price himself describes the work as a ‘short-term toy to enable people to use a building with the same degree of personal immediacy that they are forced normally to reserve for a limited range of pleasures.’ Would a building without specific purpose really attract attention and interest? would it, as price said, be short-term, with people becoming disinterested with the novelty of the space after a while? The adaptability of the system does something to address this, by making a variable space that can change into something new, but is this implementation of full-scale adaptability and impermanence of space something that people would feel intimately comfortable with? or would it feel jarring, with changes in environment seemingly at random?