01_Performing Instruments_pg13

Regarding the discussion on the Fun Palace vs. Lovejoy Plaza, specifically the adaptability of the structure and space. To me the Fun Palace grants too much power to the end user. At the scale of a civic center, the difficulty in achieving consensus across a group leads me to think that a responsive architecture that is active will be susceptible to indecision and inaction in favor of the status quo. This contrasts with Lovejoy, and by extension the Fort Worth Water Gardens (P.Johnson), in that they more rigidly define an adaptable space. The architecture makes the hard decisions and allows for the more minute decisions to be made by individuals. Is there a way to create an active responsive architecture similar to the Fun Palace the is not subject to the issues of groupthink?

02_Performing Instruments_pg16

In analyzing the thought processes behind the Fun Palace and Lovejoy, the latter is much more congruous with traditional thought processes; Halprin looked to a precedent, designed alterations and formulated a base from which the individual can build from. Price, on the other hand, created a system that has no precedent, that has no base state. This fluidity contrasts traditional thinking, starting with the fluid idea and arriving at a base state. Do others agree with this analysis? What is the part to be played by human psychology and thought process in considering the design of responsive architecture?