01_Shepard_pg23_Continuing from the conversation last week about responsive architecture, and who determines how a space is used, does Koolhaas’s theory of generic space allow the designer to make whatever they want, without consequences to program? or is it the opposite, that the designer needs to be careful not to get in the way of generic programing, else they hinder the potential uses of a space? should all spaces take on an aspect of generic-ness?

For instance, people use coffee shops as secondary offices, bringing laptops and supplies to work into the space and use it for a purpose other than eating or drinking. Whether you’re in a Starbucks, Spot, or Tim Hortons, the experience is largely the same. However, if you go to an Ice Rink, attempting the same use will yield a very different, and probably hindering, experience. While this may be a case of extremes, I still consider the question whether all spaces can be truly generic.

02_Shepard_pg37_In the final paragraph discussing investment in materiality, the development of social networks and online exchanges in the years since publication of the book have built a virtual environment, not grounded in materiality per se. Economic forces have taken hold of this virtual environment, creating Facebook, Google, and to some extend Apple, some of the largest companies in the world. As we approach the day where the virtual merges with the material and really starts to upend the architecture profession, I think we can count on the industry changing rather rapidly if it means a better economic return.

The point on Vespasian’s Colosseum and Power is interesting, in this regard. Power is now demonstrated through virtual and social means more often than not, rather than physical manifestations. Will the architectural profession transition from designing powerful buildings and monuments to designing powerful virtual or hybrid structures, and testaments to technology instead?

03_Ambient Commons_pg223_The point of overexposure to many media sources I feel is indicative of this past year, catalyzed by the 2016 presidential elections. Discourse over the role of media, its bias, and who it is beholden to is a hot debate topic. All of this happens though, as citizens loose more and more interest in listening to news media outlets at all.

Can overexposure be cured? or is it something that we all must simply adjust to? Is there a role in forming physical or virtual space to limit exposure and thereby increase engagement? Should space design take a generic programing approach, or a much more targeted method?