Sep '04 - Apr '06
I'm currently slogging through a theory paper that was due yesterday. It's slow-going, but I find the topic interesting. Basically, this is my thesis statement:
Power and preferred urban form: Coercive infrastructure and the politics of participation
Is urbanism possible without power? Contemporary theories of urbanism embrace multiplicitous models that empower urban agents (i.e. citizens) in ways that encourage them to engage their environments. Their collective actions make urbanity exist. However, the (infrastructural) elements that make urbanity possible are instruments deeply symbolic of power, be it political, economic or social power - or a combination thereof. The following seeks to understand the role of power in the structuring of urban form and to understand how theories of urbanism tend to encounter and accommodate power.
Anyhow, as I'm doing that, I'm reading a clip from Tschumi's Architecture and Disjunction's "Spaces and Events" when it struck me: Goodness gracious! What's the point of all this intellectual jibberjabbing? Isn't just being a good architect enough for any of you pompous jerks?
In other words, can't I just call it an evening and watch the episode of House I downloaded earlier this week?