maybe your question could be looked at from an example of a project. take the great wall of china. it was built to defend a country, but there was really nobody to defend against. however, unknowingly it made a country proud. it became a symbol of pride transcended from what it originally was built for. now, it's a tourist attraction. so, i think your question could be more pertaining toward an evolution of some sorts? china took a chance to build a wall and they did and resulted into something else.

it could be both or good. greece took a chance to build stadiums and they did, now they're stuck possibly with a headache.

i don't think it could be random, since i believe everything is relational.

i don't know. . . is this on the right track of what you are thinking?

i meant to say . . . "it could be both bad or good."

an evolutionary process, the actual design process, whatever it doesn't matter to me. whatever guys come up with is great.

Look at emergence, chaos theory, Life Game by John Conway.

john cage.

I'm thinking of modernism's housecleaning effort to remove the unpredictable aspects of urban life. The necessity of evolution and randomness in the urban environment could be studied here. I haven’t read the whole think, but Jane Jacobs book Death and the Life of Great American Cities covers the importance of evolving structures.

The Dionysus and Apollo Conflict touches on the tangible vs. intangible. There are varying viewpoints and interpretations of Corbu's famous sketch.

It's necessary and a fundamental part of any good design process. So embrace it, just don't do it blindly or it will come back and whip you in the ass.

As doZer concluded: "it could be both bad or good."

OMA's Tree City and Parc de la Vilette proposals both involve chance in a way that addresses the unpredictability of use in public space.

In a way, 'chance' probably plays itself out most in public space (urbanism) and landscape more than in architecture.

i think several people at the MIT Media Lab (and Bits and Atoms Lab) as well as the AA's Landscape Urbanism and EmTech are exploring these issues.

Also look at a book called Aesthetics of Total Serialism.

And the work of Stockhausen, Maeda, Tinguely, Duchamp, Cage.

"How Buildings Learn: What Happens After They're Built" by stuart brand

as for a design process, if you don't take a chance - you won't find an interest to follow through on a design/concept. it's anything, but random - it may appear so as a product, but really it's all relational based on your interests. just do your design mindfully and learn from it. you have to take risks(chances) to be innovative and to educate yourself(hopefully others as well).

that's why i like going to the casino. it's fun.

for an example of 'colloquial' (re)design, look at pumpkins the day after halloween. :-)

ytpos seem to be created somewhat randomly, and some typos are very entertaining.

beyond that. i can't explain how ideas pop out from 'thin air'. but, since the ideas result from brain activties, maybe popping out is not random.

Josh Russell, you posted abour randomness in creation of design, but have you wondered how randomness might influence the reaction of a person who is experiencing the design?

This isn't related to the topic but since I saw no one responded to this I felt a need to.

The Great Wall was actually built to fend off the Mongolians as well as other tribes from the north.

Defense against mongolians is a myth. according to franz kafka - czech writer, "the wall was built on suspicion", whose role, while purportedly being to keep out the "other", is in fact to bond those "protected" by it, and to fan allegiance to the emperor. the building of the wall united the people of china.

Jean Baudrillard talks about chance.

Chaos theory pretty much sums it all up and gives you a scientific explanation (and easily understood) of how comlexity emerges. From all that I've read, architects/theorists pretty much reword and regurgitate these theories (strange attractors, etc., etc.). Pretty much anyone you read about in the late 90's will have something to say about it.

Great stuff, and highly inspiring, at least for me, but it's also been done, redone, reworded, and spewed out a billion times that it ends up sounding meaningless (the pseudo-scientest phenomenon).

You could also look at Charles Jencks' Architecture of a Jumping Universe - I got a lot out of that book and it's an easy read.

dada architecture: Kurt Schwitters' Merzbau

Dozer, could you provide me with more info on this? I've only found kafka's writings(or short story?) on the great wall but found that to be not his main point. This is however just one man's theory and not a fact?

If you could provide me with more sources I would appreciate it as I've always followed the Mongol theory.