oh wow, there was a second page, that response was to an earlier post

And they rip of insurance companies too! Fuckin' Pandas! Who needs them or the planet!

Maybe someone should bomb McMansions with butyric acid.

^ but is anyone actually living in fear because of the ELF?

I'm going to go out on a limb and say "no" on that one. maybe its because I'm in Boston and there aren't any McMansion developments in my backyard, but I haven't heard anything about developers cowering in their offices and not moving forward with projects because they're afraid that the ELF is going to torch a couple buildings...

of course not. things haven't escalated that far. but the message ELF has sent to the developers is definitely "don't build these houses or else." rather than being based on education, ELF's tactics are based on coercion.

regardless of whether or not people are cowering in fear, my argument is that they are attempting to induce fear in others. incidentally, i believe that ELF has pledged to never harm another human being during any of it's "actions." however, it is still a destructive force, and i can't see how the kind of people who commit violence against property couldn't modify their tactics to commit violence against other people, if the situation escalated. this kind of thing has happened before, as the non-violent movement in the 60's became increasingly militant. and they were peaceful to begin with, ELF isn't.

What I think is funny about this thread is imagining what a non-architect might think. Would a non-architect come here thinking we would all be pissed off because someone burned these "beautiful dream homes" to the ground, and instead find us arguing what constitutes violence?

Would they be surprised to find that not a one of us has expressed a single iota of sadness that four supposedly wonderful buildings were destroyed?

I'm certainly not surprised by it!

interesting point lb.

Let's see. The housing market is tanking, the developer isn't moving any of these grotesque houses, which mysteriously burn down overnight, and no organization steps up and claims "victory," or whatever? Just a sloppy little sign? Hmmm.

yes that is an interesting point.

This is slightly off topic and a bit fantasy-land, but what if there was a profession called "anti-architect" which would work on removing an abandoned building somewhere in the world and restore it to nature for every building we architects help to come into being. That way, no more of the earth's surface would be covered than already is at this point. The problem right now is that the rate of new building far outpaces the rate of removal, until we probably will have to find a new planet. There is, however, the issue of who would fund the anti-building.

pretty much any construction company in detroit that specializes in demolition. dan hoffman wrote an article about this in stalking detroit

i suppose that architecture itself is a pretty violent act. materials such steel, concrete, wood, etc. may appear to arrive from factories but in actuality they are pretty much rippedfrom the earth.

it's somewhat amusing to hear architects continually blabber about the need for environment or sustainability or nature when it is distinctly defined as our business to craft the artificial. it's also disingenuous about what we do. if people could live comfortably amongst nature in its pristine environments then we as architects wouldn't be needed. we can haggle over the details, of course, but from a big picture perspective, there shouldn't be any confusion about what we do. it's kind of like armed soldiers on a peacekeeping mission. practically ridiculous.

yes but it is in our nature to do what we do, and nature created us. i don't consider environmental degradation to be violence. it has to be man on man. shooting a deer is not violence.

That's a very, VERY narrow definition of the work, "violence". It's certainly our habit to do what we do, but "in our nature"? How do you know this? I suspect you used the word here to strengthen your position that we are a part of "Nature" (the physical world collectively, including plants, animals, the landscape..), thus cannot be against it; even though you used the word in a completely different sense, or more accurately, a different definition (the basic or inherent features of something, esp. when seen as characteristic of it).

As for violence - "it has to be man on man. shooting a deer is not violence." - all I can say is said best by the French. Pfff!

Your argument is specious, and less than intelligent.

puh-leeeze. get a sense of humor man. puddles and i are old buds, "rogue"

Hmm, you can also have "artificial" nature (e.g. Central Park). As far as violence, we're the only part of nature who can know better.

oh youre a terrorist...i thought you said theorist. you had me worried there for a sec...

oh sure, we may "know better" but it doesn't matter if we don't do better.

Both nature and the artificial human world (however we choose to define these) are very competitive and consequently violent places...ikm comfortable with that.

le bossman, i miss you and can hardly believe that it's been...like...two years since we've been together. don't give up on me just yet!

that's because when we do, we go by our gut, or balls. no one will ever listen to their brain when nature calls.

Apparently, some never listen to their brains ever.

"The Kantian Theory of Space" was Abmael Guzman's dissertation.

wasn't he in that guy in that cure song?

Years ago, in some long-forgotten zine, I remember reading a little blurb about the "Kierkegaardian Angels" - roving groups of philospohers who would accost people on the street and ask a pholosophical question, leaving pedestrians suddenly struggling with existential thoughts while waiting for the crosswalk sign to change.

I loved that idea.

perhaps you oughta watch this one MeTa