1. How is the role of architecture changing in face of the current challenges? Why is architecture (still) important?

To start, I suppose one might have to define what the role of architecture actually is. The very basic definition of architecture is the erection of artificial structures to shelter its inhabitants from environmental forces-- where inhabitants can be anything from living entities (humans, dogs, giraffes, ants) to non-living entities (computers, statues, art and automobiles).

But, is shelter for objects, living or not, really architecture? The bottom line of shelter overlaps so many other professions-- some taught, some learned-- that even a basic definition does not entirely apply.

Architecture is important because of what deviates it away from other fields. It is the combination of the minimal definition along an intersection of values that makes it architecture. Those values are tied to aesthetics, specific cultures and a sense place. The importance of architecture in its most basic form is a visual history of place and its inhabitants-- ever evolving and changing.

Even more so, architecture is still important because one facet of our modernist era is competition-- who is better, faster, smarter, more efficient, more relevant et cetera. This is perhaps more obvious in places like Europe and Asia where many different people cohabit much smaller places. In the context of the U.S., you often don't find the kind of competition between states (such as Floridia vs. Georgia) as you would see competition between countries (Spain vs. Switzerland).

The various statements made by our modernist architecture can sway economies, histories and cultures. Architectural projects in other places can make one think introspectively about their place and their culture. Architecture in this form signals permanence, civil pride and the continued investment in one's place.

2. Which is the spatial dimension of the crisis?

The spatial dimension of the crisis... is the crisis of spatial dimension. With some relatively sparse examples, architecture over the last few millennia has been about squares. Almost all buildings start or end with a rectilinear shape-- from the Pyramids of Giza to the Empire State Building.

Over the course of the last few centuries, we have built some rather glorious boxes. Some of those boxes have the most elaborate carved stone ornamentation. Some have been smothered in gold leaf and jewels. Others have been far less ostentatious relying on the intricacies and beauty in their structural forms rather than their decorative form.

It seems in the last 100 years or so that some individuals have decided that buildings don't necessarily have to be so square . But are the new fantastical shapes better than the old ones? And aren't the same principals of architecture still being applied? That is to say, architecture has basically been the perforation and adornment of boxes. You can change the box but the process is eerily similar.

3. Is it possible for architecture to reclaim its social and cultural significance through architectural media and institutions?

Yes, and no. A slightly different answer the previous question seemed more appropriate here. The social and cultural significance of architecture is more about the spaces between architectural entities themselves. Those spaces, such as streets, squares, plazas and porches, are the social glue that binds architecture.

In more abstract terms, architectural objects can be thought of as mirrors. They reflect the values, aspirations and ideologies of the public spaces around them and their inhabitants. Architectural media in a sense is like looking at a foreign mirror and waiting to see one's reflection in that mirror. Do you fit there? Does this entity represent who you are as a person but also as a friend, a customer, a renter or a buyer?

An institution does hold some power in reclaiming significance as an institution is a organization of the members that participate. Internet websites, universities and professional associations are all institutions where individuals can craft their own "mirrors" and present them to others. Whether these ideas or fantasies stick is another question... or if they are even created at all.

Presumably, the hardest stipulation in architectural media is time. Architecture is a rather slow practice compared to other digital technologies-- crafting a single architectural object can take weeks, months or years. One might even compare recent architectural styles to internet memes where singular repetitive ideas are explored through numerous creations, recreations and plagiarisms-- the penetration of an internet meme into society as a whole can happen within a matter of hours where as the penetration of an architectural meme can take a decade or more.

4. Sustainability has become a generic term, why is it necessary to rethink it?

I've always presumed sustainability to be a generic term. The problem with sustainability is similar to an idea in the previous response. In the "mirror" concept, sustainability is a reflection of the values and ideas of their individual looking into said "mirror." At face value, it means something different to everyone-- whether it is a farmer using organic pesticides or a suburbanite driving a hybrid. But like any mirror, the reflection can be distorted.

Over the last 30 years or so, the idea of sustainability has remained constant-- a commitment to the social, economic and cultural tangibles within sustainability. The intersection of the three being compact, minimal transportation-dependent urban living. But, many individuals simply do not see themselves within this context and neither do many of the business practices of the modern age.

So, I don't think it is a question of rethinking sustainability. I would press the issue even further into asking "How does one re-illustrate, re-imagine or repackage sustainability?" There has to be a consistency in depicting what sustainability is, how one functions in such an environment and play up the social aspects of how sustainability can and will affect daily lives.

5. What are the opportunities and limits of digital technologies within the context of design practices?

From a previous response, time is an enormous limiting factor when dealing with the context of design.

A relatively simple way to look at this would be to consider the following: how much illustration is necessary to convey an idea as simple as a picket fence?

If drawing by hand, one could easily sketch out the basics of picket fence within a matter of minutes. If drawing by computer three-dimensionally, the simplicity of a picket fence can take anywhere from a half hour to several hours (assuming no preprogrammed or parametric functionality).

However, the opportunity in diagramming via computer in the three dimensional space allows me to take the original model and produce front and side images and elevations. How difficult would it be to draw a picket fence axiomatically? How much time would it take to being to render that inside one's head?

The digital sketch, with some minor addition of hardware and nail placement, can go from idea phase to construction documentation in less time than it would be to illustrate the picket fence in any complexity by hand. Ideas can be transferred into reality much more rapidly via digital technologies. However, does a construction worker really need a fully rendered side elevation of a picket fence to actually build one? How much complexity is really necessary in terms of ideas? How much reality needs to be poured on paper to create reality?

This line of thinking quickly escalates into cost, time and other issues more relevant to the worldly rather than the extra-worldly. There's also issues of access whether they be intellectual, monetary or physical. Does complexity and accuracy matter in the digital world if those ideas never get accurately represent by other computer-aided technology (6-axis routers, three-dimensional printers)? Is a program as simple and easy as SketchUp produce lines any less valid than programs with superior technical functions such as 3DS Max?

And lastly, do architects (and their kin) even have the personal time to share such ideas by creating them, testing them or modeling them to others in digital media through institutions of learning?

Thank you for reading. Where's my prize?