I have to emphasize again that I love examples! Theories and abstract conceptions make me dizzy. This article examines architecture not only from an artistic, literal or historical perspective, like what we used to do, but also the angles from social science, economics and politics.
After knowing about several architects’ stories, I understand that the structure of a city we see today results from negotiation among many factors, more than people’s welfare and design arts. I used to consider buildings as what entirely originated from the architects’ drafts, and it is only about picking out a most outstanding design or idea. But whether the provision of an architect can be put into practice sometimes depends on the architect’s networking, politician’s concerns, or the balance between downtown and suburbs.
Now architecture seems more interesting and appealing to me. Knowing about the history behind it is to know people and society.
Wang Huiquan, 3035637515
Glad that the text provides you with a fresh understanding and new perspective on urban projects such as skywalks. I would invite you to share your previous thoughts on how architecture is “made” and compare it to your newfound understanding. What are the aspects that are not immediately visible but you think is most important? As a city is a complex system, how would you imagine this complexity takes part in decision making in architecture and urban projects compared to the aesthetic aspect of the built form?