Alsop and Schwartz debate

[Trace One]

To continue with my explication,

I am more accurately likening my own perspective to that of intolerant jerks ..(there, how’s that)

It is jerks who vehemently insist that groups have single identities…(“All LA’s don’t know plants!)..This type of analysis leads to racism..and is actively and quite accurately discouraged in our society..

I saw Melanie at introducing that tolerant and more accurate attitude that group analysis has problelms..(The opposite of the jerks I have defined above..)
However, I still feel there is something to be gained from generalizing about group behavior..( I am arguing FOR jerk-dom, for the Alsops..)

How’s that for sticking my neck out..individually, of course..

🙂

[Melanie Reber, RLA]

Hahaha!

Alright… NOW I think we are on the same page again. 🙂 (also too funny, Trace)

Thanks for your input Andrew, I was beginning to think it was only me… 🙂

Yes, of course we can speak in general terms… and we should when appropriate. I just get lost when those pesky qualifiers are used w/out clarifying intent. This is precisely why I usually ask if I am understanding the meaning behind the words so as NOT to take offense when none was intended. (and even if it was… I prefer to understand why rather than walk away)

Now that I have delved into Alsop’s career a bit more, I am becoming increasing curious as to what may have been some additional underlying triggers of this public spar. The unspoken, yet obvious conflicts of interest. Or perhaps they were addressed in the ‘debate’ but not shown in the video clip?

[Trace One]

Yeah, I agree with that, Melanie – Alsop turns out to be very odd!
See you in the next chat..!
🙂

[nca]

nope, they/we didn’t. pretty complementary besides persistently referring to us as ‘landscapers,’ and the like…though the title may be fitting.

[Melanie Reber, RLA]

Your point is well taken. Architects in general, once the basics of site analysis and programming are worked though, do have less ‘evolving parameters’ to work with… in general. Buildings are meant to withstand all types of weather, whereas LArchitects, are also dealing with plant materials and other ameliorating factors that tend to transform and erode throughout the seasons… in general. 🙂

Of course, Archs deal with these factors inside the buildings themselves, with the building materials and hopefully with the way the building plays to site specific opportunities and constraints. So, one could say that both Archs and LArchs do have to consider the same principles, but in an obviously more specific manner.

I had the pleasure of spending some time in the new SF Academy of Sciences Museum the other night. Now there is an amazing example of cohesive planning and execution that incorporates all of the above conditions. The barriers of inside/ outside are purposfully blurred and one could not readily point to where the Arch left off and the LArch began.

http://www.calacademy.org/academy/building/

[Author]

Posts