the waning of materialism was predicted I’m pretty sure in one way or another when people deemed this the “Information Age”, this isn’t a suprise to anyone who grew up trying to invent websites that could make you millions, long before facebook. now it’s not about websites but rather social apps (another way of saying computer programs that enhance social connections). and being part of the Napster generation, all information should be free. in short the – materials are information now, and it should be free, and can be made free easily.

I read somewhere in a NY Times like article that Urban Planning has become the world of Landscapers and not architects for many reasons.

With regard to the information age and what I interpret from Mayne’s conversation, he may be trying to take Urban Planning back and his approach is less traditional architecturally – departing from Parc de La Villette (Tschumi) – slightly agreeing with LeFevres point that architects language isn’t read by the inhabitors – sounds like he is creating systems that create systems based on human behavior in a free society (not a socialist, a free society, one that organically evolves – like american capitalism did). architecture as a social network app.

(Mayne in appearance always reminds me of Steve Jobs)

now, beyond that minor [maybe not so minor?] point, i think the most fascinating topic was that people are afraid of and avoid discussing how we deal with the real problems. this is fascinating because of mr mayne’s seemingly contradictory attitude towards architecture and politics. at first he mentions that architecture is capable of solving these problems, but then later gives the example of Doha, where his *discussion of the real problems* completely changed his submission for the competition. so perhaps the question is not to discuss or not to discuss but to realize when we are actually discussing the real issues and when we are fighting straw men. for the most part, mr mayne does attempt a discussion of real issues but for some reason doesn’t want to admit it. why is that?

is it a dance around the real issues because we can see the specter of the early failed moderns leering at us from behind our adversaries? or is it that we are actually discussing the issues in ways that are much more robust than the early moderns; we fear shaming the names of our forebears? perhaps we’re only able to gain this clear perspective because we’re operating in a late waning of american capitalism?

Mr. Mayne says that issues of social justice can’t be answered by Architecture. You then suggest that his desire is to push it further in to the realm of an urbanism that would involve many; a contradiction, I think.

The control required to realize the coherent urban manifestations posited by Mr. Mayne would rule out the participation of the many. Quite frankly, that authority exists, in China especially, now. And conversely I don’t think he has made the argument that there is a means in his approach by which the “Many” would participate.

The process; the “strategy” of Urban Planning will either be a result of or an imposition upon a system of social justice. You cannot decouple the two.