Infrastructural Urbanism
Stephan Knipschild
In this critique, Allen begins by dissecting Architecture's recent past. His views on Post Modernism depict it for the weakening agent on architecture that it really is, how it calls on for meaning and a return to an almost symbolic approach. All this, of course, at pragmatics and adaptability's price. His arguments place this shift towards a lackluster design in areas ranging from government to historians.
The stronger point of this discourse is found in when, due to this return to symbology in design, he proposes the dropping of an intelligent, pre-fathomed, and predictive design, and calls for its return, above all, for the return of an infrastructural-oriented design, which is lacking in the modern world.
He then continues to evaluate and define this urbanistacally oriented architecture as a material practice, which engages its surroundings, both immediate and implied, and isn't based entirely on meaning and spirit, as was in Post Modernism. Its with this concept in mind that we can achieve an intelligent design in the urban context which accepts the present but acknowledges the future and the changes that come with it.
He closes his opinions with seven propositions for this new approach:
That infrastructure should work to construct the site itself as well
That they should be flexible and anticipatory, being able to adapt to changes that may come
That it should be open to improvisation from multiple sources
Its template for design should be pragmatic, foregoing the fanciful
It should not limit itself to being the problem its addressing, but rather maintain its own distinctions
It should be able to change as its surroundings change, but not for reasons of adaptability, but for the well being of its lesser components
Its aim must be in synchronization with its output (function-wise) rather than any other reason.