The Finale. So that you may finally get some rest.
The purveyor of the built environment (the regional specific representative of input/ output structure) must be a champion of ‘place’ and a populist, taking, where applicable, solution cues to challenges from regional specific people and processes [input], and make public, through the channels emergent from globalization, to the network of purveyors [output]. In a parallel process, the architect can and will be influenced by congruent place specific developments [input] and integrate said into his or her own solutions, to be later exploited into the network [output]. In this sense, every developmental action is 100% local and 100% global, without topical blending or dilution, but only through self- regulated submission to the complex. The regional cultural entity, and thereby variation, is preserved not through a refute of globalization, but through a deepening of character of the globalized entity, which develops as a wholly emergent force qualified by each of its constituents.
The potential of this emergent, albeit regulated, complex adaptive system (CAS), is that it moves beyond stasis, and like any self corrective entity or process, it will systematically remove its own flaws and exacerbate its potentials. It is not simply a forum for preservation of anthropological vitality, but for increasingly intensified innovation and diversification. As architectural solutions are developed, appropriated, redeveloped, and re-appropriated (ad infinitum), the quality and quantity of items in the solution pool increases with both extremes and hybrids (and hybrids of these). As culture, innovation, and architecture become simultaneously compounded in complexity and emergently similar, the built environment will unite experience while maintaining energy in the gaps.
What is particularly promising and exhilarating about these conjectures is that the existing conditions of agents and systems not only allow for this part- to- whole relationship, but demand it. It is both the preferred state of biological systems and the ‘n-th’ degree result of theoretical laissez-faire capitalism, being one of the premier ideologies generating globalizing forces. Furthermore, by their very nature such systems tend to absorb seeming disparate professions and isolated systems, which results, in this discourse, in a wholly integrated and diverse architecture profession and built environment. The only factors currently wanting in the present state of this complex adaptive system is a catalyst and a regulator, both of which can and should be fulfilled by the architect in the role of ambassador of place specific I/O structures with the ultimate ambition of maintaining, then improving upon, global anthropological vitality.
