Having established that: 1) The edifices and networks of the built environment are codifiers of complex input/ output relationships, 2) Such relationships exist far from equilibrium and require both catalyst and regulator to ensure predictable outcomes, and 3) The resultant of such relationships has a simultaneous impact on global and local anthropological well being, the role of the purveyor of the built environment and mediator of influence is revealed to be tremendously expansive. Our commission is clear: To act as a place specific ambassador of input/ output modalities.
One might assert that such a complex charge of the architect as a place specific ambassador of I/O modalities is superfluous, and that the architect should design, build, and review with only local- regional intentions while resisting globalizing influences in the built environment with the pragmatic assumption that some global influence will inevitably osmote into the design. The refute to this is the evidence suggesting that the cross- migration of culture is supported and accelerated by a collective will for interpersonal connectivity. Independent of its economic origins and functions, there is value in providing and embodying this venue encouraging a greater shared experience. Such qualities of globalizing forces not only result in the dismantling of informative barriers, but also contribute to worldwide safety and equality. While a wholly repellant disposition of globalization may curtail the trend towards homogeneity as mentioned above, it would truncate its potential benefits as well.
Nor is it sensible to take the position that architects need only to amalgamate the global/ local criterion, to topically blend the two together and present the admixture as a panacea for a whitewashed experience, as both biological and architectural arguments against this exist. A horse that is bread as a median of power and speed is both too week and too slow to perform either task its inputs were capable of- the result is a dilution of traits. Similarly, one must consider “Folly of the Mean”, where the built environment often responds diametrically to Aristotelian ethics: The mean of ‘rashness’ and ‘cowardice’ is not ‘courage’, but ‘rash cowardice’. In practice, the topical blending of regional tendencies with global preferences may not weaken excess or deficiency in favor of balance, but only support contradictory elements on the same plane.
Fortunately we need not refute or dilute globalizing forces to maintain variation in the built environment, but, as previously stated, only mediate the structure through with I/O tendencies inform each other. The inevitable borne must be the 200% city, although more nuanced and vital than Koolhaas stipulated. While this is ultimately an open- ended prescriptive solution, the most obvious and practical application of this postulate is to exploit products of ‘place’ and sell the resultant back into the network. This is predicated on the notion that any global force is entirely a product of (and can be altered by) its agent constituents. The issue with the current, improperly mediated condition is that a select few regional cultures contribute disproportionately to the global tendency, while a majority are forced to absorb or tolerate the resultant.
