afterword
In an attempt to draw out this participatory opportunity for an enduring architectural practice from within the current infrastructural frenzy, the tone of the 96
conference dialog was one of introspection and reflection; a critical rehearsal of the past as it relates to our current role within the design disciplines; and a weighing of infrastructure as it holds value for innovation in our rapidly urbanizing built environment. There is agreement that research, process and outcome must be synthetic rather than disconnected or at odds, must be connected to the new modes of using and shaping our urban spaces. This reflective set of conversations projects forward a decidedly non-aesthetic and strategic future. Formal metaphor is eschewed within the panels as an operation that fails to synthesize form and performance, space and the human use of that space. The reality is that our new generation of architects will continue to leverage disciplinary interest in new communications and modeling technologies such as parametrics for formal purposes, but also toward efficient construction techniques, environmental responsiveness, and highly attuned typological manipulation, ultimately striving for both social relevance and new cultural horizons. Given this expectation and the great effort of the conference participants and others within the discipline and public practice, there is reason to hope that productive formal architectural agendas will grow from the increasing unification of research, process, and outcome; from the strategic overlap of leisure and efficiency; and from focused attention to the civic realm where inhabitable space both generates and rises from the locally-specific meeting up of landscape and infrastructure. By attending to the middle scale within our expanding urban networks and actively engaging infrastructure on the local and regional levels, the role of the architect in the future of infrastructural development remains as cultural interlocutor.