Agility, Adaptability + Appropriateness: Conceiving, Crafting & Constructing an Architecture of the 21st Century
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Architectural design in our current times has tended to generate buildings which, despite their aesthetic qualities, frequently prove static, rigid and intractable. The intense and significant production of architecture around the planet has created a situation whereby modification of the existing building stock is costly, difficult and at times implausible. Beginning in the mid-twentieth century architects began to more seriously question narrow design approaches and in response explored more open, mutable and responsive ways of building. Architects such as Kisho Kurokawa and Cedric Price, in an effort to envision more resilient & robust solutions, explored methods of design and construction which afforded greater user control, modification and customization of environments. As opposed to buildings in which users needed to adapt to environmental constraints, these progressive designers imagined spaces that adjusted to user needs. A significant challenge to these visionaries was a lag between thinking and technology – quite simply construction proved unable to fully address concept. Today the world has changed in dramatic ways, with advancements in technology, expectations of society, and a quest for greater sustainability all driving a push for more agile, adaptable and appropriate Architecture. The present paper critically contemplates the condition of contemporary building design, examines emerging trends, and postulates an innovative model & philosophy for realizing a more responsive, responsible and fitting Architecture for the 21st Century. While considering historical initiatives, theories and practices, the paper also examines contemporary applications and future possibilities, arguing that many forces hold promise to align in ways before unimaginable. Advancing from the established foundation of Open Building (OB) research and practice, and building upon a holistic and inter-connected strategy (Sinclair 2009) for environmental design, the new model places emphasis and effort on heightened agility, adaptability and appropriateness – all urgently needed in our current, uncertain and tumultuous times.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".