Asbestos and Lead Abatement

     Lady Fairfax, I laughed and almost had a heart attack, thank you.

     All e-re:  i am listening.

     One e-letter re: A/E and A/UN was from a professor on design-l who
     previously responded to the subject months ago.

     This letter is a semblance of the message, and maybe, under guise of
     preachy self-promotion, will better clarify the context of the thing.


   Professor,

   I am grateful for your previous ideas on A/E.  I am still working on
   the outside of that investigation, on the major framework of connections
   which I see defining A/E and A/UN.  This definition would include those
   buildings and modern processes unaccounted for in architectural history.
   (communication/transportation/energy networks, infrastructure).

>Architecture and Electricity does seem to be a real issue that can be
>effectively explored as an academic exercise.  However, I might not have a
>clear understanding of the nature of this connection that you feel should
>be explored, and perhaps this is the basis for the reactions that you seem
>to be getting at your own institution.

   The word "nature" has been altered by modern science.  The harnessing
   of this "nature" has created an "artificial" or "human-made" landscape
   which architecture as an idea has yet to rationalize.  (such as radio
   telescope, oil rig, radio relay towers, cellular towers, substations).

   Yet, even inside the building of architecture, these objects of science
   go unnoticed.  Most specifically electrical objects, such as the phone.
   With the wooden pole and metal towers, these objects find a subjective
   quality, in that the poles and towers begin to rationalize that "space"
   of talking.  The same infrastructure rationalizes the television and
   radio, and even computer-space or "cyberspace" exists in this "place."

   Now this place I would define as the Architecture of Electricity would
   attempt to take notice of these irrational elements and put them in a
   workable en-framing.  So that one building will never be seen as an
   independent object, but rather an active piece in the construction.

   An example of computer networks and smart homes today would be a
   building is designed and constructed, and the network and smart wiring
   are dealt with by "experts" or engineers.

   If an architect were to understand the basics of networking or smart
   wiring, then these "spaces" could be utilized along with the "program"
   rather than having competing systems.  My thinking on this at present
   is defined by a company which is streamlined and productive, with
   unique requirements for their new building spaces, and then the architct
   builds the building, and later the network system is set-up, and the
   computer software is "Microsoft Office" or something.  They can make it
   work, but just as the buildings program can be designed for their
   unique and specific needs, so to can the software be of the same program.

   This is to say that an architect, with general knowledge, could plan
   to utilize computer networks instead of letting an engineer who really
   has no training in how people work, interact, communicate.  And to this,
   Architects could personalize the networks with their symbols of the
   buildings program; on the computer screen with icons.

   If an architect can understand the order of Infrastructure, they can
   most certainly understand the computer network, because one evolved from
   the other, and most are of electrical origin.  So A/E goes in and outside
   of the wooden poles and metal towers, the cables and wires and radio
   waves.  These are that non-subject natural element of science, artificial
   in the sense that these are viewed from 18th century notions of nature,
   and not from the real world of science and the year 2000.

   So if I approach HVAC with poetic thinking, and my teacher asks for less,
   and when I give more I am ridiculed, or even more, I am assumed wrong
   by an irrational and dogmatic system of logic, I find the tension exists
   at the major assumptions of questions such as "what is nature," and
   "what is sound"  what is "light" "architecture."  All these things have
   fundamentally changed since the 18th century, but the schools have not
   an ounce of intellectual investigation into this change.

   This relationship of architecture and science is primary to the logic.
   A more realizable realitionship is subprimary, and that is technology.
   Technology and Architecture, as Mies van der Rohe stated, will some day
   become one, and then we will have an architecture worthy of its time.
   I wholly believe this is A/E.  Infrastructure exploded globally only in
   the last 30 years, so this 100 year old system is relatively new to the
   world itself, and it has elemental value in system, order, and control.

   And in this way, to see the wooden pole and metal tower, the radio,
   television, power station, they take on international significance of
   the system/order/control that exist within this technological society.
   The A/UN defines this relationship, and why once again Science is of
   major influence in the today world of humanity.  This A/UN is capable
   of local context through the same building types and poles/towers.

   This A/UN, with A/E as a foundation, would allow architects the ability
   to think of forms of "electronic communitys" and democracys in physical
   forms, organizations, and relationships with computer networks, etc.

>
>What do you what to explore and how do you intend to do this.  What is the
>outcome.  Perhaps if you could be clearer on this, you might find that you
>could get the support that you need.
>

    I am not free to explore in the sense of playing with these ideas.
    Rather, I feel the need to define.  Find proof, evidence, fossils
    that add up to the realization of truth.  The outcome of the truth
    so far hasn't had much impact on peoples thinking.  This may be the
    space-time of tv/radio/energy being non-subject space-time, and with-
    out subjective rational explanation as to how it relates to anyones
    sense of space/place/time.  Thus, "oh" or "so what" or "i think
    you've had enough of that power-stuff" are my academic inputs.

    Is architecture a "closed system" where new ideas can only be
    developed in the way empirical scientific research is conducted?
    And if this is true, if "architecture" has no way to rationalize
    science and technology as they relate to architecture, will this
    mean that this "space and time" and objective "truth" will never
    be realized as having subjective qualities in the construction?
    Will one building continue to be the hallmark of truth for
    architectural knowledge, or will it be that landscape of irrational
    objects that are defining the parameters of experience?

    The outcome of investigating science and architecture, technology and
    architecture, infrastructure and architecture, and the iconographic
    A/E and A/UN would result in some diagram of the irrational non-subject
    in the comprehensive frame of architecture.  That en-framing may allow
    others to continue the rationalization of objects and relationships
    into a workable, and even expressible whole.  Then, in the end, the
    landscape and nature would be better realized for what they exist as
    at this time.  There is something to that landscape painting I have
    yet to find at the flea-market which has the Poles and/or Towers in it.
    I do hate to write it, but the outcome would be an electriclightenment.

    Thus, the leap of fathoms and the mutating of mentalities must first
    occur, unless, of course, the person is a scientist.  The architectural
    obstacle being that there is no precedent beyond the undiscussed.
    The second being the teacher student relationship in a corporate model.

    Currently I am defining the parameters via Venn diagrams of my
    assumptions.  For architectural theory this seems the most appropriate
    first step is science, then technology, then a/e, then a/UN.

    The independent learning would probably be easier if I could be an
    expert, but I would have to focus on one thing, architecture (building).
    Maybe I will e-petition them; internet-wide, hmmm, sciences included.
bc