Critics' Notes

Wes Jones + Gary Paige were the 2 official critics at the review. The following are the main critiques:

--> How do we test the efficiency of the success of your suggested approach?

--> How will you evaluate the success of the approach - "success of scenarios'?

--> Are you designing a building? (my defense: I am designing an enclave, possibly a series of buildings)

--> Your critique of the utopias is valid

--> We have to wait and see your results

--> Instinct and romance of this automated (aka. author-less) design approach is something not comfortable and convincing. (my defense: I am NOT kicking out the architect; on the contrary, I want the architect's voice to be heard even more)

--> Suggestion of having a gathering of necessary experts for the suggested design approach. (my defense: Precisely, that's my goal. To make aware the value of views of others in other disciplines. In the thesis, the attempt is to make sense of these views and the sensibility of the architect to manifest them into architecture. Think of this in contrast to singular architecture where the architect's ego and economy are the dictating factors.)

--> When you quantify factors of design process, you will be trapped into the 60's 'formula of truth'.

--> The 'game' table that is devised is debatable.

--> The problem of Corbusier's plans for his utopias, is not the author, but that of a naive author.

--> Can Corbusier's plans be analyzed with this computational theory and approach to understand what went wrong?

--> Design something. Then tell us how it should be.

--> Start with the scenarios to know where it is going.