Response

The readings have opened up my eyes towards a new way of understanding architecture which lies in the details.  It shows how much its important to analyze the site in a different way then others do.  The details that we usually ignore like the ways leading to the site and the connection to the city,not only by physical connection but the psychological connection which makes total sense now.  Like the marina in Beirut would not be as important to us, if Zaitouna bay did not exists and times square would be another joint in the urban design of new york if it was not constructed as the huge time square it is today.  Second, i have always thought that landscape and architecture are two separate programs that can be easily differentiated although most architects decide to collaborate both together, but now i know that designing architecture has a great deal of landscape starting with the existing site and moving towards what the site can not be seen without.  Therefore the site should be treated as a sculpture that takes no form of landscape nor architecture and enable the change in a way that changes the existing into arts.  Finally, it is a great architect that predicts the
future of his design, since the world is changing on a high pace and many architects have failed to do so like Frank Lloyd Wright and Le Corbusier who failed to predict the leakage of water and the humidity of there master pieces.  I can finally conclude that architecture is a vast subject that has around a million things that diverge from it; a designer can choose what to focus on or ignore but he can never get to look at all and master all parts of architecture.