The Conditions of Listening

A few months ago I heard an interview with Stephen Diehl, a leading critic of crypto . I then read the Letter in Support of Responsible Fintech Policy from June 2022. Here are five takeaways that have stuck with me, and which I believe apply greatly to architecture and the future of constructing the built world. An informed society can make better decisions around the safety and practicality of emerging technology development. How safe does a technology need to be in order to call it safe enough? And safe enough for what purpose? Too often a new technology is a solution in search of a problem. Governance of emerging technologies is murky; it’s not clear who is in control of development, making regulation an afterthought. Innovation must be democratized. I am a skeptic of the techno-solutionist dogma that innovative technology is unreservedly good. I am advocate for "an approach that protects the public interest and ensures technology is deployed in genuine service to the needs of

Typically I'm turned away by the bombastic, self-referential discourse of highbrow architecture circles (see what I did there?). Name-dropping vainglory and wordsmithery is tiring, but runs rampant. I have only found small cracks in the armor, which I'm posting excerpts of here. First, from Christine Williamson's about me section on her Building Science Fight Club website. This was so refreshing to read the first time I read it (just a couple of months ago, even though I have been following her for a few years, and I've heard her say similar things before): ...[A]rchitects are supposed to be tastemakers; they’re supposed to be effortlessly cool, with clean, white desks, and MacBooks, and cashmere turtlenecks, and pocket sketchbooks filled with hand-drawn renderings of all the beautiful old buildings they saw on their last trip to Paris. Our profession cultivates an air of mystery and exclusivity. And that’s probably pretty good for business. But it’s terrible for learn