<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Fitness is about symmetry</title>
	<atom:link href="http://emergenturbanism.com/2008/05/02/fitness-is-about-symmetry/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://emergenturbanism.com/2008/05/02/fitness-is-about-symmetry/</link>
	<description>Building the new science of urbanism</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 16 Feb 2010 17:27:30 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Mathieu Helie</title>
		<link>http://emergenturbanism.com/2008/05/02/fitness-is-about-symmetry/#comment-37</link>
		<dc:creator>Mathieu Helie</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 03 May 2008 18:53:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mathieuhelie.wordpress.com/?p=48#comment-37</guid>
		<description>If you were to do that, you would then have two symmetrical buildings that clash with the greater context, instead of only one. You would also have to remove part of the context for that additional building. Eventually you would have to remove the whole neighborhood to match the Libeskind extension. How does that make sense?

That would be a good idea if one was building a new city from nothing, or building in a city with a lot of holes, let&#039;s say Houston. You could tell Gehry and Libeskind to go wild, and the result would be a highly symmetrical environment that would happen to be the grooviest place ever built. Twenty years later it would probably be a UNESCO heritage site. And what if someone wanted to build an exact replica of the Victoria and Albert museum in that city? That would break the symmetry and crash the street line.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If you were to do that, you would then have two symmetrical buildings that clash with the greater context, instead of only one. You would also have to remove part of the context for that additional building. Eventually you would have to remove the whole neighborhood to match the Libeskind extension. How does that make sense?</p>
<p>That would be a good idea if one was building a new city from nothing, or building in a city with a lot of holes, let&#8217;s say Houston. You could tell Gehry and Libeskind to go wild, and the result would be a highly symmetrical environment that would happen to be the grooviest place ever built. Twenty years later it would probably be a UNESCO heritage site. And what if someone wanted to build an exact replica of the Victoria and Albert museum in that city? That would break the symmetry and crash the street line.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: David Sucher</title>
		<link>http://emergenturbanism.com/2008/05/02/fitness-is-about-symmetry/#comment-36</link>
		<dc:creator>David Sucher</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 03 May 2008 01:26:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mathieuhelie.wordpress.com/?p=48#comment-36</guid>
		<description>If one is concerned about symmetry then maybe the solution would be to hire Gehry to do a building on the other side of the street. No?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If one is concerned about symmetry then maybe the solution would be to hire Gehry to do a building on the other side of the street. No?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
