- the premise

- architecture emerges from cultural movements, the sum of human activities

- historically, architecture comes last in a movement, but times have changed

- that architecture designed from the future rather than in synchrony with social movement is effective has not been proven

- for example, elsewhere they are known to be 20 years ahead of the present, but there has already been large scale failures: not feasible here

- even if we move away from designing architecture last, there should be synchrony between architecture and societal movements

- there is little credit and reference in architecture to trace back each instance of origin, and thus little lasting accountability

- to be able to track historical development is a capacity existing elsewhere, as in citation system of academic papers and semantic web

- seems to exist in architecture as well, through knowledge becoming in the community's consciousness

- to build infrastructure at scale it must be in a coordinated fashion

- masterplan lies in the aesthetics of function and beauty: the network

- first, (re)building core elements and relatedly secondary elements

- meta elements could be built before, simultaneously, or later

(-architecture has different functions)

 The upgrade perk: you pay the same amount of money, but you get something better.