- 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)