Comment by contrarian1234

The interviewee sounds like a insufferable navel-gazing professor. A lot of platitudes and very evasive about anything concrete. (the interview section doesn't add anything new to the top intro/description)

"the agenda of rethinking the peripheries" - how can this not elicit an eye-roll..?

At least props to the interviewer for calling him out on "heroic architecture". A very "humanities" move, make up some bullshit term, don't explain it, make your interlocuter guess and feel like an idiot.

the TLDR of the main thesis is when you redesign a space, try to see if you can preserve the existing social structures and perceive how people interact with architecture before you roll in with the bulldozers. But it doesn't really present any concrete examples, so whatever..

It seems there are maybe kernels of some good ideas, but then everyone started to enjoy the smell of their own farts too much