One really positive aspect that I can take from this is the genuine architectural dialogue developing across the internet – something I did not anticipate. I view all criticism, whether in support or against, as a positive influence – a way to move forward. In this spirit of architectural dialogue, I would like to repond to DT and to an extent Alejandro.

DT: whilst I may not have your knowlege of Latin American architecture, I find it intersting that many of your references (Corb,Khan, Barragan), although undoubeted masters, are backward looking.Don’t get me wrong, I am a huge admirer of Le Corbusier and Luis Barragan, but it strikes me that you miss a fundamental point about architecture – that it is progressive.
Your early postings about the living model in Valley of Cauca for me highlight this – they suggests that everything must conform to old rules, that because certain ways of living are established they must be correct. This argument suggests there is no room for the progressive or alternative.

I would like to table a thought – That contemporary is not scary.

I would like to table a second thought (perhaps controversially) – that aesthetics play a huge part in modern architecture – and this is not a bad thing.

Peter Cook, one of the modern progressive greats, often talks about ‘the eye’. By this he refers to things that look good, things that in DT’s opinion would be “contemporariness” in Cook’s world would be a joy. I would like to draw your attention to the texts of CJ Lim and Christine Hawley who also endorse ‘the eye’. For the record, I endorse ‘The Eye’ – it is nothing to be ashamed of, to create things that are aesthetically pleasing.

I admit, ‘Flex’ has many flaws, which project doesn’t? but it was never intended to be the perfect house (le Corbusier beat us all to it). The intention of ‘Flex’ was very much to design something progressive (that’s why the plan looks that way) and to design something for ‘the eye’ (that’s why the facade looks like that). It was also attempting to break barriers and stereotypes in Palmira – which I believe it may have started doing as some recent house developments are taking and borrowing from ‘Flex’. I don’t for a second suggest it is a masterpiece, but I do suggest it is different.

It would be a very boring world if we were only ever offered the same option over and over again. Especially if those options were always looking to the past, not to the posibilities of forward.

I am a huge believer in learning from masters – but the masters are masters for a reason – because they were progressive.

I guess if some artists are allowed to sell their own canned feces, any architect sell his own, behind a cute front wall. It’s all in the way you sell it to the public, isn’t it?

The plan shows a complete ignorance of local cultural patterns (have these guys ever heard about Mr. Alexander?). Open kitchens and sleeping rooms in every floor, even next to the kitchen, are clearly contrary to the residential habits of the Cauca Valley inhabitants, used to clear functional divisions between social, private and service areas in their houses; even when they’re poor.

Not to mention issues of climate and light, which are unsolved. Small inner – courts are useless in a tropical region where the median temperature is close to 100oF day and year long.

I wonder, finally, how the designers managed to build a new-three-story-single-family without any parking space. Local regulations are clear on this point; which allows me to believe this was built without legal permits.

Is everybody still thinking a “cool” facade immediately means global interest and internet relevance? As for me, I rather stick to the old stuff: wonderful plans, great spaces, fine details and an overall strong intellectual excercise, accounting for culture, climate, rules and regulations and the almost infinite number of things great architecture has always been known to solve – when it’s good architecture, that is… Something which this “flex” is definitely not!