Alex Wall is right when describing the changing urban landscape as a network of transportation and infrastructure. He prefers this observation to the conventional perception of towns, as existing urban areas with distant, rural areas and suburbs. Architects should perceive architecture in the modern urban landscape in a different way from an entire form that is static.
Andrea Kahn explains that [not] urban founds a straight relationship between urban sites and traditional ideas as separated entities. The author further explains that these establishments are limitless circumstances described by movement patterns in time or space but not through a record of objects. In order to achieve these perceptions, an architect should observe context and its relationship to urban.
Stan Allen describes the landscape architecture as 2D instead of the common perception of a flat plane that is without life. To further emphasize on Allen’s work, one can say that the 2D aspect of architectural landscape occurs due to the soil’s permeability and plants the height. These characteristics give a surface processes and flows that characterize it.
In addressing Sherman’s work, Somol commends him on his perception on the development of a city’s shape and the growth of a city’s smallest common increment. These take place due to property stakeholders’ negotiations as opposed to planning and history which are more acceptable. Truly, game theory best describes the interests of the public and private intersections. Through this, architects find an alternate sense of architectural composition.
As James Corner puts it, mapping unveils and establishes hidden potential. This is because it is capable of remaking territories as repeatedly as possible. However, architects should comprehend the difference between making a tracing and making a map. This is because mapping allows architects to reformulate that which is already in existence. Through the interactions and interrelationships, mapping encourages future revealing.