<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" 
  xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
  xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
  xmlns:admin="http://webns.net/mvcb/"
  xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#">

<channel>
<title>Spatial Intelligence: New Futures for Architecture : Responses</title>
<description>Design Observer ::Â Join the Discussion</description>
<link>http://places.designobserver.com/feature/spatial-intelligence-new-futures-for-architecture/13988/</link>
<dc:language>en-us</dc:language>
<dc:creator>Design Observer Group</dc:creator>
<dc:date>2011-04-07T20:45:53-05:00</dc:date>
<copyright>http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/1.0</copyright>




<item>
	<title><![CDATA[Responding to "Spatial Intelligence: New Futures for Architecture"]]></title>
	<description><![CDATA[Doug, fundamentally and after all, it's not about the 'visual literacy' of the consumer'; it's about making buildings that enhance or make possible her/his well-being.  Once inhabiting spaces, people are well able to recognise when these spaces are beautiful and conducive to happiness. Perhaps the design/building industry needs to take responsibility for marketing buildings in a way that will educate consumers, making them able to select for spatial health. But it's well known that consumer informedness is anathema to marketers. THAT'S the barrier that needs to be overcome; the mechanism that works against integration of mental space and physical, individual and community, producer/marketer from consumer. Without advocating an end of capitalism and buyer power/'buyer beware', responsibility for innovation shouldn't be placed on the consumer first.]]></description>
	<author>B Dov</author>
	<link>http://places.designobserver.com/feature/spatial-intelligence-new-futures-for-architecture/13988/#comments</link>
	<dc:date>2011-04-07T20:45:53-05:00</dc:date>
</item>
<item>
	<title><![CDATA[Responding to "Spatial Intelligence: New Futures for Architecture"]]></title>
	<description><![CDATA[Illuminating and invigorating!<br />
When we stop continually looking in our rear view mirrors perhaps we can forge a new dynamic in Architecture.]]></description>
	<author>E. "Manny" Abraben AIA RIBA Architect</author>
	<link>http://places.designobserver.com/feature/spatial-intelligence-new-futures-for-architecture/13988/#comments</link>
	<dc:date>2010-08-05T16:36:55-05:00</dc:date>
</item>
<item>
	<title><![CDATA[Responding to "Spatial Intelligence: New Futures for Architecture"]]></title>
	<description><![CDATA[Zumthor's buildings are indeed remarkable but seem the antithesis of the method he describes in Khutsong Township "tailored to the mental space of the family" that designed it.  <br />
Instead, his structures seem dictatorially derived from his desires, not his clients. This is  not the sort of touchy-feely  "let everyone have their input" method that drives modern development and results in so much mediocrity.<br />
Like abysmal modern car design architecture may just have to wait for that brief intersection of consumer desire and creative impulses.  Consumers seem so visually illiterate that it seems unlikely that they will sensitize to the more subtle spatial literacy any time soon.]]></description>
	<author>Doug C.</author>
	<link>http://places.designobserver.com/feature/spatial-intelligence-new-futures-for-architecture/13988/#comments</link>
	<dc:date>2010-08-01T11:30:26-05:00</dc:date>
</item>
<item>
	<title><![CDATA[Responding to "Spatial Intelligence: New Futures for Architecture"]]></title>
	<description><![CDATA[all this damn talking amounting to nothing.  just go visit a zumthor building- you don't need words.  ]]></description>
	<author>Mattie</author>
	<link>http://places.designobserver.com/feature/spatial-intelligence-new-futures-for-architecture/13988/#comments</link>
	<dc:date>2010-07-29T10:40:33-05:00</dc:date>
</item>
<item>
	<title><![CDATA[Responding to "Spatial Intelligence: New Futures for Architecture"]]></title>
	<description><![CDATA[There is a wonderful convergence starting, between art and design on one hand, and the fields of neuroscience and psychology on the other. My area of psychology is visual cognition, which is the study of perceiving and understanding through vision, including the appreciation of space, the interaction of perception and memory, and the possibilities of mental maps and navigation. Thanks to Schaik for making the mind-architecture connection, and to Fox for making this great work visible. <br />
<br />
We all agree that there is something to well-designed spaces. The fields of health are discovering that natural spaces can be literally good for humans (e.g., work on nature parks and immune function*), and we know well the inspiration of a good public designed space (watch the kids run in delight!). In psychology we can now measure many of these phenomena -- things such as delight, and effects of surroundings on creativity. This type of work is needed now, because the forces that have driven so much of our built environment (summarized as greed?) have not served humanity well. What can serve humanity well is understanding humans and using the human response as a gauge for what is right.<br />
<br />
Tom Sanocki<br />
(Professor of Psychology and Visual Cognition,<br />
http://shell.cas.usf.edu/~sanocki/home.htm)<br />
<br />
*see, e.g., http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/06/health/06real.html]]></description>
	<author>Tom Sanocki</author>
	<link>http://places.designobserver.com/feature/spatial-intelligence-new-futures-for-architecture/13988/#comments</link>
	<dc:date>2010-07-29T09:57:41-05:00</dc:date>
</item>



</channel>
</rss>

	


