<?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>New Aging : Responses</title>
<description>Design Observer ::Â Join the Discussion</description>
<link>http://places.designobserver.com/feature/new-aging/14078/</link>
<dc:language>en-us</dc:language>
<dc:creator>Design Observer Group</dc:creator>
<dc:date>2010-06-27T20:57:29-05:00</dc:date>
<copyright>http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/1.0</copyright>




<item>
	<title><![CDATA[Responding to "New Aging"]]></title>
	<description><![CDATA[The portfolio includes two projects that would likely induce terror in any non-comatose senior community: isolated towers that take the worst aspects of federal slum-clearance projects and hypertrophize their corbu piloti so that they are literally as isolated from the world as possible, a nightmare riff on the cloud city; or the floating, despondent wasteland of unmoored "cabins" drifting in a fetid lake, cast off from shore and again removed from human contact to maximal degree. <br />
<br />
It may stimulate thought-provoking architectural speak among the conference attendees and well-to-do, but these projects suggest a hostility to the aged and aging that does not bode well - and is not unlike other, prior efforts to institutionalize classes of people in architectural wonders that, in the end, only the architects could love. <br />
<br />
]]></description>
	<author>Soilent Green</author>
	<link>http://places.designobserver.com/feature/new-aging/14078/#comments</link>
	<dc:date>2010-06-27T20:57:29-05:00</dc:date>
</item>



</channel>
</rss>

	


