Expectation vs. Reality

It’s easy to criticize Koolhaas and the “conversion” of natural places and ideas into artificial variations which seem to be universally regarded as subpar compared to the original. In a world that’s constantly changing and adapting to its circumstances with technology which is increasingly widening the gap between what was and what is, a desire for the untouched and simple continues to grow. While these ideals are still available (though at a decreasing rate) in many areas throughout the world, the Metropolis is not the place to find them. We are longing for an impossibility.

No method within the realm of architecture can revert our current state to one of less people or smaller cities. Whether we like it or not, we’re not living in the same world which provided empty beaches for horseback riding. Maybe instead of viewing technological advancements as a substitution or an artificial version of a previous, superior experience, we should regard them as a completely new idea which has been implemented specifically for a dense population. What we’re experiencing is not a "false" reality; it’s a new and different reality.

There is no compensation for nature. When we view new technologies as attempts to replicate or replace it, they're bound to fall short. Instead, they should be evaluated primarily in their current, urban context. While the means for addressing growth are indeed in need of exploration, improvement, and perhaps a push to embrace the fundamental aspects of an earlier condition that we're missing, as onlookers, consumers, and designers, our expectations should be adjusted and not based on circumstances which no longer exist.