I saw a picture, the other day, of OMA’s proposal for Park de la Villette. It was in some fancypants hundred-dollar book at spoonbill, of course. and I must say that that shit is completely incoherent. Say what you want about Mr. Tschumi and his wacky deconstruction games… his approach made some sort of semiotic and graphical sense. which is what that shit should be all about, rite? rite. I go for a walk in the park, I am not particularly thinking about the meaning of my context and whatnot. I want pretty flowers, and if they come in the form of a deconstructed cube folly red thing, then hey.

As far as I am concerned these days: architecture is fashion, and urbanism is typography. It kind of kills me that the only work I have come across that highlights anything resembling the latter analogy is that “alphabetical city” pamphlet by Mr. Holl. But it also kills me that you almost can’t get a fucking architect to even say the word “typography”, much less practice it or get the significance. I mean, it is practically a crime that the word, or any of its related conjugants, does not appear on page 216 of “atlas of novel tectonics”. WTFFFFFFF??!?

But yeah anyway. That aside, I like the book, despite the fact that I have heard whispers in the subways that he (Reiser) is a dildo. I have not seen any prima facie evidence of dildoism in the book or on the internet, typographic ignorance notwithstanding, so if you have any such knowlegde please pass it along. Innocent until proven guilty, that’s how it is, yes.

Ok. Yeah. This shit, too, has become incoherent. Time for dinner. Yeah.

-fish