<Cesar> If it is not through radical change how can architecture renew and open
itself? </Cesar>
<Usman>Tofori, historian and writer effectively says that within the architecture
system, because it is so wrapped up in the capitalist production is incapable of
critic itself. In other words it is not capable of revolution from within the activity.
So the question is, within this frame of view : ‘is the notion of open architecture
operating from within the system, or from outside the system?’.</Usman>
<Cesar>Or is open architecture containing the whole system?</Cesar>
<Usman> Yeah , exactly, so I’d like to think it is the ladder, because it has been
propelled in some sense by non-architects, and non architecturally cultural arte-
facts, hopefully it can transform the discipline.</Usman>
<Cesar> This is very interesting : the renewal of architecture may not come from
the specialists but “from outside”. This strongly links back to the idea that open
architecture is collaborative and not belonging to a class of people, producing a
class of buildings</Cesar>

<Maxime>I do always have this feeling : if you can say to your son : “See this
house? Papa did it”, or : “-Oh, you’re living here? -Yes I built it”, “- This fur-
niture? - Yes I made it”. There is an immense pleasure and satisfaction when
something is done and you took part of the action, not even as the architect, even
simply as resident. If you are urban, you live in the city you don’t have the trans-
mission of nature, you cant be the old Indian saying to his son “See this plant
son, it is medicine if you are injured”. When you are urban, concrete, asphalt...,
everything that is around you is your existence and your nature.</Maxime>
<Cesar>People don’t notice architecture when they live in it, they are a part of
it, the architecture is their nature. As soon as people start to distance themselves
from the place they live in, the architecture become this object, an inheritance.
Architecture shifts from the practical natural context to the fetish and valuable,
giving rise to the patrimony transmission and conservation gamble.
The generation that inherits an architecture (and one always inherits) can decide
to completely modify (Revolution) or adapt the existing architecture to suite her/
his needs. The Open Architecture is the one you can adapt, a non-sacred inherit-
ance you can appropriate and give to the next generation.
The validity of such an Open Architecture happens over time trial, and I would
say the more open, the smoother the transmission./Cesar>