<AkoZ> That's why it may be named openED architecture.</AkoZ>

Interactive architecture

<Cesar Harada>We have seen that en empty space just does not allow play, there is nothing to play
with, therefore the architecture itself is open, but not it’s usage.
In other words, what I consider an open architecture is a space that has structure
and contains objects I can modify and play with.</Cesar Harada>  ... <AkoZ>direct ways to Societal Architecture</AkoZ>

Open Source architecture

<Usman Haque> If one wants to apply open source to any kind of hardware, wether if
it is architecture or elsewhere, the question is what is open? Is it the plans and dia-
grams for the built thing or is it the actual bricks and mortar of the building itself,
is it the building itself or just the design that is open? That’s where the distinction
is come, because a lot of people say “architecture can’t be open source”, because
open source has a set of rules and regulations almost which don’t translate very
easily. But the way we describe it the distinction in this publication “the Urban
Versioning System” there is a kind of genome and phenome way of using open
source, and our particular interest is in the idea of building itself being open, so
this is what can be re-arranged. We actually moved away from using the word
open source architecture just because it is a little bit problematic.</Usman Haque>
<Cesar> What seems problematic to me is the word “source”, since the design
can be considered the ‘source’ of the actual building, it creates a conflict.</Cesar>

Basic open architecture

<Cesar Harada> A simple version of open architecture is giving system permission to both the
design (the plan, 3D files) and the already existing building (mortar, brick). </Cesar Harada>

Open architecture advanced

<Cesar Harada> A more advanced open architecture has each of its process step open, before the
architecture is tangible to the after, when the architecture has been transformed
into something else, possibly recycled.
The open architecture advanced, is the subject of this dissertation, a mid-term
objective. I want to focus on this generation of evolution of architecture because I
have the hope to achieve it in my lifetime while having in mind the next steps and
preparing them. </Cesar Harada>

Primitive bioarchitecture

<Cesar Harada>What I call a primitive  bioarchitecture is an architecture that has been assembled
by humans, the first generation. I used the open architecture advanced structure
to simplify understanding, just changing vocabulary to explain the transition from
a man-made building realm to a more organic one.
Autonomous bioarchitecture<Cesar Harada> <AkoZ> namely called vernacular architecture </AkoZ><Cesar Harada>

The autonomous bioarchitecture is the second generation of “fertile” archi-
tecture, that can produce a third generation without human assistance. This is
designing design systems.
Autonomous bioarchitecture is submitted to natural selection. The idea of
‘source’ comes back very relevantly here : in the reproduction process (sex), the
characteristics (a sort of DNA) of the parent/s can be given to the child by any
type of sexual or asexual reproduction to mutate every generation. </Cesar Harada>

Autopoietic architecture

<Cesar Harada>An autopoietic creature is self-created (coined c. 1972 by Francisco Varela).
It is the idea that a life form comes to existence just from a self-organisation of
what constitute the context.</Cesar Harada> <AkoZ> ref to "emergence" concept too </AkoZ>

<Cesar Harada> Roughly it is the study of how parts we consider inert behave collectively.
At the moment we consider the parts inanimate, and at the
nano scale the force that seems to bring inanimate parts together is Brownian mo-
tion and "random" movement.
From the plan libre to the autopoietic architecture, we observe the evolution of an
empty sterile space into a fertile complex system.
I personally think the desire for an open architecture could be made relevant by
such a perspective only.</Cesar Harada>