As I may have already mentioned awhile back; I was somewhat surprised, maybe
disappointed, by Chris' (or anyone else's) response, and/or lack thereof,
with regard to follow-up, especially given that he appears to be a proponent
of choreography (with a background to match), of which, at least one would
think, follow-up would seem natural, to go hand-in-hand, in an
after-the-fact, or a
sort of way.
The sense I got is that the idea of one's own follow-up in the field came
out of left field.
Chris still hasn't followed up, incidentally, on what he said he would with
regard to my year-old post.
(Special mention goes to adaptive reuses and why they work or don't work.)
Perhaps the biggest test against which the success or failure of an
architectural work (or most anything else for that matter) is, simply, the
test of time.
Why do we study architecture in the first place? Study is follow-up.
If we take time out of our methodological equations with our own designs as
architects & designers, what else is there really?