<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Money Changes Everything</title>
	<atom:link href="http://lookingaround.blogs.time.com/2008/07/23/a_few_random_architecture_worl/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://lookingaround.blogs.time.com/2008/07/23/a_few_random_architecture_worl/</link>
	<description>Reflections on art and architecture by TIME critic Richard Lacayo.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 08 Dec 2009 15:49:09 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Tan Boon Tee</title>
		<link>http://lookingaround.blogs.time.com/2008/07/23/a_few_random_architecture_worl/comment-page-1/#comment-294</link>
		<dc:creator>Tan Boon Tee</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 26 Jul 2008 05:26:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lookingaround.blogs.time.com/2008/07/23/a_few_random_architecture_worl/#comment-294</guid>
		<description>
Most people are driven to the impression that good architecture means big construction and hence big money. When there is a shortage of cash, the expensive curvaceous lines or massive structure would naturally have to be curtailed or minimized, and the huge space compromised.

It is high time architecture should get itself out of such stereotyped thinking by the general public. Architects can still design functional as well as captivating building with less space and money, especially in places of negative or weak economic growth.

If the hyper wealthy nations (particularly near the Gulf) with extraordinary rich resources and empty spaces want to have gigantic and lavish construction, then let it be -- there should be no qualm.

Small and simple can still be very beautiful. Does it not all depend on the eyes of the beholders? Money alone could not change everything. (Tan Boon Tee)

</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Most people are driven to the impression that good architecture means big construction and hence big money. When there is a shortage of cash, the expensive curvaceous lines or massive structure would naturally have to be curtailed or minimized, and the huge space compromised.</p>
<p>It is high time architecture should get itself out of such stereotyped thinking by the general public. Architects can still design functional as well as captivating building with less space and money, especially in places of negative or weak economic growth.</p>
<p>If the hyper wealthy nations (particularly near the Gulf) with extraordinary rich resources and empty spaces want to have gigantic and lavish construction, then let it be -- there should be no qualm.</p>
<p>Small and simple can still be very beautiful. Does it not all depend on the eyes of the beholders? Money alone could not change everything. (Tan Boon Tee)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
