In biology, evolution refers to the gradual change of species over time. The theory of natural selection, which was conceived independently by Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace in the mid-19th century, has been the most popular in explaining this evolution since it was first set out in detail in Darwin’s book
"The rejection of the conventions and details that have resulted from architectural evolution leads to disappointing designs, such as those of the countless ‘McMansions’ that have been built in the United States."
I don't see why this isn't part of architectural evolution. Whether or not we think they're ugly, the McMansion is demanded on the market. A lot of people think they look beautiful, which is why they build them. Why isn't this just part of the process?
"The more innovations have been made, the less room for innovation there is left and the more reason there is to copy." I'm also skeptical of this if we model architectural evolution as *combinatorial* (similar to technology) rather than like biological evolution.
Why wouldn't more innovation lead to *more* novel combinations and therefore more room for innovation?
"The rejection of the conventions and details that have resulted from architectural evolution leads to disappointing designs, such as those of the countless ‘McMansions’ that have been built in the United States."
I don't see why this isn't part of architectural evolution. Whether or not we think they're ugly, the McMansion is demanded on the market. A lot of people think they look beautiful, which is why they build them. Why isn't this just part of the process?
"The more innovations have been made, the less room for innovation there is left and the more reason there is to copy." I'm also skeptical of this if we model architectural evolution as *combinatorial* (similar to technology) rather than like biological evolution.
Why wouldn't more innovation lead to *more* novel combinations and therefore more room for innovation?