tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6531343.post4181938260945488434..comments2024-03-27T06:24:30.922-04:00Comments on A Weekly Dose of Architecture Books: Literary Dose #26John Hillhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14842328320680692310noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6531343.post-30013375481404652872008-05-11T19:55:00.000-04:002008-05-11T19:55:00.000-04:00No mistake. Just checked it and the transcription ...No mistake. Just checked it and the transcription jibes with the book. I agree that the choice of wording indicates a NEW monument versus turning the wall into a monument ITSELF, but I think ol' Rem meant the latter. Admittedly the essay in the book is "based on the author's participation at the Urban Age conference in New York, February 2005," so perhaps any confusion can be attributed to the editors.John Hillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14842328320680692310noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6531343.post-12435242204402440732008-05-10T16:42:00.000-04:002008-05-10T16:42:00.000-04:00Powerful stuff. Nice choice.Dunno if this is his m...Powerful stuff. Nice choice.<BR/><BR/>Dunno if this is his mistake or yours, but this part seems wrong:<BR/><BR/><I>"The Berlin Wall is another staggering example: a monument itself would have shown louder and harder what the former tragedy had been on this site."</I><BR/><BR/>Surely that should be "a monument itself, it would have shown...", otherwise it reads as suggesting that a new monument should be built.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com