Theorizations on the urban relationship to relevancy in architecture in Scott’s Involuntary Prisoners of Architecture lead me to believe that the current practice of urbanism is far from achieving a total solution of which will reform human ecology. While criticism and counter arguments will remain prevalent as our cities grow upwards, it is seemingly a matter of trial and error. Scott poses an interesting consideration on the LMDC contest, saying the participating architects missed an opportunity “in which aesthetic practices and emergent technologies might have been regarded not just as palliative or functional but theorized as politically engaged sites of encounter, dissensus, and contestation.” To suggest that these qualities would signify change in the urban environment seems somewhat naive. Koolhaas’ Exodus, later serving as a base for the ongoing debate, while extreme in its provocation, is similarly totalitarian. The freedom which the the urban environment favors becomes a minor consideration in the face of revolution. As Scott points out, “Koolhaas’s response to an urban milieu that was ‘completely modernized, urbanized, and artificial” appears to be not just a delirious but a disenchanted one.” And while revolution is an understandably popular approach, it is adaptation to the evolving condition that will prove the greater challenge.