In De Landa’s The Actualization of the Virtual in Space, the consideration given to multiplicities as generators of space delineates an architecture responsive to changing conditions. Intensities prove to be agents of change whereby the extensive qualities of space adapt to the individual needs. The flexibility with which DeLanda discusses cell structure suggests that the spatial construct is similiar in quality as a result. He contrasts this with items put together in an assembly, which he says are fully Euclidian and rigid. Architecture with these flexible properties would demand, again, a certain vagueness in order to properly adapt to emerging qualities of the multiplicities. The connectivity to the multiplicities defines an integral relationship within the architecture, helping to clarify the space of the ecology. This ecology is, as DeLanda later notes, not a summation but an average of intensities. By equally considering all inputs, the space responds accordingly. Responsive architecture will then rely on a dynamic input, one that would likely change with time. This customizes the user experience, and modifies space to any number of iterations. Is architecture inherently about change anyways? Could historical precedents be considered responsive in a very simplistic way or is technology a necessity?