如果武断地将建筑学简化为有形式的“本体”和改变环境的“机能”两个方面,这三位建筑师的共性在于对信息的处理和计算从而理解环境和改变环境的兴趣超越对于形式表达的兴趣。在《过去的未来》一文中我表达了对于这种建筑学分野的强烈兴趣和对于这条线索没有在建筑学内部放大而感到惋惜。因为这条线索正帮助我理解自己从更接近艾森曼的这种建筑师向从事后一种建筑学的某一种角色转型的尝试。本文是这条线索的思考的延续,这一次尝试从客体展开,即城市。现代主义大多的乌托邦城市理想(如霍华德的田园城市、柯布西耶的光明城市、赖特的广亩城市、Superstudio的连续纪念碑、 If one arbitrarily simplifies architecture into a formalized “noumenon” and a change in the “function” of the environment, the three architects have in common the treatment and calculation of information to understand the environment and change the environment Interest goes beyond the interest in formal expressions. In the article “Past the Future,” I expressed my strong interest in this architectural division and regretted that this clues were not amplified within the architecture. Because this clue is helping me to understand my own attempt to transform from such an architect closer to Eisenman to a certain kind of role in the latter architecture. This article is a continuation of this thread of thinking, this time from the object to try to start, that is, the city. Most modernist Utopian cities are ideal (such as Howard’s Garden City, Bright City of Corbusier, Wright’s Canton City, Superstudio’s Consecutive Monument,