Is this ever going to be possible with public housing and low cost housing in general? Is it really possible to minimize costs without minimizing thought?

It seems kind of weird to distinguish races as if we innately live differently and have different "character". This mindset doesn't feel like it would help with any kind of racial divide.

Is this to suggest that part of the reason architecture doesn't benefit minorities is because minorities are not part of the architectural community?

This discussion of style and proportion reminds me a lot of George Orwell's approach to language in his Politics of the English Language, where he emphasizes the need for a simple and structurally sound base before any fancy ornamentation or extreme stylistic twist should be made on any spoken or written word. A sentence that uses large, polysyllabic words is of no use if it does not follow rudimentary grammatical rules that render it useful in communication.

The speaking of the French palace makes me very interested about the general idea of public vs. private. I wonder if it is more common for architecture as a very concrete term to signify what is public or private, or whether this is the job of decoration. Thinking about this has also made me really question whether architecture and decoration can really be separated at all or if they are naturally embedded in each other.

Is this to suggest that the alteration that occurs when decorating during the building process itself is innately different from the idea of decorating after the fact? It seems that the core principles of decoration are present in each, but only the order of execution has been changed.

The main differences seem to be in whether or not importance is placed on the macrocosm or the microcosm. I think it would be interesting to see if there was a third individual that incorporated both sides of these ideologies because they do seem very compatible.

Doesn't the root of building/dwelling lie in manipulation of the environment?

I find it interesting that the author of this analysis would lead with this observation, which was not something that really stood out to me when I first read the Heidegger piece.

How has the time in which housing was in short supply and high demand informed he current status of housing and dwelling that we exist in today?

All of this talk of the "fourfold" seems very reminiscent of the Platonic four elements, which, interestingly, exist in a sort of opposition to the Cartesian "I think, therefore I am" stated earlier in the piece. There is certainly a mix of philosophical approaches taken in this piece, and I wonder how well they exist in harmony.

This very affirmative statement situates very nicely historically, but I wonder when it became so clear and ineffable that "we are dwellers". Should a statement like this acknowledge historical turning points like the neolithic revolution, is that the point at which it became possible to say so confidently "we are dwellers"?

This comment seems to presuppose that dwelling is a purely anthropocentric idea—I suppose, then, that Heidegger would say that an animal taking refuge does not dwell. I would be curious to know how the role of a domestic animal might be considered, or if dwelling is, in fact, exclusive to humankind.

This is very similar to the Cartesian "cogito ergo sum", "I think, therefore I am". To place this sort of phrase at the beginning of the analysis seems to place the same importance on it that Descartes did, in that existence and the self lie at the center of all thought, and, by extension, at the center of each building and dwelling, too.