Essay On Parasitic Architecture

Is there a way in which parasitic architecture is beneficial towards the people in Singapore? Or even in other places. Would there be a better method in translating it if we can merge another architectural concept or style with it? Or is parasitic architecture itself already beneficial enough? Then, would it be more beneficial than it is? Its time, at last, to speak in depths about deconstruction, and the truth is this. Deconstruction is not plainly an architectural style that applies chaotic manner of distortion to a building. Johnson and Wigley (1988) stated that “Deconstruction is not demolition or dissimulation”, and then “deconstruction gains all its force by challenging the very values of harmony, unity, and stability, and proposing instead

There are a few architects whom took interest on making parasitic architecture into reality as in a building itself. Is it devouring the actual form of the building? Why the term of ‘parasite’ itself gives such a bad impression towards people? The term ‘parasite’ used to be someone who eats next to someone whom was a well-known figure in Greek society, afterwards it gets a new meaning of being guests whom were invited to dinners in purpose of entertaining their host in exchange for food. Then, it all changed. A negative image has been seen through the word ‘parasite’ referring them as spongers that took advantage of its host and even brings disadvantage to the host. However, if parasite has a proposal in which it could help the society somehow, it might change the aspects of parasite, may it be in parasitic architecture nor in other forms of it. So what I proposed is a way in mixing parasitic architecture with another concept under deconstruction. It must be under deconstruction in order to maintain the meaning of parasitic architecture within itself, since parasitic architecture is also under deconstruction. And now, this leads to a question with one simple word.