Not many cities bear the autograph of an architect as strongly as Ljubljana. Slovenian architect Jože Plecnik has devoted most of his life as a practicing architect to the improvement of his home town: from small-scale interventions such as pavements, lamp poles and statues, to buildings, bridges and squares, grand city plans and the design of the city’s cemetery. This contribution offers a literary description of three periods in the life and work of Jože Plecnik. The author traces the paths of the architect in contemporary Ljubljana, imagining how his reading of the city and his view of the role of the architect changed in three successive periods.

The editorial provides a detailed introduction to the theme of ‘productive indeterminacy’, focusing on the changing nature of the contemporary urban and architectural challenge. This introduction includes a discussion of the perspectives on the theme from various disciplines and an analysis of their possible connections, and it places the various contributions to this issue against an outlined background and provides a perspective for dealing with the challenge of indeterminacy.

In the 1960s, as a critique of the standardization of mass housing John Habraken introduced, under the title Het Open Bouwen (Open Building), the distinction between the ‘support’ and the ‘infill’ by which a building can be adapted over time to unforeseen changes in programme and use. The design is introduced using a thematic methodology, whereby the architect shapes the support, in other words the communal. In this strategy, the architecture takes into account the changing wishes of (new) users, or in other words with the factor of time. In this interview Habraken brings this idea of the factor of time up to date, applying it not only to the lifespan of buildings but in particular to the design process itself. ‘Open building’, Habraken argues, is not confined so much to the role of the architect, but it makes it more specific and more interesting. Thinking in terms of time is crucial if architecture is to provide an answer to seemingly conflicting movements in our increasingly articulate society.

The editorial of this issue of OASE opens up a reflection on architecture criticism, following the critical encounters (seminars, debates, lectures, round table discussions), the journal organised to mark its 25th anniversary. The discussions held with a series of stakeholders: architects, writers, academe, publishers, graphic designers, students, etc. have filtered into this issue, which simultaneously evaluates and explores the current state of architecture criticism, ranging from academic reflections on criticism, via the personal views of critics on its current state, to tentative explorations.