First Manifesto of Open Architecture

I believe in openness. Openness allows the free flow of information.The beauty of (pure) information is that it is itself unbiased. The transmission of information only becomes subjective when passed between interpreters. By acting as content filters, we allow ourselves to spin information into a form of argument which is useful and critical to deductive/inductive reasoning. However, it is left to the observer to interpret a sometimes opaque filter; This is true in Architecture as it is in writing.
With written work, we're given the tools to penetrate the potential writer's bias. We know these tools as footnotes. It's through the citing of sources and the reader's pulling at the original threads of the writer's interrogation of the topic that we can understand the development of the author's work and their bias.
Analytical writing is about argument - it's why we take Interp & Argument as a freshman fundamental course. The process of making an Architectural Object - be it building, urban plan, room or another type - contains the Architect's argument about the making of building; How it should be implemented, how it should meet the ground and sky, the degree of smoothness for transitions, the performative quality of materials and enclosure, the aspect of all things. These many arguments are layered in spatial and sensual phenomena to which they are inextricably linked. This is the opacity of the Architectural Argument.
Part of the academy education we undergo is dedicated to the study of precedent for this very reason - we strive to understand the rationale of buildings so as to better our own designs. While the public is not trained in this manner, they must participate in our internal discussion of the Architectural Argument for that discourse to remain relevant. Too often do these discussions take place in an ivory tower of our own making. At a minimum, our Architecture needs footnotes.
An example: we are now so familiar with wikipedia that many take its workings for granted. In looking at the wikipedia page for "Architecture"(1), we see (in order) a palatable summary, the table of contents, the content, and notes, references and external links. By feeding off the collective knowledge of the world, wikipedia has become a massive source of information. Most choose not to delve into the inner workings of that mechanism, ignoring the tabs at the top of the page - "article", "discussion" and "history". These are published records of how the article was formed. Most "completed" articles have lively discussions going on in the background and constant re-evaluation of what knowledge gets presented. Proper form is to footnote key points and relevant information, creating further inroads to the topic.
In this sense, Wikipedia is an Open community. The development of Open Source software such as Linux and the Firefox web browser, while developed and managed by a dedicated group, is accessed, improved, and re-evaluated by a massive group of programmers on a daily basis.
An Open Architecture at a minimum creates its own footnotes. It would open the process of designing to public involvement. It would comprehensively publish the making of the Object. It would educate visitors on the process of its making and offer a forum for the discussion of its future.

1.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Architecture