Monica: I think I was a little flip the other day when speaking to you about your "territory"... sorry.This is an interesting topic, there are so many juicy subjects buried here! I’m not sure which direction is most appealing to you, so I’ll list the ones I can think of and see your response:- Are you most interested in the ways in which buildings get reused or are designed for a multiplicity of use? This is a long-standing subject in architecture with polarized positions being played out (some say blankness is the most flexible – Mies; some say excess is the most flexible – Koolhaas; some say intricacy is the most flexible – Hertzberger) Misuse is a difficult one to handle by architects… - Are you interested in the ways in which meaning gets appropriated and re-appropriated – like in the Eiffel Tower? For this you could look at the ways in which icons convey meaning in the first place and how context (physical, historical… plays a role) the article by David Harvey about Sacre Coeur “Myth and Monument” could be of interest here.- Are you interested in the ways in which a building may be dismantled – literally?One of the difficult issues with the Olympic park is that it consists of only symbolic buildings, but ones that have highly defined/specific uses. A stadium, for example, pretty much stays a stadium. Some of the issues you discuss may be better looked at through the program of the World Expo…???