CONCLUSION

The Post-City of Luxembourg is a media location rather than a lived space, and precedent for the crisis of architecture and urbanism in the 21st century; a crisis which we have all witnessed.

The project argues that the intellectual tools by which we understand the city are outdated. We need to better articulate our research and strategic thinking behind our urban visions, which are often blurred by the informal and random organisation of cities.
The Post-City is neither continuous nor discontinuous but operates in a push and pull: We need more such European cities which areable to adapt and respond to the physical manifestations of more extreme cultural variations. Therefore certain cultural platforms for intellectual and material production in the city simply have to be designed for.
As one of such platforms, the Bridge is simultaneously understood as the Site and Non-Place for the Institution of this project. It has become the emblem of a hypermodernity.
The Institution sets itself in motion rather than setting itself up in the conventional frozen form. This suggests that we need flexible institutes which are trying to better measure and evaluate the inputs and outputs of large-scale events.
Cultural festivals may often be disrupting a culture which is already there. Architecture may merely serve as a catalyst yet never impose change.
The architect is no longer a visionary nor imposing his physical presence but a facilitator who acts in an expanded field of operation.
The project is also the wake-up call for independent citizen to take ownership and not necessarily wait for cultural institutions to foster initiatives and craftsmanship.

Finally I would like to add, that the inconsistencies of any project provide the blank canvas on which to insert cultural elements for consistency. It is here that the cultural project unfolds its potency.

Let's discuss!