Le Corbusier used the grid system as a means to organize space. Doing so he respects that geometry is the key to the design in all things, hence the golden ratio, which is involved in the design of humans, plants and everything else. His respect was for the articulation of geometry through space. However saying that the Grid is the simplest form of geometry means that it is a method which should be involved in the design of all other things, humans included.
It is a fact that all thigns including humans can not be living 'yet' non living. It must a form of chemistry or integration between them (physical and metaphical) for something to be 'alive,' and the closer you are between integrating these two you have a more 'beautiful' creation. In architecture i feel it should apply the same way. Le Corbusiers Grid system allows for more control not only for the design and construction and one building, but for a city. On the other hand, Frank Gehrys integrating designs follow a method that appeals not in a manner of Living 'yet' non Living, in a manner of speaking, but rather he introduces the idea of 'both.'
Both gives us a way to understand architecture but reach out to find out more. The idea of branching out a little more is different, however, than saying ornament is also thinking outside the box. Where one is focused on for the beginning and the other as a final touch.
The idea of superficial complexity doesnt strike me as something that could refer to the Network method of organization despite its human characteristic to 'want to break out'. The grid system can be just as super complex to think that something must be the result of basic life when we are living in a booming existence. I believe the Grid system is way to ensure a balanced harmony where as the Network is there to unensure our balance, considering it is a provocation for desire (helping the economy) leading everyone to accept the benefit of the doubt in a 'risk'. All desire moves us further from out balance.
Considering we understand the Grid and Network to be the defining methods of organization in our time, we can say that we cannot allow the city to be Grid yet Network, for it would discrimination fellow buildings in its city, but rather it should focus on both Grid and Network. Segregation would be minimized this way and still a building or monument would be understood by all and not some.
A library has an idea of stacked knowledge to it. Common Knowledge is only something that we obtained from the past and still there is Applied knowledge which urges us to desires even that of more knowledge. Eventually, with time, the applied will become common again. It is understandable we live in an age where we need something new and satisfying for there to be more of a world respect and order. So it is fair to say that a library with stacked knowledge could also refer to that which stimulates a person to want more knowelge. Here the digital age plays its respects in a National Library. Its architecture should then always have its method of design obtained from ideas of the past to maintain a concept of past obtained knowledge, Here Grid would be accurate considering it helped us with much of our historys growth. Although in todays world we also have knowledge for ideas to the future, Here Network would be accurate. The integrations of these two elements would move us closer from the 'edge of chaos' to the midpoint between the edge of peaceful.