Has Forensic Architecture published a public report on its Minneapolis air‑quality measurements and methodology?

1. Forensic Architecture’s published work on “toxic air” is broad, not clearly Minneapolis‑specific

Forensic Architecture’s Cloud Studies is framed as “a sweeping investigation into toxic air” and shows the group’s interest and capacity to document atmospheric harms, but the Cloud Studies material cited does not explicitly present a public technical report of air‑quality measurements and methods tailored to Minneapolis in the sources provided ^[1]. The organisation’s website is listed but in these search results the site’s content is not fully accessible without JavaScript and does not, in the snippets here, yield a Minneapolis measurement report ^[2].

2. Minneapolis publishes its own sensor program and dashboards, separate from FA

The City of Minneapolis reports launching a community air monitoring project in 2021, installing PurpleAir sensors in 2022 and publishing an Air Quality Monitoring Dashboard and open data feeds for neighborhoods and sensors; those civic resources serve as the public record for Minneapolis measurements and methodology descriptions available in the supplied material ^{[3] [4]}. The municipal pages explicitly describe sensor maps, AQI definitions and open data access — the kinds of transparency one would expect if a formal measurement methodology were being publicly documented by the city ^[4].

3. State and national agencies provide baseline AQI tools, reinforcing that independent public data exists

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency’s AQI tool and national resources such as AirNow provide statewide and national air‑quality monitoring and AQI definitions; these are cited among the sources as the established public data and methodological frameworks used for reporting air quality, further suggesting that municipal and state datasets are the primary public sources for Minneapolis air measurements rather than an FA report in these results ^{[5] [6]}.

4. What the sources do show about Forensic Architecture’s methods is general, not a Minneapolis protocol

The Forensic Architecture material in the provided search results highlights the group’s investigative methods — spatial and architectural analysis, open‑source investigation and digital modelling — and partnerships with activists and NGOs, which indicates capacity to produce methodology documents, but the snippet evidence does not produce a Minneapolis‑focused methodological appendix or dataset publicly hosted in these sources ^[1]. Where FA has produced case‑specific technical documentation in other contexts is not demonstrated here.

5. Alternative explanations and limitations in the record

It remains possible that Forensic Architecture has produced a Minneapolis report that is either hosted behind JavaScript on its site (the site warns about JS dependence) or published on partner pages not included in the supplied search results; the provided snippets do not confirm such a document and cannot prove nonexistence ^[2]. Given that municipal, state and private AQI platforms (Minneapolis city dashboards, MPCA, AirNow, IQAir, Plume Labs) are publicly visible in the dataset, the absence of an FA Minneapolis report in these sources is noteworthy ^{[3] [4] [5] [7] [8]}.

6. Conclusion — direct answer

Based on the supplied reporting, Forensic Architecture has not published a publicly discoverable, standalone report detailing Minneapolis‑specific air‑quality measurements and methodology; the sources instead point to Forensic Architecture’s broader Cloud Studies on toxic air and to Minneapolis and Minnesota agencies’ own published sensor data and dashboards as the publicly accessible records for Minneapolis air measurement ^{[1] [2] [3] [4] [5]}.