10.25.2006

The clock is ticking, the program deadline approaches.  I am revising my written material for the facility and context sections.  The theory section is complete and posted as a PDF under the Program Document link.  I will soon be rendering diagrams to supplement the writing.  I have two thoughts on the appropriate supplements for more writing.  Three graphic elements will supplement the text throughout the program; first the subtle emphasized words - orange text in the document - that bring out the essence of each topic and reinforce the ‘poetry’ connotation I elude to throughout my theory discussion, second will be imagery, and third will be diagrams.  My program is an artistic representation of the content however, and its graphic content is just as important and as the text.  The graphical material should evoke this the cohesion and pattern coherency that the theory speaks of.  My diagrams will be rendered by hand with the simplistic and essentially abstracted quality they should have.  The sketchy quality will be coherent with the holistic graphic implementation.  The imagery is very important for context to illustrate the regional elements accurately and expose the pattern language.  Theory will also relate heavily to photo depictions, sometimes emphasized with color or extraction, of the topical examples.  Even the font of the emphasized text bares a hand sketched quality to keep with the theme.  All in all I want this visual theme to represent the liberality and rawness of this project’s context.  It is transitory, schematic, never finished, always experimental. 

10.18.2006

Despite having just submitted a draft of the program writing, I am continuing to revise the Theory material.  My biggest concern is the development of understanding the challenges of my project to any layman or even an architecturally weathered mind because of its layers and complexity.  The theory is really only instrumental, which I affirm redundantly through its section.  The understanding of a facility without established bounds as a facility type in the professional field and a dynamic contextual environment are paramount features to this design.  I am not designing architecture for the sake of its own existence.  I won’t do it here because I won’t pursue it in the profession.  Architecture exist with responsibility.  That is what my theoretical position is all about, responsibility; the ethical response to complex and layered issues in the real urban environment.  Therefore, one’s understanding and interest in my project must extend into the depth of facility and context, not just some theoretical experiment. 

This past week I looked at the firm Koetter Kim & Associates work in the urban environment among other distinguished urban housing projects since the 1990's.  They have set precedents for bold and modernist designs that are quite sensitive to the social and contextual issues surrounding them.  That seems to be their highest priority.  On many levels it corresponds to the arguments of critical regionalism which I have recognized as one of my layers of theoretical perspective.  Usually this approach is explored for those celebrity designers to relate some abstract aesthetic theme to contextual elements in nature and heritage saturated cultures.  In my case, I am relating to the dynamically artistic character of a rapidly transitioning urban place.  Its local cultural narrative corresponds to my aesthetic approach with adhocism. 

However, I recently argued with a professor whose theoretical understanding I respect on the “ad-hoc” approach in urbanism.  I’m afraid his misunderstanding is forecasting many others’.  The directly applied notion of adhocism is quite ambiguous and seems contradictory to the notion of aesthetic orientation contextually rooted.  Yet, this is a contextual emblem.  It’s a common thread not only in building methods but in the lifestyle dynamics of its population.  It’s a modern bohemian culture.  The PWA population themselves have been subject of much ad-hoc treatment for their conditions.  That is essentially the pattern by which they have regained a foothold on ‘normal’ life.  It is a tool then for expression and pattern cohesion with the context.  Hence, I realized that as a design tool it is not necessarily the theoretical approach but a descriptive (narrative) tool for the aesthetic aim.  Consequentially, I am revising the Theoretical Basis of my program with adhocism as a contextual issue and my theory is really focused on the local patterns and narratives to which I want to instill a ‘watermark’ for new development possibilities. 

With less than three weeks until the final program is to be submitted, I still have another issue to address for the context.  My site selection was pending for redevelopment but has not, and probably will not, see even a schematic design in reality until this project is completed.  Unless I want to continue revising my theory and keep this cozy studio space a couple more semesters, I presume I need to visit Dallas and investigate another site for my addition before the program is submitted.  I may also consider whether the addition to built infrastructure is necessary or new construction on a brownfield is a better possibility.  Change doesn’t worry me as much as theoretical grounding.  If my experience in the field taught me anything, it would be that change is inevitable with any and every project, even at the last minute.    

10.06.2006

My concentration this past week was focused on assembling a coherent framework for the theoretical approach to my design.  Since the revelation that my theory was not wrapped up in some ambiguous ‘ad-hoc’ strategy, rather the relationship it shares with multiple layers of the context, my theoretical strategy has been rewritten.  It is still in the works but I’m much more confident in the framework I’m now forming around my design problem.  A brief discussion with professor Gallegos reaffirmed my perspective that theory is merely a pathological instrument for justifying our aesthetic solutions.  So I have looked at real concerns – aesthetics are essentially banal despite the ‘delight’ that Gallegos reminds me has been confirmed by every generation of designers – concerns that bring the project a noble purpose beyond just being so that people can look and interpret.  That is essentially why we have art, for past time.  Architecture should be resourceful – ‘firmness’ – and definitely meet pressing needs – ‘commodity’- so what are these to my project.  So I’ve given more weight to the ‘issues’ of my design problem – critical regionalism, sustainability, functionality – these are real pertinent issues for any urban design problem that challenge my solution for this social need.  Through the instrument of adhocism, I am threading together an approach to the most pertinent aspects of these architectural issues/concerns with regard for the built, social, and urban impact it will make.  That to me is not trophy art erection or utterly ambiguous pop fashion building that I despise.  It is ethical! 

Here’s what the Theory section will present so you can see for yourself and tell me if it’s too far into left field:

THEORETICAL BASIS

architectural issues

The proposal presented as follows, though , is not suggesting a formal method but an instantaneous solution to three major conditions explored further in the design criteria and logistically in three programming sections; Theory, Facility, and Context.  Like any problem there could be any number of approaches to each perspective.  This attempt is born of sincere concern for the three challenges presented in the Design Criteria to follow, and seeks to explore the architectural possibilities with the questions common to virtually any urban environment in Western societies.  These questions are rather broad and for the reason of bridging aesthetic debates among architects on the ethical approach to urban dilemmas and tangible circumstances observed by all participants of urban life whether they know how to define or it creeps in through their subconscious. These issues from which this design should attempt to [i]sedate are summed up by:

• does the ‘value of place’ overrule the autonomy and ambiguity of progressive architecture or can it enable its integration?
• will the form’s ambiguity differentiate it from typical housing solutions in this context or is its ambiguity merely coherent visual language with the eccentricity of the context?
• should sustainability and functionality be addressed and interpreted in a synergic theoretical perspective that threads a regional theme into their collaboration as design tools?

These issues offer theoretical destination from an architectural perspective from the problematic circumstances.  The navigation tools for the solution are further explored as Supporting Theory.  Those circumstances are further explored as Design Criteria for which the supporting architectural theory is derived.

…

design criteria

Architecture is an attempted physical solution for mankind’s circumstances on at least two or three levels.  Vitruvius’ recognized “delight” in compliment with “firmness” and “commodity”.[ii]  Aldo Rossi asserts that architectural design inevitably involves an aesthetic problem just as well as a functional one stating that “aesthetic intention and the creation of better surroundings for life are the two permanent characteristics of architecture” (21).  Therefore the theoretical perspective driving the form addresses an aesthetic congruent with the function although the fitness of these forms will inevitably change with each generation to appease the current society’s needs.  The dictum is not that form follows/expresses function, rather the purposefulness of its form would not be healthy for sustainable urban development.  As irony has it, the very products of the functionalist tangent contribute the infrastructure for major renovations opposing the purpose they were intended for.  Rossi observes this pattern of recycled forms throughout ancient Europe eluding that each generation reforms their environment to fit their needs/desires corresponding to some relative quality of permanence.  One major sustainable concern of modern urban conditions is the lack of permanence and value of existing infrastructure suitable for recycled uses.  For urban places like Dallas, Texas infill and additions are necessary trend for new construction sustainable…  

The design problem of facilitating special housing for people living with AIDS, like any problem, has varying depths of impact both socially and in the built environment.  These are increasingly common aspects for any urban project: 

Social segment in need of housing fit for their condition yet mutable enough to sustain transformation for new purposes.   

Local context that consists of an especially eclectic culture both in built and social form in which special needs housing might be integrated with the assortment of mixed-use transformations.

Urban district desperately needing development to add density, accommodate diversity and inherently increase capacity consequently reinforcing an impending local agenda of sustainable transformation. 

In our Western society, fashion too often dictates design solutions and capitalism labels the shallow motivations of modern architecture primarily in the public and commercial realm.  Seldom is there an effectively attempted solution of physical form appropriately addressing all of these depths within any given community.  Three undercurrent concerns, mutually defaulting from fashion but differing in motivation, provide pathological and physical guidelines toward forming a progressive concept of integration for special group housing in the urban environment.  Three perspective concerns - critical regionalism, sustainability, and functionality – have become increasingly dominant and interrelated issues with contemporary architecture for any type in any environment, especially [iii]‘the urban’.  Qualities of these complex relationships are focused on the specifically abstracted dynamics of culture in Dallas, Texas with a delegated social group incidentally representing a global dilemma.  With that in mind, the exploration here permeates the architectural strategy for urban implants and isolated social groups at a global level. 

Theory used here is contextually instrumental and representing a mutable variable.  The relationships between the underlying concerns listed above should derive the theoretical approach for design with similar circumstances any place they might occur.  The solution should express the rationality that aesthetics might be ethically driven by culture or context.  The consideration of that context is then driven by the extents of its effectiveness.  In the emerging global society, what is performed in Dallas, Texas under these circumstances reflects on that possibility throughout the world.  Hence, ethics are of high importance to precedence. 

From here the Supporting Theory section goes into the exploration of adhocism with precedents and arguments for its purposefulness.  A thesis statement is on the way; I just want to build up some pressure first.

"...to alter the perception of the urban environment away from the thrills & perils of novelty towards the comfort of understanding."  (Canniffe 111)

Here is a sample of their work and its contemporary knack for the adhocist instinct of conglomerate forms at Canary Wharf.

09.29.2006

Lately I’ve been taking a closer look at the context of my project.  Not just the site on which I’m building, because that is a context all of its own, but the district which bares so much relevance, in my perception, to the theory of adhocism.  Once again, I’ve questioned the purpose of adhocism to this facility’s design and with closer recognition to the surrounding conditions I find something poetic about it.  There is a symbolic expression in the use of this theory to arrive at some design that fits into the context such that Alvar Alto might be inspired – maybe that’s exaggerating but maybe its not.   The users themselves have a parallel relation in their own situation to the essence of adhocism which Smith and I discussed last week as an expression conveyed by my building design.  But am I designing for the sake of expression or something more intrinsic to the local and sustainable use.  My beef with expressive architecture is that its gestures are hardly coherent and too often outdated rendering them obnoxious are misleading to preceding users.  This does not confer with sustainability – retaining a pleasant and easily recyclable form for the widest range of users. 

Here’s what I began asking upon revisiting Rossi’s The Architecture of the City:

• Does the ‘value of place’ overrule the autonomy and ambiguity of progressive architecture or can it enable its integration?
• Will the form’s ambiguity differentiate it from typical housing solutions in this context or is its ambiguity merely coherent visual language with the eccentricity of the context?

I have come across a very modern writing called Urban Ethic (Canniffe, 2006) discussing the design of the urban environment such that it is fluid and coherent.  It seems to coincide with the more emotional arguments from others like The Seduction of Place (Rykwert, 2002) and reflects the rational quantification of urbanity already evaluated by Kevin Lynch.  The interesting thing is the abandonment of singular architecture – the notoriously autonomous works of those like Gerhy or Koolhaas – in the urban context and seeks cohesion of differences.  Essentially it contributes to the trend for more sustainable and diverse urban environments.  That is what I’m working in and concerned with on the social strata for my user group’s sake.  However, this theory of adhocism reflects a local built trend just as well as the metaphysical relationship to the user group.  If this is in suit with those urban environment theorists, then my pursuit is not necessarily ad-hoc design or expression in and of themselves, but rather it is a direction of critical regionalism. 

I am adding to the context for some social element in the context with special attention to contextual trends and future demands.  Although there are many avenues for theoretical speculation in this position, I am essentially most concerned with the critical regionalism aspect of this project.  I am employing adhocism as the design tool congruent with the local context so that I might cohesively integrate this unique facility type, but I am also expressing, whether I intend to or not, an aesthetic representation of the users group’s circumstance.  This is not different from some attempt made by nearly every architect on nearly every project of the last half a century that was not rooted to strict or ritualistic tradition for design guidelines.  The difference I want to make is designing so that this facility is not just some ambiguous expression or autonomous ad-hoc form that cannot be recycled for further transformation and purposes.  This is a sustainable concern of course.  Once again, I am not aiming for some LEED certified sustainable building or an organic expression or a removable series of day-lit boxes.  These all might be valuable theories, but here they will be boiled down to necessity and a simplified understanding so that I can use them as design tools for a solution.  The solution will inspire local development for the betterment of the local culture both for buildings and their users.  This regionally critical direction should be my driving theory. 

09.22.2006

Another sample comes from the daring Italian project for low-income housing known as "Elemental".  These townhouse mimicking blocks of raw concrete form a blank slate neighborhood of beyond feasible, but simplistically sustainable housing alternatives to the population of those who cannot afford traditional housing.  Each block allows for infill and inevitably the injection of individual creativity and personality for each resident.  Although this is not exactly pertinent to the sociology nor the built environment of my project, the concept of simple - Modernist if you will - monochromatic forms that sustain multiple renovations, transitions, and most importantly the temporary cladding of each tenant's identity bares strong weight on this facility's form and functionality.  This also turns the motive for adhocism away from the initial architect and makes it the subjective interpretation of its users' collaborative additions. 

Back to the theory itself, Gary Smith directed my attention away from my own interpretation of adhocism and more towards the growing evidence of its motive in so much of current architectural trends.  Even better than investigating the relativity of other current projects, like those discussed as precedents, is to examine the parallel between my users' situation and their that expressed by their facility.  I was taunted by that expressional quality in the beginning - to evoke the progressive 'make-do' lifestyle of the facility's users by the plan that evolves into a form, a form that would appear ad-hoc just like Jencks' bicycle transformation theory. 

09.15.2006

I am presently waiting for new information from David Farrell on the most current development scheme for this property and another trip to Dallas to analyze the site is necessary as soon as possible.  In the mean time, I am pulling apart my theory once again to narrow its vagary as well.  The issue of adhocism's elusive parameters as defining theory is perplexing my establishment of a theoretical direction to point this facility's development.  This is only compounded by the fact that the facility type itself is currently a vague and unestablished program.  The program allows a gamma of opportunities to solidify this facility program into a typology.  Essentially it can be related to a nursing home, but the modern twist on its user's lifestyles demands an evolution in the recognized typology of special needs housing in architecture. 

It has occurred to me that designing from scratch with only the reverence given to the contextual and logistical constraints, I have an open palate to pull together this design from whatever I deem necessary - is this not what adhocism is all about.  I simply need to narrow the defining - theoretical - purpose for this design to propositionally perform.  So, I've examined some other projects that have set controversial precedence towards additive structures on historic architecture.  These include:  Renzo Piano's addition to Lingotto in Turin, Italy among other earlier case studies and two intriguing European projects whose names I have yet to identify in English.  On the grander scheme of things, these projects, without or without the designers' explicit intentions, have exhibited the motivation to add a necessary and creative solution that Jencks proclaims as "adhocism".  Therefore, my project on the big picture is adhoc to a greater development idea.  Its internal development and purpose will be driven by more narrowed terms.  I've recently identified some architecturally appropriate terms to use here from Clark & Pause (Precedents in Architecture) that include:  the nature of additive architecture (p.191,220-221) and progressions like transitions, transformations, and mediations (p.197-199, 252-255).  One of those European projects is not an addition however, but plays with geometry and informal relationships with independent elements of the building in such a way that inspires the transformation and progressive potential of a design solution.  So I'm building a foundation for a schematic design from these case studies and possibly more towards the purpose of progression.  That is what this project will hinge on - adaptation.  It should lend itself to adaptation by its future users with transitional forms but also maintain its own autonomous character from the form that it is contrastingly fused with.