Centralia - Very intriguing site. Has a lot of potential to right past wrongs, take advantage of an unnatural tragedy. Is a power plant really that interesting? Is it monument? This site might border on the edge of being a "one-liner," maybe there's not enough meat after the initial fascination with the site.
Monument Valley - Doesn't address an environmental disaster. Should this virgin land be touched?
Gettysburg, PA - Has the potential to become a sustainable playground. Could be all show and little substance. On the other hand, and truly unique monument in an army of classicism might bring life back to Lincoln's testament to sustainability, the Gettysburg Address. Needs to address the root issues of sustainability, and this is a possible spin, more effective than a green visitors center. I'll have to fight my deep bias for the site in order to choose the right one and not be entirely preferential to this. John isn't too keen on this one and i'm going to have to fight him if this is the direction i decide to go in.
Washington, DC - A very strong contender in my opinion. The seat of government is the perfect site for an intervention, an architecture statement on the nation's agenda. John suggested removing the White House and making the president live sustainably. Should be more radical than memorial, and does it damage the argument if the conclusion is a monumental building, not simply a monument?
World Trade Center - The perfect site for cultural relevance in terms of monument/monumentality. Will the focus be more monument or sustainability? Can they be successfully integrated. Is it wise to choose a site that has already had significant design development already? Maybe its pretentious to propose my solution is better than years of design. (i think it could be, at least for Childs' monstrosity) Maybe this site is too obvious?
New Orleans - I think this might turn into a massive gravestone. This will have to address the human desire to survive where "home" is, rather than live in a more logical area. Could be a great generator for discussion, why are we rebuilding this inevitably doomed city? I'm not entirely clear about the sustainable methods possible when i think i should be. For some reason I'm not terribly excited about this site even though it has strong potential in addressing all of my concerns.
Lisa insisted that the basis of this will be Man Vs Nature. This is more obvious in certain sites such as Centralia and New Orleans. Her preference is towards New Orleans and New York.
John is leaning towards Centralia and Washington. I need to make sure my project doesn't become a one liner, and be cautious in just adding another monument to Washington or Gettysburg.
Andrew and I share a strong interest in addressing the root of sustainable problems rather than the implementation of green tactics. He seems weary about Gettysburg. I think he is excited by its potential through reinvigorating the spirit of the Gettysburg Address, and scared of it becoming a green playground. He understands the value in keeping it local. I know PA, DC, and NY. I'm having trouble getting excited about New Orleans and Monument Valley because I'm foreign to them.
I think i'm on the right track and monday's meeting went well. I need to do a lot more research and analysis of these sites and really focus my ultimate goals. This will be a very difficult decision.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
you had some good images to go along with the site, can you post them under your site criticisms?
-andrew
Paul-
I am looking forward to everyone in the group using this blog to prepare materials in advance of group meetings (both textual and visual stuff) so that it can be read and digested well in advance- to save time and get more directly into discussion. The 6 student/ 3 advisor is really unwieldy and we just can't run this from 6-10pm or we will all die.
That said, you wrote an excellent analysis of the evening's discussion. For sure, you are off to a grand fine start and have laid out clear and pungent directions to take. You know exactly where I am coming from, and Andrew, and Lisa. Ball in your court. Jury over, now back to this. jppmj
Paul-
I think you've done well here to
a) summarize what you presented
b) give us your thoughts on our feedback
c) most of all, summarizing what you got out of that feedback.
There are some decisions to be made and the key is lining up an analytical process for making these decisions abd measuring it against the goals you are setting down for yourself.
A couple of points from the notes i had:
Site:
i heartily agree that you should stick to what you know, it will let you finesse the finer details down the road that make good architecture what it is, and that only comes from a intimate knowledge and reading and rereading of the site so I would recommend either a site which is close enough to be accessible or that you know well. Especially because of your issue, the site should move you first, if it is to move any of us (your audience/potential users).
Monument/Sustaining:
your working with a very interesting idea here, this is still fuzzy though, I'm wondering if you have either case studies of projects that we could look at a'la' your site analysis? So we can discuss where they are coming from what you find useful, what you would dismiss as un-monumental.
Theory & Politics:One quote from Lebbeus woods, I blieve goes "Architecture is a political act"..."an act of war" that's a pretty bold statement on his part.
What statement political or otherwise would you like to make?
Cultural traction:
Influenceing factors to make a monument hold up over time - Politics, financial viablity, usefullness, magnitude, marketable green-ness, image, ....
Definitions:
Without sounding to textbook exam, what does sustainability mean to you, what is your definition of it?
That's what I have so far.
I agree with John, that we as advisors and you as students won't get much usefullness out of 4 hour marathon pinups where you only get a 1/6th of the time. To that end we need to be having more discussion, I think we will be asking for more frequent updates from you guys prior to the pinup so we can get straight to the meat, and more involvement with you peers, so it's not just advisers rambling on, which, well lets face it, we can and will do that.
Think of putting a proposed schedule (which can always be amended)together so you can set some goals to work toward short term and long term.
thesis onward-
-Andrew
Boulee designs Newtons Cenotaph
does Sheaffer design Al Gores Nobel Prize Monument in DC?
just kidding, kinda.
Post a Comment