1+3

Forgive the delay - misread the email as 9PM as opposed to 9AM... many apologies.

Because of the prevalence of new construction falling into the trap of being designed from a “cookie-cutter catalogue,” the use of shape grammars to analyze and deconstruct the housing typology of an area can be utilized to create new housing that is unique but still maintains a connection to the area.
In this era for architecture, residential design is usually reserved for those who have the capacity to fund the entire process - a process that tends to be very costly. As new families start, they want a home to themselves, and these customized houses, ones that are personally designed by architects, are beyond the financial reach of such families. Developers have created homes that cater to these families, but unfortunetly lack much design beyond the few variations between homes and the personal alterations the families apply.

New 1 +3+9 and a concept sketch

By using a programmatic approach to the analysis of the housing stock of an area, I will be able to create a completely new typology that is still related to the visual legacy of the area and can possibly introduce new ideals into its reconstruction.
There have been many ways to analyze the characteristics of a building type. One way is to evaluate it from the smallest of parts – from the basic geometric shape and work our way up. This analysis will allow the research to have a library of components in which to work within the redesign of the housing typology.
By breaking down a typology to the most basic of building blocks, the research will be able to understand the connections between typologies. Then from that research, the program will be able to reshape what the typology could be. This reshaping is in response to transporting the housing typology into a new area. This new area could be an entirely different place, with a different context and environment. Or, this new area could be the same place but in response to a catastrophic event, such as a fire or earthquake, destroying the current structures. The focus for this reconstruction will be with new ideals – ones of environmentalism and site specific responses - within the construct of the components that have previously been collected. By creating these new structures with a connection to its legacy typology, I will be able to begin to create connections to what these houses provide for the area, but in the context of the new site. Hopefully these connections will bring to light how buildings are connected in the most fundamental of ways.

Some thoughts and a sketch

So in looking back at my previous posts in regards to my concept sketches, it looks like I've begun to waiver from my original idea - utopia/dystopia. That divergence is fine, but I don't really want to lose that aspect to what my thesis could be. The idea of a utopian/dystopian Pittsburgh or where ever is still an appealing thought. Going to my next sketch, however, I feel like I didn't necessarily lose the underlying driving force for that image. Ultimately, I want to keep the idea of "stacking" or "additive programming" or a "kit-of-parts" or any other term or phrase that relates to that feeling of building based on a predetermined system. Then for my last concept sketch, I brought in the idea of shape grammars - still keeping with the "kit-of-parts" approach but now bringing a more technological aspect to the phantom. For my next sketch, I want to somehow try to combine these ideas so....

Utopian/Dystopian "ideals" + kit-of-parts + shape grammars/technology = ?

Do I have to add something further to the equation?

How about cargo containers? I promise you they aren't just a crazy random happenstance - they have been of some interest to me for awhile and I know very little about re-adapting them beyond the images I've seen. Therefore it's something to look into and educate myself. So....

Utopian/Dystopian "ideals" + kit-of-parts + shape grammars/technology + cargo containers =

Maybe?

Side note: I just realized that I just employed the "Fusion" exercise as stated earlier. I find this funny because, honestly and despite the fact that I said I would, I didn't think I would actually do it. Funny how you follow your own instruction when you don't expect to.

Response to the "Adapative Re-Use of Program" and "Program Primer v1.0"

John McMorrough's discussion on the use of program in architecture today began as a tedious endeavor. He described program in the way most architects see it, as a means to create a design - "Form follows function." This is a phrase that I've heard before, but something that doesn't necessarily help me in my search for a thesis focus. It suggests that there is a very specific program already established, or in the process of being established. Unfortunately for myself, my "program" is not much more than a general statement of what I plan to encourage to happen. It wasn't until I read further as came across the quote from Deleuze: "form [there] can have two meanings: it forms and organizes matter, or it forms and finalizes functions and gives them aim." McMorrough simplifies the statement, "On one hand form/diagram/program is a designation of general effect, on the other it is used to generate specific entities." This look at program is closer to what I've been considering the idea of program currently. From there McMorrough states that the two sides are combined through the use of abstraction as a way of relating one side to the other. Since I am, at the moment closer on the side of the "designation of general effect", perhaps I should begin to try and abstract my thoughts in order to get to the side of "specific entities"? Perhaps the Program Primer that followed the essay will help? The "Fusion" exercise seems the best method to try out...

Concept Sketch 3

Response: "The Muses are not Amused"

Jorge Silvetti's "The Muses are Not Amused" brings to light many methods of thinking in the world of architecture today. Two of these themes or trends that initiated a response are: 'Blobs' and 'Literalism.'

Blob
Silvetti writes:
"The computer could produce forms that not only do not have precedent, but, more perplexing, may not even have referents!"
"Freedom from semantics, history, and culture was perhaps made possible for the first time in civilization."
"My only interest in producing architecture is because it is a practice within cultural practices, which is to say that that play with referents is not only of interest to me, but also inherent in the very idea of architecture."

What if "Blob" architecture is creating a new cultural practice - the first creation may not have a referent, but the ones following it will become the referents to each other? The computer has allowed architecture to transform into something that is individual to itself and not directly connected to anything before it. This machine has given almost any architecturally minded (and technically savvy) individual the power to create something that captures the imagination at first sight. Granted, it will probably not hold within its depths a meaning that connects the site to the context or any other kind of analysis, but allows a more approachable form of architecture looking from a non-architect point of view. Blob architecture is a form generator, but the lack of substance to support the form creates a definite fault with this method of architecture.

Literalism
I see Literalism as essentially a first year student strategy. As a student not knowing where to start you look at the variables that are connected to the project/site and then use those ideas directly to create the form. There is no filter, no centrifuge to transform those ideas into something more substantial than a visual metaphor.

Finally with the discussion of "Architecture as Art or the art of architecture," I'm beginning to understand the metaphor Silvetti uses with music to describe what architecture should be - a subset of Art, not another definition of it. Architecture can try to be something that is greater than itself, to try and respond to a theoretical idea or solve a problem, but usually this creates a form that is useless in Architecture's first goal: shelter. I understand that people who are not educated as architects are able to create shelter, but Architecture's version of shelter involves study and analysis to create a structure that is (or should be) uniquely situated for the situation at hand. Who cares if the house addresses whichever theory if the walls, floors, and ceilings do not allow for privacy or safety? In the end such a structure will become a monument to itself and Architecture will become creator of "something to look at" not "something to experience."

1+3+9 #1 and Concept Sketch

The city of Pittsburgh can become the precedent in the next step towards a “green” world.

The goal in today’s architectural design is to create the perfect sustainable building. This perfection can be defined as such: the occupants are all happy, the systems are smartly and completely integrated, and there is a maximum use for passive strategies. This perfection may be achieved differently according to various factors like the solar orientation, the climate, and amount of funding.

Pittsburgh can be the definitive test to a new system of sustainable methods. It is essentially a building block solution to how make new and old places the most ecologically friendly. With the construction of a sustainable catalogue, the city can be transformed by understanding the circumstances in the situation and allowing the system to generate the most proper means of attack. Within this system, various factors are acknowledged, such as the current economic prosperity, the type of climate/weather the area undergoes, the types of materials locally available, and the social context. The ultimate aim of the plan is to develop and suggest the most viable strategies that are easily afforded by the chosen environment. In essence, it’s a form of automation to the growth of a city, with its goal being the most environment friendly city possible. With the system a success in Pittsburgh, there will be an allowance to try different areas of the world. Each new city attempted will be using the same “catalog” as the Pittsburgh model, since the catalog will have allowances for the range of circumstances that will be encountered. With this extensive catalog in use, the world can become a better, more environmentally friendly place.