A number of themes emerged during the review. Designing for climate change was one – a lot of buildings on the water’s edge. There were a significant number of projects that were using existing buildings as the site. With existing buildings it is really important to faithfully understand the fabric of that building. If you don’t have some love and respect for the existing building, you might as well wipe it out and start with your own building.
As for the decoding…
A lot of “air time” was devoted to site analysis. Site analysis is an essential part of the process, but unless it has pushed you towards a deeper understanding of your proposed scheme, it doesn’t warrant a great deal of discussion.
Often the schemes were a myriad variations on a single idea. It is important to refine your ideas, and to try many versions to do so. This is what is in evidence in the earlier post on the 35 Schemes. But at the outset, it is more important to try wildly different ideas, even if they seem silly at first. Don’t be seduced by first ideas. They may turn out to be correct, but you still need to challenge your assumptions.
I have long asked my students to talk to their drawings. I love the abstract beauty of first year investigations, and of work like Raimund Abraham and Walter Pichler and Friedensreich Hundertwasser, where the drawing is everything. This is much the way I was trained. But sometimes it is clearer to use words, especially for yourself to help to better understand your intention.
A lot of self-editing was in evidence. A good deal of work has been done so far this semester, but it was not all of it was on the wall. This kind of a review is one in which that history should be shared – good, bad, or indifferent. Everything need not be buttoned-up tight. In my section in particular, I encouraged the use of a digital presentation. This is buttoned-up, but that is more an issue of telling the story efficiently. In the digital presentation you should and must edit. Organize your wall to highlight your latest thinking, but include the rest. You need not talk about every evolution of your thinking, just what the main ideas are.
Relative to the self-editing, is the design of the presentation. Though the intent on this presentation was kind of to bare all, you still need to guide the discussion through what importance you place on various artifacts. If you have a single rendering that is 24×36, while most of the rest of your presentation is 11×17, it might be assumed that that image carries a lot of weight in what you thinking about.
Finally, sometimes you have to commit yourself completely to developing an idea, and devote time and energy to describing it, even if you are unsure of it, even if it might get shot down. There is nothing lost. Each time through you understand the problem a little better. Each time you discover something new, both positive and negative.