Meeting 1: The preliminaries

So far I haven't been that busy at school: I moved my stuff into my desk, I reformatted the music I have in iTunes, helped my friend AL with the presentation work for her thesis ( she was a semester ahead of me and has now graduated), and built a few Sketch-up models that make it very clear that I don't know what's going on.

This morning I had my first meeting with my thesis advisor, M, and we discussed exactly what I need to do for my project. First thing is to nail down a third advisor. I have M, of course, and an architect from outside the school is helping as well (and we shall call him... Flame). I need one more, and I have my fingers crossed that NLMLN will have the time to join us. He always has killer comments at thesis presentations, and I would much rather hear them at my mid-term review when I can do something about it. He's fun, too, and it would be great if he'll spare the time.

The next thing to do is look at exactly what kind of project I want to do. Before Christmas, M and I had discussed the possibility of my designing a new School for the faculty of Architecture, as we just merged with the School of Landscape Architecture and the university will need to put both faculties into a larger building. One of the thesis presentations last weeked was suggesting a new school, and while I think her project was interesting, I don't really want to look into the theories behind the study of architecture and what kind of spatial requirements that has.

Since this is the case, M suggested I consider designing a prototype building that could serve many different kinds of programs. It could be placed on campus and serves as a School of Design, but it could also be on the beach and work as a community center, dcowntown and be a restaurant or shopping space, or in the country and serve some other program function.

Maybe some background information is needed here. I spent all of last semester working on my Directed Studies. Basically, the DS is a paper to investigate the theories behind your design interests to jump start the project. My DS looked at the dichotomy between flexible and articulated space, and suggested that one of the ways to preserve the potential of open space while introducing the scale of the body would be to insert articulations that are ambiguous enough to serve as seats, tables, desks, stairs and other furniture-sized pieces. While I call them 'Microarchitectural Articulations' in the paper, they are more a combination of surfaces that allow different kinds of occupation.

So for my DS I argued that these articulations could serve to enliven space and through their ambiguity encourage different kinds of use based on what activities were happening alongside them. It was divided into three parts: the argument that small-scale articulations could introduce the scale of the body into a project and that they could articulate a flexible space, a collection of precedents that describe how microarchitectural articulations (MA's) could be deployed (as a field, by creating overlapping programs, and by producing hubs of use) and an appendix that illustrates some examples (including the very-popular-with-other students 'assgrabbing and foot massage station') that show little Graphic Standards people using them in suggested ways.

Because the MA's articulate space without defining it, M was saying today that it should be possible for me to design one building that incorporates them that serves many different functions. One design could be used for many different kinds of programs, and identical copies of the building could be deployed on many different sites.

While in theory this seems like a good idea, I am concerned about a couple of issues. First is that while I argue that using MA's can make a flexible and articulate space, I think they have limitations. I don't think that permanent surfaces would be viable in a hospital or a domestic space. The argument is more that they can be used to support different programs that may overlap in different ways depending on the time of day. Instead of designing a proto-building, it seems like they need a building that has large programmatic variations during the day. Our School of Architecture has variation between morning, afternoon, evenings and weekends, but the variation is not that great: we spend mornings in classes, afternoons in studio, evenings and weekends at our desks (in studio again!) or in the social space. So the programmatic needs don't vary that much.

One of the other problems with doing a school of Architecture is that the program is not really that demanding. We would probably be just as happy in a large warehouse with some sound separation if there was natural light and a big beer refrigerator. Our classrooms and studio space have moveable furniture, and a crit space is basically a lot of white walls that we stick stuff to so we can talk about it. The microarchitectural articulations I designed can be used as desks or seats, but they are a little more temporary than studio spaces. Frankly, if I'm designing a studio, I will put in ergonomic chairs and desks instead of surface variations because to do otherwise seems cruel.

The best options to explore the possibilities of MA's happens in spaces that have strict program requirements, like bathrooms, kitchens and offices. A lecture hall might also offer some scope, but it doesn't seem like enough.

Now, on the other hand, if I was designing a school that acted as something completely different half of the time it might showcase the MA's a bit better. If it was a school during the day and something entirely different at night it might work, but if I'm going to do that I can't use the example of a School of Architecture, because it would be tatamount to saying that students at the school of architecture need the influence of this other program on their studies.

This certainly bears further thought.