Montage (not really) & Modes

Some applicable sketches

The first is something like the scene of the site I'm looking into in Doha. Major interchange, Corniche (& CBD?) in the distance, the Gulf, desert-type, water air and land use concerns? Also, transportation & arrival is critical. The water table question comes up because I know that in Dubai the water table is something like 30' or so underground and that becomes important with excavation concerns.

I started thinking about those (excavation) ideas based on the second set of sketches, which are elaborations on the resource usage question and what is the "reach" of my intervention going to be? Continuous volumes linking below-grade to higher atmosphere would allow significant ventilation via stack effect and cooling air could be utilized for the harsh sun exposures.

Integrate this with "Open Source". The pulling in/over the transportation network is inclusive, design the space they would be occupying.

(Site Analysis)

The mapping here was used to explore some of the regions in and around Doha. I knew approximate locations of Education city, and the Corniche stands out along with the Islamic Art Museum, but the corridors shaped by the interaction of these major centers was not really known to me. I mapped secondary roads to their first significant intersection and used those intersections to approximate a region I think corresponds to public corridors, where I would need to locate this building. The circle tagged "What's Here?" is only one of a handful of site's I'm considering, I'm also looking into the pattern derived from the traffic roundabouts and how their functional spacing could locate the ideal site for this project. Also, public transportation is not really developed but is on the rise, so I think some healthy speculation based on existing routes could add some depth to the transportation component of the mapping.

(Burns / Kahn Response) PLACE

I think this reading very accurately portrays Urban Sites porous and plural in many dimensions. Resource usage, questions of their physical bounds, access - nearly every element has multiple readings and approaches when considered en tout. I really enjoyed the implications of the word "multivalent". In relation to chemistry, valence is the combining power of atoms. Similar definitions in psychology and biology exist. With an atom, valence is determined by an electrons ability to "jump" between states and exist there until either the stimulus goes away or it is acted upon by another outside force. Sites seem to act in the same way, responding to visitors' predilictions and the urban context in different ways all suitable to the stimulus. In describing what they call "Mobile Ground", the authors determine that "[Sites] inscribe a mobile ground where urban sites are understood as dynamic and provisional spaces, as points of departure to parts unknown rather than places of arrival of fixed address...reminding designers that sites remain subject to change beyond their control."

Also of great importance is the definition of a site's reach. I like how the distinction is made from site scale, to emphasize the definition of a project's impact outside of its property boundary. Considering, as I am, a site in Doha, the reach of my potential site is international (even just because I -a foreigner- am considering designing there) and regional and local and a question of physical resources and access to human-designed facilities.

I think an Open Architecture would use the networking capacity of technology to highlight the many in which this building is conceived. An occupant would likely only be aware of the heating load of a building if they were part of Facilities Management or were shown it in a presentation from a similar group. All buildings necessarily tie into infrastructure and we can tap into those flows to educate and inform.

Sketch v3

These were supposed to be posted last week, but I didn't really get around to it. Lame.
There are two scenes are elements of Middle East culture (Historical and Contemporary Business) that I think need to be continued in a series. The last perspective is very literally a man approaching technology; it's involvement in the project will be very important, but the implementation of it is not clear. I'm leaning towards the use of spaces not explicitly programmed for the education of visitors about the development of the building.

Concessions for an Open Architecture

....wow, I had to get that manifesto out first. I sat down intending to write about how freaked I was by the fact of my most huge of tasks.

In talking with Rami, Mary-Lou, and my peers about my potential thesis I got a swift kick to the head. The boot had a tread that etched "TOO BROAD" onto my forehead.

I'm attempting to infuse the creation of architecture with a sense of democracy. This is based on the development of our Urban Design Build Studio (website coming soon, we're working on it!) project and the Participatory Design process it was based on. That interaction was an amazing opportunity and privilege to be a part of. I feel we can go further. I'm excited by the prospect of a democratic design process but utterly scared of the prospect it might reduce to anarchy or a bureaucracy. Either case would stymie a project forever - not my goal. The increase of ownership in the eventual result for all parties. The fostering of common individual and global goals (sustainability, local greening, water management). That's what I would aim for.

The Open Architecture as I manifesto'd it suppresses a bit of the democracy in the design process in favor of a vibrant discourse post-production.
(I need to run to entropy before it closes, I'll pick up this thread later this week)

First Manifesto of Open Architecture

I believe in openness. Openness allows the free flow of information.The beauty of (pure) information is that it is itself unbiased. The transmission of information only becomes subjective when passed between interpreters. By acting as content filters, we allow ourselves to spin information into a form of argument which is useful and critical to deductive/inductive reasoning. However, it is left to the observer to interpret a sometimes opaque filter; This is true in Architecture as it is in writing.
With written work, we're given the tools to penetrate the potential writer's bias. We know these tools as footnotes. It's through the citing of sources and the reader's pulling at the original threads of the writer's interrogation of the topic that we can understand the development of the author's work and their bias.
Analytical writing is about argument - it's why we take Interp & Argument as a freshman fundamental course. The process of making an Architectural Object - be it building, urban plan, room or another type - contains the Architect's argument about the making of building; How it should be implemented, how it should meet the ground and sky, the degree of smoothness for transitions, the performative quality of materials and enclosure, the aspect of all things. These many arguments are layered in spatial and sensual phenomena to which they are inextricably linked. This is the opacity of the Architectural Argument.
Part of the academy education we undergo is dedicated to the study of precedent for this very reason - we strive to understand the rationale of buildings so as to better our own designs. While the public is not trained in this manner, they must participate in our internal discussion of the Architectural Argument for that discourse to remain relevant. Too often do these discussions take place in an ivory tower of our own making. At a minimum, our Architecture needs footnotes.
An example: we are now so familiar with wikipedia that many take its workings for granted. In looking at the wikipedia page for "Architecture"(1), we see (in order) a palatable summary, the table of contents, the content, and notes, references and external links. By feeding off the collective knowledge of the world, wikipedia has become a massive source of information. Most choose not to delve into the inner workings of that mechanism, ignoring the tabs at the top of the page - "article", "discussion" and "history". These are published records of how the article was formed. Most "completed" articles have lively discussions going on in the background and constant re-evaluation of what knowledge gets presented. Proper form is to footnote key points and relevant information, creating further inroads to the topic.
In this sense, Wikipedia is an Open community. The development of Open Source software such as Linux and the Firefox web browser, while developed and managed by a dedicated group, is accessed, improved, and re-evaluated by a massive group of programmers on a daily basis.
An Open Architecture at a minimum creates its own footnotes. It would open the process of designing to public involvement. It would comprehensively publish the making of the Object. It would educate visitors on the process of its making and offer a forum for the discussion of its future.

1.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Architecture

(Silvetti Response) or The State of Architectural Form-making

Jorge Silvetti is a very eloquent writer and clearly very passionate about this topic. As well he should be because his writing is concerned with the apparent death of Architectural form-making. Not "form-making" meaning "willful design", but as it concerns creating meaning in a profession that must be embedded in the culture it is designing for.
The issues he tackles, Programism, Production Modes, Thematization, Blobs and Literalism, in his opinion all undercut the ability of an Architect to make forms that are relevant and insistent to their culture. I would absolutely agree, given his portrayal of the State of Architectural Form-making.
Programism and Literalism belong together. They are both symptoms of a lack of imagination on behalf of the Architect. The symptoms use a program diagram or a description of how culture works ("Flows" and blobs) as the originator of the Architectural Gesture. He describes this as "a first example of a process that potentially exonerates the architect from his or her creative role" and that the synthesis of data into form is "the quintessential and minimum ability that an architect ought to display".(23-24) Amazingly, Architects seem to be looking to give away responsibility for the Architectural object. When a flow, or system, or diagram becomes the generator, the Architect is no longer the author of that building, the representation/diagram is.
To be an Architect is to continually evaluate the needs of the client/site/community/environment/culture and to craft a building that is as in keeping with these sometimes disparate goals as possible.
"Thematization" does a rather similar thing to the others, though I separate it since it might result from Postmodernism more than a lack of imagination. It has the similar goals to

shorten the distance between the model used as referent and the architecture produced to invoke it, and aims to elicit in the beholder either the pleasure of a momentary, playful, and contrived enactment or the delusion of the restitution of a whole way of life and its values.(24)

Pretty sad. Silvetti is saying that thematization is the result of the Cultural Revivalist in all of us. The quote distinguishes itself from the section on Blobs, where the goal was to establish an Architecture without referent.
I assume that we do not build into a void. The system is full of ideas not my own of what Architecture is and does, some good, some bad. The idea of architecture without precedent cannot be engaged fruitfully as it is a bad form of naivete that will stifle creative alternatives to precedent. To reduce it to an aphorism, you cannot create a future without a past.
I enjoyed the reading very much, as it took to issue the creative failures of a lot of contemporary ideas that had good intentions. The idea that once an idea is posited, it is pure is false, and Silvetti recognizes and addresses that in his postscript.