Monday, August 31, 2009
Reading Response: 'How to Draw Up a Project' by Jose Luis Mateo
To effectively analyze the project steps outlined by Jose Luis Mateo in 'How to Draw Up a Project' I think it is most helpful to relate these steps to the project process that I have become familiar within my four years in architecture school. Breaking it down into three steps for ease of comparison, the typical process has gone as follows: (1) The students are given a physical context and a broad program, which they analyze at multiple scales and develop a set of abstract issues to address with their project. (2) A hierarchy is developed as to which issues the student finds most pertinent, which informs their overall concept and begins to hint at a particular form. (3) The project becomes further refined based upon the realities of materials, construction, structure, etc.
So how do I think Jose Luis Mateo's outline of a project is different than what I am used to? Well, I think for the most part, it is quite similar, but some subtle differences reveal some interesting questions about the way we develop a project. Mateo's first step, where the project is "phantom-like," seems to be the most interesting for this comparison. Never in Mateo's first step does he reference program or site as the go-to start for a project (although one of the images is a photomontage of a site). So where does a project really start? As we've been told, with our thesis, we will get to choose whether to start with a site OR a program. However, the thesis project will start, for the first time in my architecture education, even before this decision is made; the beginning stages will be based upon my interests, allowing this phantom-like part of the process to be even more abstract than usual.
The second and third steps outlined in the reading correlate very similarly to the outline I defined at the beginning. Here, we are establishing a hierarchy of ideas, and then bringing these ideas into the parameters of reality. I do, however, find a couple of the inferences Mateo raises in the latter steps to be somewhat restricting. He breaks the last step down by separating the acts of defining space and skin. I don't believe this is a breakdown that students typically make in their projects (at least consciously) nor do I think it should be. This separation of space and skin inhibits the ability to explore the relationship between these two elements. I believe there is further evidence of this restriction when Mateo states that, when discussing 'skin', "an interior can be seen through it but not confused with it." Some of the most compelling projects I've seen from practitioners and students are when these boundaries of interior/exterior or skin/space are blurred and made ambiguous. It is in these projects that the parameters of reality brought on in the latter end of the design process are explored rather than accepted.
So how do I think Jose Luis Mateo's outline of a project is different than what I am used to? Well, I think for the most part, it is quite similar, but some subtle differences reveal some interesting questions about the way we develop a project. Mateo's first step, where the project is "phantom-like," seems to be the most interesting for this comparison. Never in Mateo's first step does he reference program or site as the go-to start for a project (although one of the images is a photomontage of a site). So where does a project really start? As we've been told, with our thesis, we will get to choose whether to start with a site OR a program. However, the thesis project will start, for the first time in my architecture education, even before this decision is made; the beginning stages will be based upon my interests, allowing this phantom-like part of the process to be even more abstract than usual.
The second and third steps outlined in the reading correlate very similarly to the outline I defined at the beginning. Here, we are establishing a hierarchy of ideas, and then bringing these ideas into the parameters of reality. I do, however, find a couple of the inferences Mateo raises in the latter steps to be somewhat restricting. He breaks the last step down by separating the acts of defining space and skin. I don't believe this is a breakdown that students typically make in their projects (at least consciously) nor do I think it should be. This separation of space and skin inhibits the ability to explore the relationship between these two elements. I believe there is further evidence of this restriction when Mateo states that, when discussing 'skin', "an interior can be seen through it but not confused with it." Some of the most compelling projects I've seen from practitioners and students are when these boundaries of interior/exterior or skin/space are blurred and made ambiguous. It is in these projects that the parameters of reality brought on in the latter end of the design process are explored rather than accepted.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)