'Site Matters' Response

The reading 'Site Matters' by Andrea Kahn brings up a number of unique points about how we interpret urban sites and their boundaries. While Kahn is clear about these points, I felt that the reading could have been condensed down into two or three pages without losing much information. However, rather than dwelling on this fact, it is more useful to respond to what I found interesting.

The most interesting point I pulled out of the reading was the difference Kahn drew between representing architecture sites and urban sites. Of course there are many similarities in how these two overlapping fields utilize representation, but I agree with Kahn's assessment about how representation of a site is not about "depicting a reality, but about making knowledge." I believe that it is true that architectural models and drawings (micro scale), when compared to models and drawings of urban sites (macro scale), are more often rerepresentations of reality than 'evidence of a thought formation'.

Another topic raised in the reading that I found compelling was the talk about Urban Constellations, and the separation of 'site' and 'context'. Right from the start the point is made that, "Context is what the site is not." I appreciate the clarity and logic behind this statement, but it does then brings up issues with Kahn's definition of 'site'. This definition for context relies on a clear distinction between context and site, which, as we understand, has no distinct boundaries. Kahn does address this flaw in the definition, but never really puts forward a coherent explanation. What I take away from this dilemma, and the reading as a whole is that there are no distinct boundaries when discussing urban sites. And trying to make these boundaries won't do one any good since that would only isolate something not meant to be isolated.