A PLAN FOR MIDTERMS: The Revision

After three weeks of joy and one of creative effort I think it is time to get back to thesis work. I used the break to meditate about the changes and clarifications my work needed. I can honestly say, I am pretty happy with the fall semester outcome, but I want to push my thesis further. I consider it has a potential that needs to be developed and bound.

My original plan was to work with the neighborhood current and historic analysis and to create a diagrammatic model with my findings during the break. When I was going to start with these tasks I realized that in order to institute the contextualization elements of my thesis I had to create a medium to document and express what the thesis represents. Since I like web design and I know how fast information moves on the Internet, I decided to create a website.

ArquiTalks.com is a comprehensive website with the purpose of uniting all the areas of my investigation. My contextualization includes three main elements (1) community development power by residents (2) positive benefits of intergenerational communities and, (3) support systems for accessible housing. In other words, all these concepts have to be achieved in order to adequately house the elderly.

The website will allow me, as a Norvella Heights resident, to start a community redevelopment effort, in which, I will investigate the importance of my involvement in the process. The benefits of the intergenerational communities will be represented by the various people accessing the website and providing their feedback. I have to say that personal interaction can never be replaced by cyber chatting, but a metaphor between the two can be established. That is why the areas in which the personal interactions occur need to be accessible to all ages. In the past many have created a diversity of options for accessible housing, but it is time to integrate those units to the rest of the community development.

After I was able to combine those elements and provide the information about my work, I was ready to move on. Now, I am concentrating in revising my plan of action for the next 4-5 weeks. I previously proposed a structure, but I think it needs to be more focused and tied more to conventional architectural elements. During the past week, I have been revising the scale of my work and, therefore the schedule.

As I mentioned before, I substituted the current/historic investigation with the website creation. Now, I am back on track. For the first week I am going to look to the neighborhood “as is”, including the investigations I have skipped. Then, out-of-track again because I was analyzing the specifics of my work and I concluded that I needed to reverse my scale. I used the diagram showed here to create a sense of relation between the scales I am using. First, I was going from the macro element –activities and services- to the micro element –housing unit-. But during a class discussion I realized the need for my work to move to the edge of community design and relate to architectural design. That, was when I decided to start with the housing unit.

In that way, I can investigate the relationship between the access to the unit and the neighborhood to develop. Previously, I had trouble deciding if I needed to work with the creation of accessible housing or accessible neighborhoods. Inadvertently, I added an important element to my thesis name “Accessible In-Between”. Now I know the accessible in-between is the relationship between the unit and the neighborhood, the area that allows the residents to move independently from one area to another. I am not saying I am going to work only with entrances; on the contrary, I am going to be working with access from the unit to all the parts of the neighborhood.

For midterms, I hope to accomplish a profound design research of the neighborhood “as is”; the housing unit (location, massing and entry), the lot (setbacks and composition) and the streetscape (heights, open spaces and relationships). I consider those topics as the core elements of access in relationship with the architectural unit. After midterms, I will be exploring the use of community design in public areas in Prague, Czech Republic (bonus addition). And finally, I will continue the journey with the investigation of streets (landscapes, pedestrian and vehicular traffic, sidewalks, curbs, roads and parking), neighborhood usages (civic, residential and commercial) and activities and services (that create connections between the neighborhood and the surrounding areas).

My finalization process will start with the integration of all the finding of previous areas into one diagrammatic neighborhood model. It will serve as an accessibility model for community redevelopments and new construction. My goal is to create a pattern or guidelines that can be used by community residents to power changes in their communities. They will benefit from their effort and at the same time it will create intergenerational communities across their areas.

Now for the big questions: How I will plan to do all this? And, how I am going to measure my findings? The answer is simple: I say it is right and that is the end of it. Seriously, I will be using the Design as Research method. Others have described the process as:

“Design experimentation reflects a range of practices and methodologies that are drawn from a variety of disciplines. However, the broad array of methods, claims, theoretical stances, and intellectual traditions makes it extremely difficult to articulate exactly what design experimentation is and how it can advance as a coherent field of study.” ~ The Design Based Research Collective definition funded by the Spencer Foundation[1]

In my case, I see Design as Research from the context of my thesis work. I can say it is “the process in which I will collect all the background information I need before I start my investigation. The design is the tool which I will use to experiment (proof and error). The combination of them creates a systematic analysis that can be measured by the standards I created”.

My design process will start taking pictures that reflect the areas of my investigation. Then, I will create street section for those areas in order to create a sense of scale and place and at the same time investigate its possibilities. All the information collected will be use to create a model –using different medias- that reflect the more effective way to deal with the accessibility issues of the area.

In order to measure my findings, I developed three elements that have to be presented in order for the area of investigation to be successful. All the areas have to be or provide for independence, active life and accessibility. I defined them as follows: (1) independence – allows for its use without the need of constant help (2) active life – encourage activities outside the housing unit and (3) accessible – any person will be able to use it, regardless of age or disability.

I developed this process to be specific to my thesis work. I did not referenced to any current Design as Research method used currently. During my time as an architectural student I have always looked at the work of Zaha Hadid for inspiration, but I cannot say I will be using her methods to develop my thesis work. I will have her free lines and massive structures in mind when I am working, but I can proudly say I am trying to develop a way of work that is based on each project and not in my style.

Well, after all this I can say I have a plan for midterm or at least that is what I think. The next couple of weeks will be fundamental to the development of my thesis and I promise to keep you informed at least once a week. Now, I have to go. I think is time to dive in the creative pool once again.

[1] http://www.designbasedresearch.org/index.html (Accessed January 17, 2008)

A THIRD PERSON CRITIQUE: One Life, One Neighborhood and the Accessible In-Between Thesis Review

In One Life, One Neighborhood and the Accessible In-Between the author tried to create a relationship between housing the elderly and the design of neighborhoods. The context of the thesis work was based in the amount of people turning sixty years old in the next years and their determination to stay active and independent.

The author argued that “adequately housing the elderly requires designing neighborhoods for an intergenerational community. This way life in community can be easily accessible for people of all ages”. In other words, she presented accessibility as the key element to remain active and independent. The main difference with other movements as Universal Design (used as reference in the paper) was the need to extend accessibility to the whole neighborhood and not to limit it to the elderly.

One problem identified was the need for neighborhoods that can sustain accessible houses. She focused on three elements to achieved neighborhoods for intergenerational communities “independent living should be possible in every community. Mobility may decrease with time, but adaptable areas allow for independence. Also, accessibility needs to be the invisible standard because it is more than economics and politics. And finally, neighborhoods in which to be active can be developed with the use of environmental elements taking into consideration functionality”.

The author presented independent living facilities as displacement areas for the elderly; with emphasis in the dislocation of communities and promoting the benefits of growing older in place. She talks about the politics and economics surrounding current accessibility issues. She provides a historical vision of issues and added her possible solutions to incorporate accessibility as a common element in current construction. The author also compares accessibility and the current “boom” of environment friendly designs; all of these are taken into consideration, functionality for all generations and areas in the neighborhood.

She wrapped all the discussions in the need for the community to get involved in the neighborhood development. In an effort to investigate this aspect she chose her own community as an exploration medium. The author created http://www.arquitalks.com to create awareness of the issue and present information to others. She considered intergenerational communities to be beneficial to all generations/residents. And, she presented the need for a support system for accessible houses; a neighborhood that is more than streets and lots.

All this takes me to the research process presented by the author in order to explore her claim. She presented an organized method to brake and investigate the elements of the neighborhood. The only part missing is the explanations of what “accessible in-between” means and the specific areas she will be analyzing with the street sections and the models. For example, she mentioned streets, sidewalks and lots, but did not mention the relationship between them and her expectations.

The concept of intergenerational communities has to be better defined and its connection with the elderly needs further explanation. Also, the author needs to consider the difference between community design and community planning and keep her investigation in the design spectrum. A connection between architecture and the neighborhood elements has to be established.

After attending her final review, I can say that the author needs to keep the audience concentration in the main aspects of her thesis and to not open the door for misunderstanding and preconceptions. She was not able to present all her ideas because the time was used to answer questions that were not pertinent to the discussion. For example, the idea of assisted living was introduced by both reviewers and the author was not able to clarify that her work does not take into consideration the additional services needed for this type of care. It is the author’s responsibility to clarify this aspect and to investigate more the concept behind assisted living and its relationship with the concept of aging in place; as this is part of that process.

I had the opportunity to speak with the author and asked some questions pertinent to her work process and the way she achieved the maturity of her thesis work. She told me that in her class group discussions always ended up talking about some other aspect of elderly living, not her current focus; just like her final review. She was going to work on that aspect during the spring semester (we will see). The assigned readings allowed her to see other positions and how to present researched work. By the end of the fall semester she found the assignments for her community design class very helpful and inspiring. She was able to focus her conceptualization using many of them as examples.

In her midterm discussion she remembered receiving good feedback and was able to identify her thesis as a viable topic that will have positive repercussions in the profession. She thinks the best feedback came from individual conversations with students and faculty. They were able to provide her with some specific aspects to research. They also helped her to clarify the main ideas of her work.

The author read the book Flow at the beginning of the semester. Since I knew the book, I was able to discuss its influence on her work. She considered the concept of FLOW as an important aspect to achieve during her work, but a difficult one to get. She lacked the time to immerse herself into her thesis work, but when she did, she developed the most important points of her work. For example, the conceptualization elements on her work were created during a Flow moment.

She explained that “flow was achieved during studio conversations. I remember answering questions in my sketch book when others were presenting them for their own work. I was impressed to know that we all have the same basic questions in common.” She told me she will like to achieve a higher state of flow during the spring semester in order to redefine her work. I think the author needs to pass more time meditating about her work and less time trying to achieve a goal. She needs to see her thesis work as the journey of flow and not force herself to produce a final statement. She needs to take into consideration the importance of the process for her thesis work.

My recommendation to all of you is to continue accessing http://www.arquitalks.com and get more familiar with her work. You will find a good sum of work and a project in its middle stage. I will be writing more about One Life, One Neighborhood and the Accessible In-Between in the future and you will be able to learn if she applies my critic to her work.