| Words of Architecture.... |
| ArquiTalks |
| Copyright © 2008 ArquiTalks. All Rights Reserved. |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
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.
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.
A THIRD PERSON CRITIQUE