| Words of Architecture.... |
| ArquiTalks |
| Copyright © 2008 ArquiTalks. All Rights Reserved. |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
Week 1: Proposal Realignment
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; the access from
the unit to all the parts of the
neighborhood.
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; the access from
the unit to all the parts of the
neighborhood.
