John Mellas_Week 3

Fraser

1:  There are plenty of instances where the assumed correct method of design was implemented but investigation years later reveal that it was almost the worst possible design. Fraser uses the example of Tafuri’s 1920’s social improvement and economic redistribution by architectural means, to highlight this dilemma.  How then, can we be certain of the right thing to design? Is there a “correct” method of design?

2:  Can the architect’s role extend beyond the realm of design? The Palestine Regeneration Team (PART) that Fraser founded with Yara Sharif and Nasser Golzari raises a question as to how impactful architects can be in conflict stricken areas. The conflict between Palestine and Israel is one of the oldest in history. Can architects take this conflict and enable a new generation of Palestinians and Israelis to carve out their own cultural identity with design? Is this something that architects should take the forefront on in other areas of conflict or destress?

3:  “How one might design a whole city which would take decades to realize, and thinking of how one might possibly be able to do that.” In those decades, things will undoubtedly change. How can we plan for a future that might never materialize, or one that we never saw coming? How can we design for a future (especially in this day and age) where our cultural, social, political, and economic realities change so fast?

Rendell

1:  If interdisciplinary, and even multidisciplinary, are such a key element in today’s design process, why are we only taught architecture in school? It seems that to have a greater understanding of the world around us and not just design, theory, and history architecture classes. Why isn’t a broader curriculum taught to architecture students to give them a better understanding of the world around that they design in?

2:  Jennifer Bloomer’s work “demonstrates that the feminine, and perhaps theory, can be a radical element in architectural practice.” Has there been a separation between theory and architectural practice? If so, what would the benefit of bringing theory into design work?

3:  Rendell mentions “active writing, which aims to perform the spatial qualities of an artwork or piece of architecture through textual approaches, reconfiguring the sites between critic and work, essay and reader, as an ‘architecture’ of criticism. Here site-writing operates as a form of architectural design research exploring how architectural processes of structuring and detailing spaces through can work through textual media, offering new insights into what architecture is and what it might be.” Is the written word of architecture (theory, history, critique, etc..) just as important as built, and even unbuilt, designs? Can Rendell’s site-writing be a form of architecture in and of its self?