Reading 1: “A Two-Fold Movement”

1. Based on the article, the author mentioned that “Design research in architecture thus needs to see itself as being entirely framed by socio-economic and cultural factors”. Isn’t it mean giving people what they want but not what they need?

 

2. According to the two-fold movement, one of them is town-design from the future toward the present and the other one is town-design from the present toward the future. How can we make balance between these two?

 

3. Based on Lebbeus Wood’s comments about Rem Koolhaas design, how is it possible to judge the outcomes of a design if it was never built? Doesn’t it imply that the chosen design which was built is less worthy?

 

Reading 2: “A Way with Words”

1. In the previous articles the main focus of architectural design was to provide solutions. A new concept is introduced in this article: What are the examples in which architectural design research can raise questions and make ‘problematic’ artifacts instead of solutions?

 

2. The author believes that “critical spatial practice” projects are situated at a triple crossroads: between theory and practice, between art and architecture, and between public and private. Public and private are antonyms therefore, they can be compared. On the other hand, art and architecture are not antonyms and also theory is perquisites of practice. So, my question is that how they can be compared with each other?

 

3. Based on muf’s work which implies that process is the product, can this notion extend to the thesis in academia? To be more precise, is this method acceptable as the outcome for thesis of a Master of Architecture student?