committee meeting 01_review

Thanks to my committee for the insightful and challenging criticism. Thank you Dave and Jonathan for the great notes.

Situate project w/in the history of visionary architecture

The essence of this criticism is, I think, coming to terms with the fact that a thesis, by its very nature, is paper architecture. The term paper architecture makes me a bit uneasy, as my interests lie not in fantasies but in reconfiguring existing systems with existing technologies. However, my proposal does in fact fit the bill, particularly in regards to visionaries such as Buckminster Fuller. I imagine that as my knowledge base broadens, visionary architecture will be incorporated as an important precedent for methodology.

How sustainable is the model I'm proposing?

Using yielding as a framework suggests an architecture/system that is endlessly sustainable. Ideally (and this is where the project becomes a bit utopian), the flexibility/adaptability I'm striving for will permit the systems to evolve, like natural systems, to meet the demands of new circumstances (sea level, food surpluses/shortages, political change, labor supply, etc).

At what scale am I addressing the problem?

This question is critical. Am I imagining a highly local and specific proposal or one that attempts to address the problem of agriculture at a national/global scale. My current intent is to solve both to varying degrees by situating my proposal within the national/global network, but focusing on the particularities of the specific site circumstances. Thus, the project will consist of a system/methodology that is rigorously tested at the local, site specific scale. Another potential is to consider the building as a system/model and the landscape as a more specifically designed thing.

Who is it for/who will be the user?

This question was raised in regards to labor and urban employment, but also calls into question my proposed inclusion of housing in the scheme. There is an interesting potential to have housing for both itinerant workers as well as chic urbanites. Accordingly, the project will be able to infect and (ideally) unify multiple levels of culture around a common need. Historically, agricultural has been characterized by horizontal communities, where shared experiences existed exclusively within particular socio-economic classes. Perhaps this project can create a vertical community where class differences are superseded by a common human drive to acquire/consume food and its accompanying rituals.

Site challenges:

An expected and important discussion revolved around the site, particularly its concrete-capped and chromium laden soil A unique circumstance of this is that land and space are not necessarily the same (the space can be reclaimed while the land is left untouched). The ideas emerged in the meeting that can be broken into two categories:

[1] phased remediation. Using phytoremediation to remove chromium as a first step [prepping the site]. This proposes consideration of phasing at all levels of the project.

[2] constructed new ground. There is potential here to exploit the history of the old ground through memorializing it as well as the opportunity to construct a new, yielding one. 

Also, the phase "contaminated jewel of the city" was used to describe the site and also as a reason that it needs to be public.

Lastly, how can I exploit the fact that the site is on the water. Can the project use the water as for distribution (there is historical precedent for this in Baltimore)? Can I desalinate the water? Can I use water from the nearby Jones Falls or waste/sewer water in growing plants?