On Place or On Program

On PROGRAM

As stated before, I am invested in looking at using a modular unit of structural, enclosure, programmatic systems, or the creation of a kit-of-parts that creates a regionally sensitive manner for rehabilitating an existing building into living quarters - I would personally desire to work in an area where such rehabilitation is required, either by an abundance of vacant housing and need of re-population, or from an excess of population growth into a certain area requiring immediate attention and service.

I have not visited such locales in my life, due to cost of travel, cost of time, or what have you, it hasn't happened yet. As such, I initially paired my interest with the place I am most familiar with, that being the town I grew up in. In addition, another long-running interest of mine, that of the American suburb and how, in my opinion, it is developing in the wrong direction, lead me to believe in renewing the suburb of my home town through the implementation of such modular work - however, after consideration of this for some time, I find that an area such as my home town and its affluence does not situate itself towards housing that is fast, and by necessity, less expensive, as anything inside must meet design code criteria, utilizing materials and forms of expensive natures.

Bummer.

Given this current schism between the issue I want to explore solutions for through architecture and locations that reflect my knowledge, I am uncertain as how to best proceed.

But looking towards our reading "Notes on the Adaptive Re-use of Program" by John McMorrough, I find myself looking to resolve the final programmatic elements that are of interest, and perhaps that shall enable me to look into a locale that I am familiar enough with. Consciously, I concede that a project and its program should be not only related to but dependent on the site it possesses. I do not have an answer to any critique siting that - I can only work with what I am certain of.

The notion put forth that not only can a program been seen as adaptive re-use, either by allowing the genesis of form that can be inhabited in a multitude of ways or through instilling a new use into an existing framework, but that in and of itself, program has been transformed into a number of roles, the effects of which its strength in design theory of the time could be seen as incredibly present, present as a background through, or subversively present in its absence.

The though that I felt had the strength in my mind was on Jeremy Bentham's Panopticon : "the model program, if one is interested in program as the exercise of control, would of course be the prison (108)." It would make sense that an area requiring the ultimate level of control of the actions associated with it would thereby use all methods to exact control through the design. I would say that here lies a critical distinction to be made - program as a method, or program as those integral parts creating a form. I would consider these different, and state that he is listing the former - a larger sense, "program as the exercise of control", though perhaps this is wrong - the program exercises control because all of its elements take control as a central issue. Though the language of "elements" now shifts to the latter definition. Thus we see connection between the statement of program as a larger goal, but the realities of its composition.

Back to what I feel - the architecture as the means of conserving - space, time, material, cost, life. The program thus would be the exercise of conservation, which by an understanding could be the enacting of programmatic elements in entirety that enhance the practice of conservation.

What does this mean? One could interpret that all materials utilized should embody conservation, made of only the most readily available and re-growing materials. Space should only embody then a conservative mind set - combine then, a hallway with a treadmill if it be a demand of the client, such that they may go from room to room or jog in one spot for as long as need be, with the flip of a switch. No workout room, just a hallway that would have had the workout room off of it. Cost wise, cheap. But cheap a la cost-effective - don't make a building out of cardboard in New England - rebuilding your home 30 times a year adds labor cost, time cost, and material cost in that manner.

What about basic human needs: should they be met and only met? Food. Water. Shelter. Sleep. Some form of mental stimulation. Some form of physical stimulation. If we look to "the ancients" to our time, Vitruvius, Alberti, what have you, a good wind saves health, light heals in moderate doses, but clearly, the environment is a necessary aspect of human life.

I've not tested putting a man in a house with no views or natural exposure for a lifetime - never knowing the outside world aside from leaving to work, and coming home - but the notion of "cabin fever", being "cooped up", we have all said these terms, they must have meaning.

As such, if we try to include these bare minimums, are they enough? Socialism. Not the political movement, mind you, but the surrounding context in which we thrive - what are the conservative requirements for a social interaction? A web camera, SKYPE, and an e-mail address. You can see, write to, talk to another live human being live, in real time. Is that enough? One computer. In person, perhaps that would be taken care of during work, shopping, etc. - but to contain another person in a unit, would double its minimum size, potentially.