Basically, a cognitive mapping of key boundaries of my home towns central corner - Red means stop, Green means go. AKA who is coming and need to stop the current practice of new inhabiting, and where new processes would be welcome to occur.

Architectural form is still in progress for now.

Thesis

It is my intention to bring a sensibility relating to need to the minute details I am so fond of exploring. For what I meant when I spoke out against waste, I will now discuss. Waste in architecture, wasting of space, is the utilization of space in a manner, and for a purpose that is not a bare requisite to those using it, which specifically disables all other uses that space may be typically able to provide.

Take, specifically, a small, original New England Village, founded 1670, originating with a minor town center surrounded by tobacco farmland.

That is my home's heritage. Today, transportation and communication have left the town core as dead-space, hollow of meaning, home to quaint shops and areas locals know well, but cannot sustain. The areas grown in between these villages now house the centers - large strip malls, not 7 miles away from each other, and not within 7 miles of housing. The areas in between these, are forest. Or were. They are now condominiums and McMansion settlements. And not one of these spaces is in walking distance, and only bikers who truly are dedicated to not paying for gas would use this approach.

In actual numbers, the town center is a 5 minute walk from my home. The mall is a 15-20 minute drive. There is a local grocer in the center of town. The new construction is closer to the mall than to it, but still, never a walk or bike ride. And yet, the current Firehouse and Masonic Lodge (go outdated societies!) have recently been torn down. They are in the town center. They are quite literally directly across from the grocer and a pharmacy, and one block down from town hall. Why the fuck aren't they being reused for something else? We're in the middle of nowhere, so construction without creating an entirely new shell, while potentially more costly in another setting, excludes the sheer transportation of quantity from cost, making an efficient and competitive option. The reuse of any material from one to another is enough to finish a large portion of needed adjustments. As well, the local private high school has recently torn down its main academic center - a building the size of Margaret Morrison, and did so in a "deconstruction" method, permitting reuse of all of its materials. Naturally, it was sold off to the highest bidder, as the school and the town do not get along, but what a peace offering the quantity of raw material could have been.

I propose the creation of a kit-of-parts for a modular basis, which allows the reuse of the abundant materials in the local context, to have recreated the Firehouse and Masonic Lodge, as well as restructuring the town core, in order to accommodate the population occupying the 3 recently developed settlements on the town borders.

Architecture

So, Don-ism - what is it?

My approach to topics involves research into whatever topics come to be relevant to the process. The gathering of data is a necessary part of creation, as it informs the contextual understanding that in this approach is a pivotal desire, and goal. I preface with that, as it is not always achieved, due in large part to the next steps of the processes.

The information is abstracted, made graphic, and always sent into testing through a variety of circumstances, such as a matrices, given one line of subject matter, and cross-analyzing the effect of three other lines of subject matter, resulting in an exploration of 3 to the 'n' results, which can be seen to interchange in a given framework to maximize reactions to the context. Imagine, a wall, with interchangeable panels, into screening, SIP wall, glazing with a shading device, a vertically oriented planting box, or a solar panel, could inset, with this wall being a part of a modular unit. The entire wall could be made up of any combination of these context sensitive material uses, or not exist, allowing the modular walls around it to interact with a gap in the system, which would inform their paneling choices. I just summed up the intent of wall system I design during 3rd year's advanced construction studio.

And golly, that is how I think - these systems, ideally, allow control for the user to initiate the space into their own architecture, responding not to a literal response to the program by the scale of each use, or the desired program into a single form, or themed after the context, and not unstructured to simply break from tradition, though responding to the needs inside through adapting to them.

Obvious problem - not always the prettiest damn thing you'll find.

Nor does it with intent, always allow reconciliation or relation from the programs' needs, or the need of the expression of the building, to its form, which inevitably is straight, strong lines - something I need to overcome in my mindset.

Literalism; Programism; Ismism; Donism

My colleagues and friends have often quoted a terminology for my methodological approach to architectural design, with the appropriation of nomenclature found in "star-chitecture", producing "Don-chitecture". Those this term is widely expressed upon study of the design itself, it could adequately be expressed as an "-ism", a guiding principle, approach, or means of consideration of information (be it data, context, or theology). This would produce, I surmise, "Don-ism".

This is brought about by the current reading, "The Muses are Not Amused," was not a generally irritating read, not more so than any others I've read, but managed to display in me some distinct disagreements. The author's contentions on "Programism, Thematization, Blob, Literalism" have some level of weight to them, though the arguments about "few exemplary actual buildings yet exist (25)" is entirely true in cases of Programism, as I cannot personally identify a piece of architecture that followed the means of conceptual progress expressed in Figures 1-5. Speaking instead of perhaps what the architecture wants, such as movement, gives more earnestly viewable attempts to capture the wants of a building, a la the Baroque.

The talk of architecture as art, versus art as architecture causes me vexation, because I do understand the differences being described, yet I cannot say I interpret architecture as art.

Personal statement. Aspects of it may be viewed as an artistic expression, but I the initial interactivity created through inhabiting a space removes the personal level of vision sustained in art, thereby creating a shared experience that is not beyond art, or comprehension, or any hyperbole, simply a cousin, a different expression. Another realm to which I have read of applying such an instinct, is computer and video games - the visual qualities, acting performances, story telling capabilities, and musical scores contained within, are all worthy of acclaim depending on the product, and yet it is the immersion, the fact that the space is an inert object that may well not perform a function without a user, that separates it. One might say it is a waste, without a user, and without interaction, which removes it from that realm of bridging artistic gaps.

By The Way...

I made the Rhino file for that earth and slice o' earth, so if for whatever reason you want to mess with a scale model of the earth - just ask.

Sketch #2 - Divvying Up The World. Then Putting Things On It.

1 + 3 + 9

-
Can we use architecture as the tool to eliminate waste; of space and other resources?
-
Resources- water, air, trees, fruit, dirt, animals, etc; are based on the areas around them, both in terms of physical boundary, as well as mathematical measured unit of volume. These units could be seen to extend from the core of our planet to the outer rim of our atmosphere, and depending on how one divvies up the mass of the earth and the skies, there could be one thousand of these units, or 20 billion, in stacks, rows, and columns. If we conserve these units of volume, allowing for fewer to be used, we could reduce the effects on resources in the units stacked above or below, neighboring or otherwise associated with the primary unit, even from across the globe based upon trade.
-
The recycling of a building is a strong move towards maintaining levels of use. If we were to continue recycling buildings and their lots, while simultaneously increasing our efficiencies with each generation of use, we would be able to maintain the existing levels of human life while decreasing our waste. The fact of the matter is, the human population continues to grow as it is, and inefficiencies continue, there will be an exponential growth of consumption, and there can be no maintenance. Thus, we need an exponential reduction of consumption, such that, in calculation, each new human life increases our efficiency and decreases our use. We could go the freaky-dystopian route of battery-human-pods a la the Matrix, recycling bodies for food a la Soylent Green, or vaporizing people into pure energy for our machines a la Logan’s Run…but I think Human Right’s Watch and Amnesty would have quite a fit. Instead, we should think in another view – an increase of people decreases other uses, because each person takes a fraction of what they do now – and by that I mean a real, meaningful fraction, like 1/100, not ¾. And that is in terms of impact, meaning our consumption of raw materials is lessened, and thus movement of materials is lessened, and the allocation of land to each person is lessened, and new construction costs are lessened. Creating a unit of structure that maximizes our use of the land allotted to us, which would be calculated based upon a sustainable ecological footprint, using a basic frame system of a near universally abundant, and universally viable materials, with local materials filling out the rest. This frame is either composed of smaller, flexible modules, or is one in and of itself, such as it can be retroactively applied to existing structures, and redefine living spaces.
-