I would like to apologize for the lateness of this post...

After the review and some criticism from others, I think what is most important for myself is a little more focus. It goes without saying that my book is in need of some help. I think that through strengthening the book, It will become clearer what my next step will be. My main priority for the break is to fill in the gaps of the book and come back with a clear direction so that upcoming semester is primarily a semester of production.

As for the review, I think we all learned a great deal from the critics and from others projects. If it is possible, I would like to see much more of Michael Eng in class discussions/reviews, he raised the bar of our ongoing synaesthesia discussion quite a few notches. I have listed a few quotes that are general in nature (including my own input after a few) from the critics which I think all of our projects can benefit from

Michael to Alex “Synaesthesia is the spacialization of space”.
Michael to Alex “talk about memory in its materiality”. I think this is important for all of us, to talk about our projects almost exclusively in their materiality, otherwise, senses are not directly involved.
Michael to Alex “Don’t invent by yourself, look at what others have done”
Michael to Alex “Architecture is a fictive practice, tactility, gravity, etc are imaginary, your assignment should unmask this fictive operation.
Marc to Alex “Go back to first year. First year is about the fundamentals of architecture”
Mark P to Alex “Do life (sensorial experiences) and then write it down” I think this would be a good exercise for everybody.
Evan to Chris “Be more of an astronaut and jump out of a plane” This applies to all of us, especially for the last semester of our time at Pratt. Seriously, It’s our thesis.
Evan to Chris (paraphrased) “Thesis is about presenting a few models and drawings, what do you say with them? You need to do a prolific amount to clarify what it is you are saying and then represent that through only a few final drawings/models that say it very well”
Anthony to Dave “its about confluence between garden and laundromat” The majority of us are dealing with a kind of confluence between multiple experiences/programs and we need to think of how that blending occurs. Its not necessarily about the programs, but the blending of the programs. An intersection of two programs is not two programs, it is one program. That’s why I think confluence is a good word.
Anthony to Stanly “Louis Kahn started with the room” I think this is directly related to Dan’s programmatic detail.
Jeff to Namtip “Art is not visual, it is experiential”

I feel that the most important criticism I received was from Anthony Caradonna. He spoke about quickly moving past the analytical aspect of the project (cataloging the existing experiential) and getting to the design and to creating my own experiences. In knowing how I work, I was somewhat hesitant in choosing an already existing building because I could see myself getting too hung up in pulling apart what was already there which would delay the design of what was to come. In the upcoming semester, I think the analysis of the substation and my own design may have to happen simultaneously which will allow them to inform eachother.

A few general topics that the substation/terminal brings into question.
Micro/Macro: The inner aspects of the building and the specific experiences that occur as opposed to the building as a part of the much greater whole of Newark and New York in its function as a terminal. This will require a simultaneous zooming in and zooming out.

Fragment/Whole: I have been thinking alot about what Anthony said, “Louis Kahn started with the room”. In response to my circuit diagram, my design will begin with fragments/characters within the space (going back to my original analysis of Scarpa and Klee). As I stated in my review, the circuit diagram isolates distinct elements within the space, characterizes them, and then groups them according to how they are related. I feel that design can happen in this same way, by “starting with the room”. If I design through multiple specific interventions at many scales, in the end, they will form to create a greater segmented whole. Rather than one project, a series of projects. In a wiring diagram, a lightbulb is a distinct entity as is a fuse, switch, etc. They only become connected when they are wired together.

Isolated/Integrated: The building is in a somewhat paradoxical situation of being severed via means of connection (river, highways, rail). It is currently bypassed. The challenge will be to reintegrate it into the network of transportation.

Existing/Created: What will be kept from the existing and what will have to be added. This is currently one of my greatest questions, how much is to be kept? This will come with further documentation of the existing building. What is important here is to define existing/creating. The site is a stockpile of existing sensorial conditions that do not have to be kept as they are, but recycled/reinterpreted and then re – presented. To be clearer, even if I were to raze the entire building, a vast amount could be salvaged, as Michael Eng said, “tactility, gravity, etc are imaginary”. I guess what I'm saying is that the experience can be separated from the means that creates it, a heavy door that closes with a dead slam transitioning between a dimly lit space and a bright open window can obviously exist without the specific door and spaces that are seen in my film.

1st Person/3rd Person: I think that this is important for all of us. When is it necessary to see in the perspective as a person walking through space and when is it necessary to see as “the architect” in plan/section? As part of my performative technique, film will be used to classify the experiential or 1st person aspect of the project. The circuit diagramming will hopefully mature and enable me to cover both. I see my circuit diagram becoming somewhat more painterly in that it will not be only quantitative. An example of this is when my friend and I heard the screeching fan for the first time, we were genuinely afraid. I would like to translate emotions like this into the diagram if possible. If it is not in the diagram, maybe it is in a joint model. Also, I can’t help but think of a class that I previously had in which the professor mentioned chess notation. Chess up until only a short time ago was notated in a way that took into account the player and his/her relation to the board/pieces. This is the 1st person view. It was notated something like “White P – R 4”. I am not totally sure what the exact notation means, but it is something along the lines of “Rook to the right 4 spaces”. In the 3rd person/Planemetric view, "right 4 spaces" means nothing because more than one right exists, the right of the black player and the right of the white player. My professor said that the traditional notation is favored among serious players because it allows multiple dimensions to the game (In serious games, a player may actually need to get up and see the board from his opponent's point of view). The current notational system was designed in order to allow for programmers to create the big chess computers designed to beat the masters. This system names each square with a notation like “E-4”. Here, E-4 is universal, it is the same to all players, regardless of where they are. This eliminates the multi dimensional nature of the game and represents a very complex game in an oversimplified 1 dimensional view. In a long winded way, I am basically trying to say that one thing that needs to be considered is the multiple perspectives that the project must be seen from. When it is necessary to zoom in and talk about the sound of your footstep on the floor and when it is necessary to talk about the big picture.

There will be more to come, I just wanted to get something on the blog…