Aack – unfortunate that we won’t have a discussion over this reading, as I’m still pretty lost as to what I should be taking away from it. More than anything it seems to remind me of the power of constraints (as it did Tiffany). The third building seemed to start from a well grounded understanding of the constraints and desires of the users. However they also seemed to need continual re-design as they kept missing pieces or had their sights set too lofty (Moving the theaters underground, cutting out the technology half, etc.)

The second (as I read it) didn’t seem to do well until constraints about separating the hospital and hotel, and treating the rooms within as variable arose. This I probably found to be the most interesting one, as while I disliked the idea of compartmentalizing everything and keeping the aesthetic and function separate, it also gives the most power to the owners of the hotel to re-imagine as needed. (Assuming I understood that argument correctly).

However, it’s the first design that resonated most with me, as it seems very similar to that which we went through in IDP. Build something, evaluate it, find the issues, introduce constraints when necessary. Here of course the problem is that the constraints introduced were up to the architect’s whim, and not inspired by user needs (But that seems like an overall trend throughout).

But yeah – constraints. Obviously a huge huge help for designers – in no instance here could the designers really begin without them. In addition to that, the other really interesting point was that of sticking doggedly to the ‘big picture’, or initial ideas. Sometimes this turned out well. Sometimes it didn’t. When to do this and when not to? Good question.

Advertisements