Defining our respective roles for this project has been a challenge. We knew from the beginning it would not be like a typical studio partnership, where the design is produced essentially in constant coordination. We would at times diverge and follow our own passions in segments of the project and hopefully sew these segments together to inform a more cohesive and comprehensive project. So, problem is, what does that look like exactly?
The important part about sewing our respective directions together, is that our respective passions are not lost to too much compromise. A thesis is, afterall, a time to do whatever the hell you want (to a certain extent…you might as well enjoy what you’re doing!). If we were to distill our original larger goals for thesis they were as follows:
Nicky: Get to design and do it with the “thick” site reading methods we have been developing. It would be ideal if the design process and final design is different than what we might encounter in the professional realm in the future: a giant outdoor educational experience, a giant outdoor museum, etc.
Trevor: Focus on how site reading can be “thickened” by dynamic media, specifically sound, film, and the editing of these elements together, and then layering them on existing analysis methods such as mapping. The goal of all of this is to use these methods to tell a story and evoke some sort of artistic expression of how a site exists, essentially acting as a cinematographer of site.
As we have discussed these aspirations it became apparent that we will start the design process in very similar places and diverge further on in the process to achieve our end goals. The process begins with selecting a site and doing a comprehensive inventory of it. This inventory should span scales and time and include lots of site visits. The hope during this time is to uncover the pieces of a site that make it unique; its poetic narratives that give the design and storytelling process meaning.
At this point, we will likely start to diverge but still work in tandem. Nicky will use what we find in these “thick” reading stages to inform an intervention on the spaces that could be something implemented and physical. She will of course continue to use “reading” methods to inform the design, but the intervention becomes the focus at this point. Trevor will run with the storytelling process, zooming in and framing what the site shares to tell a more robust set of narratives. The act of intervening with the intention to create something physical will be mostly dismissed, replaced by trying to choreograph the site to instigate change or share knowledge.
In many ways this process reflects the difference between a design thesis and a research thesis. Our hope is having them work side by side will inform a more complete vision of the site, including its potential to evolve by being understood in new physical and conceptual ways.