-- midreview 18 mar

initial questions: Strategy. At what level/how am I looking to prove the argument?
1--highly articulate skin
2--highly articulate interior
3--context-generating; how can my project form the city?
Pick one strategy, pick one scale.

Restate the thesis so that we know what aspect you are dealing with. is it Public, Urbanism, Community/User, Water? now they all seem superficial, easy to question/break down.

INTERIORITY. Talking about the building envelope and dematerialization is too literal. Redefine "interior" (since it is no longer defined by climate barrier), and state it very clearly--use this to reprocess my analytical work thus far.

The model began to get beyond this, as rather than being a single surface it made spaces that were more like involutions.

LV could be seen as a series of points, but if interior is not defined by building envelopes then the city is actually already a fabric of interiors, and can be seen as more continuous. Perhaps this changes the idea of edges I've mapped; for example, the access road becomes part of the interior because it is also within the condition/process. This connection between road-parking-casino offers a precedent for connection, if a poor one (as malls, casinos, gated communities are precedents for continuous interiors, if poor ones). One suggestion: start with a Nolli map of the city, and then re-engage that network of spaces. [TO DO define very precisely the elements of the border that I've identified, and rework exisitng site map to communicate those elements/nolli-style map more clearly]

Las Vegas is attempting to reclaim exteriority as "urbanism" (as interior), creating spectacle in the form of towers. What is urbanity then? Is it density? Is it public?
The challenge is to develop a really "free" urbanity but that also has a climate control system to deal with the extreme Vegas environment. This key strategy is necessary before the massing. It may be that the building does not need to be so articulated, but rather I must articulate a careful understanding of the operation. This could help synthesize the breakdown of scales I'm using now, and allow an integration of water.

(1) The water strategy should be emphasized and developed as a network. It should be worked into a public consciousness, as an alternative notion of network, maybe with the nodes as incubators. Perhaps many nodes need exploration as part of my hypothesis--I need a better way of designating them.

In rethinking "public," I must define different publics. Casinos are now oriented toward adults, but what about the families, kids, non-casino-goers in the city. Identify the various motives in the city. The division is not necessarily about tourist vs resident, but age, economic status, etc. [TO DO finish character/roles diagram to be more clear about who I'm engaging]
Also be wary of using "freedom" as a cliche. Is there a way to create real freedom in the city? BE VERY CRITICAL.

(2) I should be directly engaging Venturi, as I need to have a counter-argument or continued argument to deal with image, which has shifted to become interior as well (themed interiors as billboards). Also reference Koolhaas, No-Stop Air Conditioned Space.

Situated post-Venturi, it seems I could take either a nesting or a layering strategy. Nesting would mean having nodes of certain publics within larger areas. Layering would involve having a gradient of publics. [I think I'm into the layering...]

To what extent does the Strip = LV? I have to be cognizant that my site is dealing with an urbanism that is completely idiosyncratic and not repeatable. This could be a problem if I'm trying make an argument that is more general, engaging a larger issue of interiority. (Martin suggested that I look at something more generic, like a shopping mall amidst more typical neighborhoods.)
Also, emphasize community. It seemed that I was focused on getting people from the Strip but ignoring the rest of the community. Is this border too hard a divide?

The question of dance (which John posited as a program inextricable from ideas of interiority and human comfort) needs to be pushed. Inge was skeptical of a dance center that has classes because that means people pay and everything is orchestrated--not as interesting as real freedom. [TO DO research dance as catalyst of activity in the city to reposition program...]

No comments: