six weeks. I was looking at a lot of details, but wanted to document everything. RF: Beyond immersing yourself into their physical body condition, you also navigated around Neufert’s drawing and I’m curious about what that was, Emma. There was a red-lining process that happened and critiquing those conditions. Saying that their standards aren’t practical because they don’t cater to an individual but are based on a collective analysis.
squat, you can’t lift both hands above your head to grab something heavy. What you can and cannot lift is now different. I went through these measured, assumed norms and said that doesn’t work. You need to be able to design a space for someone that can lift one hundred pounds over their head or someone that can only lift one pound over their head. Both are valid.
RF: It’s not just a critique of the drawing set but a reinterpretation or remapping of body EM: Well, I think it’s easy to critique Neufert now and space to the current conditions of our because we’re not just assessing Anglo-Saxon society and how we are using it now. men in the profession. I understand that Neufert was working under certain conditions that to him, EM: Yes, but for the sake of the project I was were normal. The idea of designing spaces for only looking at one-sided paralysis. It definitely an able body, middle aged, six-foot tall man was did open up a conversation for exactly what completely normal. I don’t initially critique him, you said. but the drawings in a modern context definitely don’t work. The red-lining of Neufert was looking RF: I think that’s interesting, if I could make through Hemiparesis, what would the new two points. Nabil it seems as if you were drawings look like. They were completely limited essentially mapping the inverse of what Emma to one side of the body, mirrored dependent was focusing on. Spatial implications on the on which side you were disabled on. This idea individual and what those conditions were of a person’s body in motion being completely at an urban scale. Emma’s focus was the mappable doesn’t work when on one side you opposite -- she was focusing on the individual can raise your hand all the way to your head or into an urban landscape. beyond and the other side you could only lift it sixty degrees from your side. NF: That’s actually one of the comments I wrote down. That’s funny, go on. Even within that critique you’re assuming that someone with Hemiparesis can lift their arm RF: That’s one of my first observations. The that high where some people can’t even lift their second one is that what you just mentioned, arms at all anymore. It became very a critique both of the projects are finally resolved or have of how these spaces now get quantified when a solution. That’s what she was mentioning you can only use half of your body. Where do too is that in no way did she think she was you start putting your emphasis? Where do successful in identifying a solution, it was these assumptions about how we maneuver more of a stepping stone to renavigate space, through space need to disappear completely which is what you are talking about. All of the or be completely reimagined. I didn’t find a lot sketches and collages that you produced a of conditions that were covered. I feel like they new way to understand the environment that were baseline conditions of Hemiparesis that you were occupying. needed to be addressed. For instance, you can stand when you have Hemiparesis but can you NF: The sketching and collaging was really squat when you need to grab something from important because Tokyo, Japan is such a under your bed? No, you can’t. It was mostly a raw and organic city and so using such a raw red-lining of those conditions saying you can’t and organic medium was perfectly compatible
heirarchy of spatial effects in urban contexts 161