intelligent skins and the effective use of folds, but does it always have to be the Santa Monica pier? Further down, later on, we would see such an alternative, in the reference to the famous cliff-wall at Santa Monica beach (‘Microformic Landscape Surfaces’; Barbara Huang). Now this is another ‘entity’ at the same locale, that has not received the same level of attention as the pier, but certainly ‘deserves’ it (I jog weekly at the top of that cliff, the ‘linear park’). An architectural softening of the cliff, with urban furniture, fluid retaining walls, undulating pathways. It is comforting to see that this option has not died out (natural surface made architectural, ‘parent’ of the current synthetic framings that recall nature) We left behind some beautiful photographs of the LA beach, on that wall, as we headed south. Some other projects came and went, in the midst of endless hallways, access points, studio modules, and visions of Fung and Erdman and Díaz Alonso and Sherman. “Why is it that I always like the projects in here so much better?”, Erin wondered, as we arrived at the core of the building. For one might be tempted to assume that no point is privileged in this lineal architecture, but there is a width to this line, and it is only at the center where the hallway depth is replaced by the ‘wide hallway’ (presentation area) and then the ‘room’ (lecture hall).
Not the pier, at Santa Monica beach.
Worthy of note, here, many of the rest of the projects, beginning with… ‘Appropriation of Borrowed Space’ (Sri Sumantri) In a 5-block, 1-mile-long urbanscape strip between Glendale and Highway 101, Sri invades the world with modular commercial/display units (public toilets, shoe-shine, flowers, produce,…). These ‘parasitic’ elements are scattered throughout, allowing for an enriched streetscape (“anyone can use a module”). To this point, all is fine and seen before. I must admit that we had been initially been attracted by the fact that the advisor was Perry Kulper, whom we pleasantly remember from other texts on this list: ‘RED’ (12-13-2002) and ‘Kulper’ (3-31-2003). And there did end up being something here, in this thesis, but not as it was implemented… more in its potential. To begin with, the modules have the potential of being put away, but who would put them away, if they belonged to anyone? Who locks them in place, if they belong to anyone? To this, Sri adds the formalized acknowledgement of the ‘mark’ (as the units are put away, they leave remnant ‘marks’ behind (in an urban environment where graffiti and vandalism are prevalent): scratches and gaps in the ground, shapes on the walls. But she does nothing further with these. And the role of the marks as ornamentation is further formalized in consideration of other ‘marks’ that have not been addressed (such as the potential partial-shapes, as the units are only put away partially or maybe opened up ‘illegally’ at night). Comments from the jury: “How do local codes affect the development of these units?” [the thesis is committed to disrupting an established program, but does so without understanding the social framework of that program] [the same goes for an understanding of the structural/stylistic framework:] “We’re not getting into the existing architectural life of this strip.” “The graffiti that inspired these ‘marks’ remains as a part of the local reality [it is not merely a poetic inspiration]; how does this new program affect the implementation of graffiti that is still alive and well in the area.” “The fixedness of this modularity calls for increased complexity.” “How light can architecture be, within the existing local context?”
Remnant ‘marks’.
Marked details.
