REFLECTION

The project I have developed in the second phase of this term’s studio exists only due to the extensive community research done by me and my teammates and the guidance offered by community members in the first phase. In all my studio projects thus far, site analysis has been much briefer. In the usual order of things, I would be assigned a site and design a building I think would respond to the project brief to the best of my abilities. However, following the documentation in Phase I, it seemed less appropriate to choose a single site and impose an intervention on it.

This term, I chose a different approach. What does architecture look like without one single site? How can it accommodate an ever-changing program? How can it be disassembled and reassembled? How can it be enlarged, reconfigured, or reduced?

Addressing access to transit as a primary goal for the project allowed me to work in the smaller scale of bus shelters. I have enjoyed and feel that I’ve learned a lot from working at this scale and being compelled to consider finer details in my design, such as joints and assembly, in hopes of creating something that approaches a more modest, feasible proposal than in previous studios.