Guadalajara Post-Mordem.

Across a litany of issues that I have recorded as being my personal criticisms of the Guadalajara project, including many issues that I wish to research deeper, there was one that sort of stuck out most. During the design phase of the competition I was well aware that my project was more "real" than what the competition was looking for. More specifically, they were looking for ideas on what a city in this location could be whereas I was really setting out a new system for ordering urban conditions - many of the ideas I had been developing for several years, and here was a chance to apply them all in a real-world location, with a geography I could actually use to form these lucid ideas.

So when the winning entry is announced, I notice two things about it: a) it is similar to mine, but taken further, and b) I need to take my projects further.

Again, I'm trapped in this cycle of thinking that my project was too "real" and didn't push the boundaries enough, then reminding myself that these were ideas I wanted to explore. Perhaps now that I've put them down on paper I can begin to explore them further. So here's an abbreviated analysis of the two projects.

Both projects are exploring a linear mobility structure, accentuated with openings and enlargements at key intervals. Whereas my project explored this idea in plan and ultimately placed these linear routes onto the landscape, the winning design explores the idea sectionally and subtractively by carving them from stone. I've always felt that these are two of the weaker points of studying at UWM, that I have been trained to well in designing in plan and not well enough designing subtractively. Perhaps this is one of the lessons I will take away from this project. The two schemes are designed at completely different densities and populations, and having my target population in mind would muddy the other concept.

What gives me hope is that I am on the correct path; that this idea of a linear system punctuated by public space is a valid strategy. I think that burying it in the face of the mountain is a beautiful move, and its excitement, if not feasible or practical, is stunning (but there's those words again!). I'd like to say that had I not been transcribing previous ideas I would have had a similar response but I don't think I would have. A catalogue of my work shows a consistent failure to push design far enough to leave the realm of pragmatism and enter pure architectural speculation.

My final project at UVA was a similar venture, laden with good intentions but stifled by pragmatism. During my final review I was told that my project would be really great if I had had another 2 weeks to work on it but I've never been sure about that. Once I gave that same criticism to a student a few weeks ago and I realized what it meant: it's not that the project wasn't refined, it's that it was too refined. Boxed in by my own perception of what a final product should be, I resort to details when I have yet to capture the potential spirit of the concept. I can only hope that I will be able to take that away from this competition; that I should continue to explore and model, think in all planes before committing. Yes I had only a week. Yes I was recording my ideas into one project. But that should not keep me from taking it further.