Project Reflectance: Part 2: Boxitexture

The next part is a problem I have with the broader picture of things regarding....

"boxitecture."

This portion has to do with design communication. Thomas, the architecture professor from UNCC, made a comment that I would like to address. Our group made an attempt at arguing the architecture of the building, for it to be something other than a box. His response was something along the lines of:

"Its not about whether or not I like the building, and I don't, its about you convincing me, making an argument for your ideas and decisions."

I agree with him (I don't like our building either). What I have a problem with is that a box doesn't have to explain its form because it exists as 99% of the buildings we come into contact with. You throw a column grid in there and the envelope is automatically assumed as resolved. It is an architectural standard for the human race. I know there are reasons for standards, but a standard is not perfect, nor is it the best possible response to anything. Modernism, to me, is about "simplified and efficient" boxes (a striking similarity to McMansion developments, no?).

This next part gets a little bit more personal but it still has relevance.

There was a comment that a peer made about our building design. She said it appeared as if we designed from the outside, in (this comment was particular to our group). It was puzzling to me that she said this to us and not anyone else. After some thought, her comment actually proves the point I'm making about people's perception about building forms and boxes. If you look at the other projects in the class, they are more or less boxes (one taller, wider, and fatter & one shorter, longer, and skinner). There is nothing wrong with that. It is what they chose to do for reasons unbeknownst to me. They didn't have to explain their choice of form, nor was there any question that they designed from the outside in, because it was assumed they designed from the inside out (which they didn't, as much as they might try to say they did if I were to have this conversation with them).

It bothers the hell out of me that my peer, bright and intelligent as she is, automatically assumed that since the building wasn't a box that it meant we created a shell without the interior spaces in mind. Unfortunately, she is then making the horrible and horrendous assumption that all interior space should also exist in some form of a box. One could take this even further and say that all products and furnishings are meant for box like rooms, in box like buildings. I felt insulted (after the fact). If anything, I must say that we are the only group that developed and designed the inside space and exterior envelope cohesively which is part of the reason why our project was as unresolved as it was. It was a challenge we wanted to take on because that is what you are supposed to do in an academic environment, regardless of whether or not it is successfully met. We didn't a create box and arrange program inside of it (like so many architecture firms and students have done before us). I'd also like to point out that our building was the only building that successfully engaged the automobile, train, and pedestrian. They were a success because of the investigation and response via the synergy of our program, form, and site. Did I mention I'm proud of a lot of things we did do as a group? If creating a box and arranging program inside of it is designing from the inside-out, then I must be psychotic in the way that I think about things.

On to another tangent!

Perhaps a lesson learned would be that we should have placed the emphasis on our individual projects in the presentation as opposed to generally talking about the process of the group project, which, honestly now that I think about it, served no real purpose of conveying an argument for the design or form, which is apparently what people wanted the most. I also feel we missed the opportunity for genuine feedback on our individual projects which fell to the way side and got lost in the walkaround aftermath.

The experience as a whole begs the question, how much of this has to do with boxitecture's influence over the minds of students, professionals, and the general public?

Lessons learned indeed.