Reading Response 04

I thought the reading was very helpful and interesting to think about; the layout of the different methods of producing a program certainly helped me expand the ways I generally attempt at the task.

There is one method though that made me think of an objection I have against some forms of programmatic design. It was while reading about “The Dive” method (“using a program to generate a single swooping form”) that I was reminded of OMA and how apposed I am to their transition of program to form. Why? Because more often than not it is WAY too literal.

I will use the Seattle Public Library as my example. The process of programming done by OMA for this project was incredibly successful; they analyzed and questioned what a library was with the intent of creating a new program that addressed problems in a library that had occurred because of the change in how people used the library. After such thorough and thorough and intelligent studies/compilations of program; it seems as though the form of the building was taken from one of the many unique diagrams DEPICTING the program. I know that was certainly not the ONLY driver of the form; but the similarities are very apparent.
And the same is true for many other OMA projects; the form takes on a shape that heavily resembles the program diagram.

I want to stay away from that, and especially considering the program I have finally chosen for my thesis. I have decided to create a public market/bazaar in a site that is still to be determined. I believe this program will offer me the most investigation in how the intent of an architectural experience can guide the design/form/program of a project.