“Vehr ist the money Lebowski?“ The critique was both inspiring and tangential. What to do? take on pure formalism or functional based architecture? Before I go into this my critics were:
Keith Sawyers
Jeff Day
Martin Despang
Hyun Tae Jung
Chris Ford
In summary, I have been exploring my site (roughly 56 city blocks) on a macro and micro level. In other words, zooming way out to a global scale and zooming in to the products that Kawasaki manufactures along with various agricultural equipment. These are all welded into a matrix that lines up the components on an equal benchmark. The matrix protects against a hierarchy that usually exists in an architectural project. The question is what do I do with the information? My critics were split, some wanted the studies I did of the interior program to be rearranged and begin to influence the new R + D attachment and others wanted the aesthetic and form of the machine to be the propellant. I believe that both can happen. The OMA side of me enjoys stacking, rearranging, and wrapping the program in a skin; the other has an appreciation with the machine aesthetic like Wes Jones Partners. Which brings me to another point; When did I start aligning myself with other architects? I've never believed in using precedents for my projects. Not because I think I need to invent something new, but I'd rather find my own way to a solution with out the influence of something built. I'd much rather reference an image of a baseball pitcher in mid-throw or a river hitting its equilibrium profile and flooding its banks to reset itself then another piece of architecture. Moving on... I believe a marriage of the form and function will work because the two, by association share these traits.
In the end, the terminal project has to be a piece of architecture to facilitate at a human scale, therefore, the program layering and stacking prepares me for a well working creation. The packaging (Heidegger's definition) can take advantage of the aesthetics of the machine. Mental imagery produced by the word “machine” might indicate a very explicit and overly complex moving part; however this is too literal and archaic of an interpretation. Technology has evolved from mere dynamic parts. Using the latest technology is what it wants.

AJ