Interesting subject. I definitely think it is architecture + a social study, which makes it even more compelling. That paragraph which you described as your "draft of the introduction" is a bit muddled though. I think what you are trying to convey, but what I don't get in that paragraph, is a sense that there is a relationship between the built environment and the quest for fresh air. What kind of architecture delineates smoking spaces? What delineates "fresh air" spaces? How are the two different, in China or elsewhere? How do you think they will evolve? I think you have chosen a topic which has received very little academic attention, and this is a good thing, but it means you might have to draw a lot of your own conclusions.

Good luck and let us know what you come up with.

UPDATE:

There is a weird non-distinction between what is toxic and what is not in our contemporary society. The ‘SUFFOCATE’ project represented the moments of ersatz freedom that fresh air presents us with, which has proven increasing importance in our world that is vulnerable to the invasion of air spaces, be it by my argument, smokers, or simply by the pollution of toxic air borne particles, which has emerged as a by-product of industrialization. This manifesto, however, will focus on the former, and how this phenomenon has influenced and is influenced by the social, temporal and spatial ordering of a city.

China is the most smoke-filled country in the entire world. A basic research led us to an interesting discovery, that out of every three cigarettes smoked in the world, one of them is smoked in China. It is predicted that about two million Chinese will die of smoking in 2020 if the condition persists. With the issue posing exceedingly serious health problems in the nation, I have thus made a decision to examine the matter in question.

In ‘SUFFOCATE’, the smoking addicts were to be enclosed in spaces trapped within their own cigarette poison. Tiny holes were punctured in the facades to accentuate their increasing desperation for fresh air. When viewed from the external of the shell, the smoke volumes characterized the space and distinguished it from spaces without fumes. As the bodies of smoke rises, the intention to establish the toxicity of the space grew with increasing awareness. In order to make a stronger statement, the staff of the smoking addiction cure centre was made to wear gas masks, so as not to be exposed to the toxic cigarette smoke.

With this, I raise a question. What is really safe?

Is it the supposedly clean environment that the staff lives in, behind the barriers of gas masks where they are in danger of exposure to toxicity, the mind being so afraid to breathe? Or could it be the environment that is filled with more than four thousand toxic emissions where the smoking addicts are constantly living in, yet are oblivious to?

In the 1995 film 'Safe' by Todd Haynes, identity formation was addressed, with the main character, Carol White, evoking the vulnerable, fractured nature of modern identities. Its theme of a disease caused by environmental pollution grew with uncertainty as the film plays, and it makes one wonder, ‘the toxicity of contemporary life’, is it fact or psychological?



However, I’m really stuck as to how to link this psychological thing to urban design cause right now it’s more like a social study and I don’t see how it links back to architecture and so hoping that someone could enlighten me.

here's what FrEd!SaId! about it.

im beginning to think about the social segregation of smokers and how the public eye views them. eg. in airports there are smoking 'tanks' whereby the smokers are almost exhibits. im now exploring the identity and character of spaces AND people through designated smoking areas. smoking as defining inside AND outside spaces. how the ban of smoking in certain places push the smokers to marginal city and its impact in urban context.

You have alot of different ideas going on there... something of an idea about surveillance...?

It seems to me that you can tie this back to architecture by talking about space and territories of smokers and non smokers... The power dynamic of those places, the political dimension to it... marginal spaces, heterotopia...

I feel like Edward Soja, thirdspace is worth reading as an aside...

It seems sort of ironic in America that as bans on smoking increase, and smokers are supposedly marginalized, the territories have shifted... Smokers, in being pushed to the margins, are the ones who tend to have their "fresh air" sanctuaries outside while non-smokers tend to be trapped on the inside, within their hermetically sealed building boxes... there is definitely a kind of territorial struggle there...

It might be interesting to look at different cities, different countries, cultures, and compare how the territories differ from place to place... Office workers in China o Japan for example have a different sense of territory from office workers in America, from people in Rome or in Las Vegas for example...

There are ideas about public and private there that can come into play too I think...

I don't think you can make a solid argument that smoking really makes a difference in an urban environment, at least not in the US. it has been ages since you could smoke in most indoor areas.

Obviously, there are a million other polluting/toxic factors, not as glamorous for a paper, though - like cars, buildings, etc., etc.

The surveillance ideas seem much more interesting. If you are interested in toxicity, look at the HVAC systems and lack of quality, fresh air, filtration, sickness, work motivation, etc.



Personally, I'd be more interested in noise pollution and those implications of private/public, where the boundaries are (for example, many cities have the 'if music is x decibels at x distance it is illegal')

no smoking in urban environments and more music on the streets sounds good to me for health and happiness

i need to propose a detailed itinerary too. places to visit. institutes. why and how.

and err where do i go? day 1. street A. day 2. street B?

trace, it's only been ages in louisville if by 'ages' you mean '6 months'. and in the smaller cities it's not only allowed but common.

overall the southeast has had a less easy time making those regulations stick.

The whole thing seems like a fairly weird thing to spend one's time on to me -- sounds a lot more like an observational piece on some specific instances of the law of unintended consequences.