The Making of a Building: A Pragmatist Approach to Architecture  --  Albena
Yaneva

Full Citation and Summary Yaneva, Albena. The Making of a Building: A
Pragmatist Approach to Architecture. N.p., 2009. Print.

This book consists of a two-year (2001-2003) ethnographic investigation of OMA,
with a focus on the schematic design phase of their NEWhitney project. Yaneva
takes a Pragmatist approach to Architecture, homing in on the specific
empirical practices of designing rather than approaching via external theories
and frameworks. Yaneva's methods are heavily influenced by the work of Bruno
Latour (ANT) and the, at the time, emergent field of Science and Technology
Studies (STS).


Chapter Notes

Introduction (pp. 1-37)
Intro section (pp. 1-3)
- Starting with a "second person" narration of approaching and entering the OMA
 office in Rotterdam, then having Rem introduce the project that's gonna be
 talked about, the NEWhitney in NYC (pp. 1-2)
- Introduces the whole framework for the project: AY did an embedded
 ethnography at OMA with a focus on modelling operations, with the aim of
 understanding how the museum was conceived and realised (pp. 3)
- To Study the Pragmatics of Design (pp. 4-7)
- Design/planning as a form of technology, legitimizes STS direction (pp. 3)
- Sets up the gap that she will fill: approaching the "actual dynamics of
 architectural design" (pp. 4)
- Book's aim: examine social (emphasised) and cognitive complexity of
 architecture in-process, expose the specific operations materially (pp. 4)
- STS methods previously applied in scientific contexts, applied here (pp. 4)
- note 2 is on "transportability" of STS methods; also the still-existing need
 for empirical research (important for me)
- Note 5 covers Latour's anthropological program of Symmetrical Anthropology:
 "puts into question both the idea of nature and that of culture and their
 multiplicity without prioritizing a privileged point of view," examination of
 "Moderns", related to anthropology of the present (see Latour 2007)
- Research question: "How do architects learn about an extant building and its
 unknown, projected and anticipated extension that is to be added?" (pp. 5)
- Focusing in on different modes of gaining knowledge about the building
- Assumption that buildings are "pragmatically knowable" and not symbolic or
 expressive (pp. 6)
- Each chapter presents a way architects make a building knowable; overall
 argument that making-knowable is composed of many small operations (pp. 6)
- Architects also learn about modulation of social groupings and how to
 incorporate their reactions, interests into the building
- Arguments rely on a "theory of interpretation"; interpretation of objects and
 the world; openness to interpretation is a product of the building's own
 activities; extending (and reusing) makes the building speak (when it otherwise
 wouldn't) (pp. 7)
- Two analytical strands: (pp. 7)
- Addition; a refining process where new meaning and constraint is added
- Accumulation ("piling up"); a proliferation where concerns and requirements
 pile up as models
- The Social Life of the Whitney Museum as a Design Object (pp. 8-20)
- Note 7 on "social life of objects" (Appadurai's term) [see Dan Hicks'
 critique of object biography] (pp. 8)
- Whitney museum as already object of controversies; 3 distinct periods: (pp.
 8)
- 1) 1960s over original Marcel Breuer modernist building (pp. 8)
- The original controversy marked by aversion to the Modernist aesthetic
 statement
- The above would later invert: it's qualities would be loved by New Yorkers
- 2) 1966-1989 over the first round of possible expansions (pp. 9-10)
- 1966-1978 phase associated with speculation on extension, responding to lack
 of space (pp. 9)
- 1979-1980 phase of commissioning Derek Walker & Foster (pp. 9)
- 1981-1989 Michael Graves commissioned for extension and the controversy
 surrounding him due to his monumental scheme which knocked down historic
 brownstones (pp. 9-10)
- 3) 2001-2006 over Rem Koolhaas' two extension schemes (this is the subject of
 this book (pp. 10-11)
- Note 12 in regard to this: AY only followed the conceptual design stage (ie.
 Schematic Design)
- Presents a "projectogram" to make comparable all the states of the Whitney in
 each period (pp. 11); the projectogram itself is pp 12-13
- Projectogram is adapted from Stewart Brand's proposal of re-photographing
 buildings over the course of their existence (note 15)
- Reveals each scheme as an interpretation of the building, which mark critical
 points in its 40 yr "social biography" (pp. 14)
- Stressing the number of people involved and their heterogeneity despite the
 Koolhaas schemes never being made public; the amount the design material
 travelled (pp. 14)
- Lists a few of them: architects, engineers, cost evaluators, journalists,
 proto-users, Board of Trustees, planners (pp. 14-15)
- In note 16 a definition of proto-users: "a group of actors that witness the
 coming into being of an artwork and actively participate in its shaping a
 reshaping." This is related to a sense of "dirty realism" (Hill 1999)
- Stresses the lack of work on architectural controversies and the role of
 failed projects (pp. 15)
- Takes her cues from anthropology of tech./ STS and how they have shown that
 failure and success can be just as influential since they both "assemble
 numerous humans and non-humans"; "projects shape their own context (instead of
 being mere projections of it" (pp. 16)
- Shows that most examinations of architectural controversies fall back to
 thinking of them as battles of "styles (note 17)
- Note 18 on Latour's "non-human" as an expansion and replacement-for "object"
 by thinking of them as active, bypassing the subject-object distinction
- Explaining the project and its failure through the complexity of the
 architectural process rather than the building's design (pp. 18)
- Note 20: "actors" = all participants in a process, human and non-human
- Rejects the common position in architectural theory that buildings are
 conditioned by society and are instruments for shaping society (pp, 18) \
- "Buildings will be tackled here as becoming social..., as active participants
 in society, design -- as a process of recollecting, reinterpreting and
 "reassembling the social."" (pp. 18)
- Book examines changing role of museums and how architects were involved (pp,
 18-20)

Writing Style (pp. 20-22)
- Section on how the book works stylistically; images as enigmas that are
 built-out (pp. 20-21); use of architectural techniques (panels) (pp. 21); use
 of design process logic (existing in a clear and fuzzy state at once) (pp. 21);
 increasing number of actors (pp. 21)
- Stresses the multi-audience aspect of the book, it have something for
 everyone essentially (pp. 22)
- To Follow the Architects at Work (pp. 23-27)
- Rejects any attempt to find general rules or principles of design; rejects
 after-the-fact analyses of architects accounts of what they did (pp. 24)
- Rather, follows architects at work: describing design rhythms, making the
 architects' voices heard, hearing discussion in action (pp. 23-24)
- ANT is applied for "greater meticulousness"; notes its wide application to
 various kinds of processes (pp. 24)
- Stresses that knowledge about a general problem can be examined through
 local, empirical tracing of specific activities; in this case you can't rely
 on pre-established definitions; requires "watchful accounting" of everyday
 practices (pp. 24)
- Stresses that ANT approach does not mean examining how external elements
 happen in architectural contexts, but rather means studying particular ways
 and actions by which design knowledge is gained and how design artefacts are
 produced (pp. 25)
- Architects as making-possible all the objects/networks that constitute
 architecture in general (pp. 25)
- Not establishing rules, but examining transmutations between models and
 building; the procedures (pp. 26)

..in the Office (pp. 27-31)
- Stressing the spatial indeterminacy of the office: only Rem and admin have
 their own offices (pp. 28)
- Goes to the smallest spatial unit, to the project-team "bubble" (essentially
 social and not spatial) (pp. 28)
- Describes the digital/data component of the "flat" office: computers are all
 interchangeable, they access the same server and have the same files, all
 that's necessary is a login and password (pp. 29)
- Of note! AY stresses that files can be accessed and edited by anyone, but not
 simultaneously
- Multiple times and spaces, multiple kinds of temporal and spatial practices
 (pp. 29)
- Multiple modes of intensifying presence as a means of marking your space
- Note 33: AY assumes that discontinuity and versatility are the main features
 of architectural design, [in line with 90s theories of architecture; also
 note where she leans on pre-existing theories of architecture to clarify
 field-extracted data]

Ways of Watching (pp. 31-37)
- Covers her "technique of observation"; ie. how she achieved the various
 distances necessary (pp. 30)
- Use of ruses, of hiding interest, maintaining constant presence but ensuring
 that interest is not visible (pp. 31)
- Use of the archive as a place to rest, regroup, and plan; as a retreat (pp.
 32)
- Being given a label or name as a component of getting close to the research
 subjects (pp. 32)
- The notebook and the camera as only documentation devices; the recorder as
 interview documentation device (pp. 33)
- Two different distances enabled by visibility: close to actors/their actions
 directly participating in tasks & arm's length to observe (pp. 33)
- Note 36 communicates two classical views of anthropological distance:
 Malinowski and Geertz
- High speed of movement in process required curation of what was followed at
 any given time (pp. 34)
- "Living at the office" =/= getting a whole picture due to the working hours
 of architects (all-nighters and extra overtime) (pp. 34)


-Chapter 1 -- Designing Between Archives and Models (pp. 38-75)
Intro section (pp. 37-45)
- Descriptive-narrative comparison between morning and evening office activity,
 stresses morning slowness vs. evening intensity after the admin staff leave
 (pp. 38-39)
- Transitions to Carol, the project manager and her morning routine between
 "analog" and "digital" material (pp. 40)
- She is presented as communication node: she communicates via fax, she has
 access to the email account (pp. 40)
- Digital material = Whitney files (password protected); Analog material =
 Whitney books and paper file folders (Carol protected) (pp. 40)
- Bookshelf as archive of the Whitney's history; history is source for OMA
 schemes ("back to the bookshelves"); modelling is site for enacting the
 material extracted from the history (pp. 40-41)
- History, learning from history as clients' guarantee for the project (pp. 42)
- Note 1: on the zoning envelope; note how architects/clients/etc. understand
 their own work as being shaped by "external forces" (the zoning envelope eg.)
- Note 3: on AutoCAD, assertion that it is a direct 1:1 implementation of a
 virtual drafting board (ie. nothing has changed on the drawing front)
- Introduces that this chapter will be about the history that Whitney
 architects do in the process of design, a historical inquiry that is
 specifically architectural (pp. 42-43)
- Archival technique of constructing history of the building through documents
 (pp. 43)
- History through the historicization done by architects; not a historical
 backdrop but a "selective rendering" based only on how the OMA architects
 historicize and interpret (pp. 43)
- Note 8 on how this process is one of unfolding controversies
- The chapter is structured through the three major design constraints,
 exploring each in their historicization at OMA (pp. 44-45)
- `Not to Neglect the Breuer Building' (pp. 45-56)
- Section focuses on architectural interpretations of the original Breuer
 Whitney building (pp. 45-46)
- First activity in OMA design process/client-end assessment was comparative
 examination of Breuer building: how was it used and how is it used now? (pp.
 45-46)
- NEWhitney is defined by the Breuer Whitney: programmatically as an
 architectural correction tool to improve the Breuer building, aesthetically
 in choice of architect who would "fit" (pp. 46-47)
- Section on OMA's approach to extension vs. Graves' (pp. 48-54)
- Escaping the binary of presence vs. anonymity (note 12) through formal
 homage; extension as a "wing" (pp. 49-50)
- Formal distinctness with internal connectivity (pp. 51)
- Proposing harmonious spatial whole, extension of programs, redefinition of
 support space, even redistribution of collection (pp. 52)
- Respecting the Breuer means, for OMA, an intensification of links between old
 and new, but formal distinction (pp. 54)
- Extension is an interpretive practice, a reappraisal of the existing Breuer
 building (pp. 55)
- Note how "visitors" appear in this chapter; they always appear by proxy as
 abstract descriptors (pp. 54)

`Not to Demolish the Brownstones' (pp. 56-68)
- Locates the 6, Whitney owned, historic brownstones on the site (pp. 56),
 introduces that the city Landmarks Commission banned OMA from demolishing
 them (pp. 57), presents OMA's diagram for where their building fits on the tiny
 site footprint (pp. 57-58)
- Explains the diagram's logic, why the brownstones must be protected, through
 the Graves extension proposal and the intense controversy surrounding his
 plan (pp. 58-69)
- Williams Report, 1987 and the designation of "style buildings" which cannot
 be demolished vs. "no-style buildings" that can (pp. 58-60)
- This controls the rhythm of development in the borough around the Whitney to
 preserve the heterogeneous urban "character" of the area (pp. 60)
- Brownstone occupation changes: from galleries, to offices and support spaces
 (pp. 60-61)
- OMA response to the above two: the NEWhitney as "historicized" version of the
 present Whitney, it extracts and incorporates the whole history of the
 current building and the past "extension trials" (pp. 61)
- Changing interpretation of "don't demolish the brownstones": Breuer --
 directive unnecessary; Graves  --  directive is flexible; OMA -- directive is
 solid commandment (pp. 62)
- Argument that design concerns remain stable in each state, but the building
 is allowed to act differently by each group of actors
- Summary of pushback against Graves' proposal to demolish brownstones, mostly
 uses letters and newspaper clippings (pp. 64-69)
- Of note is that AY poses two forms of historical continuation against each
 other: the continuation of an institutional strategy (big architecture) vs.
 continuation of an "urban form" (pp. 68)
- Ends off by presenting her own moving back and forth in history, mirroring
 the architects' actions and adding a new interpretive layer to the Whitney
 (pp. 69)

`Not to Exceed the Zoning Envelope' (pp. 69-74)
- Focus on how zoning envelope is made-visible in design process & what zoning
 envelope does to models (pp. 69)
- Zoning regulations are all collected into a single plexi cover for the models
 which is a design tool for synchronizing city and design; imposes specific
 restrictions on model (pp. 69)
- Zoning envelope acts like an architect in how it shapes the extents of
 building form (pp. 71)
- Summary of zoning regs in NYC (pp. 69-71)
- Existence of regs produce new, specific questions (pp. 71)
- Interpretations of zoning regs: Graves fills space to the max (pp. 71),
 Richard Gluckman exceeds them through deal with the city in 1996 (pp. 72),
 Breuer inverts the envelope and doesn't fill it (pp. 73)
- OMA's interpretation in light of the above: to fit but not fill, to not
 exceed, but preserve the existing exceeding (pp. 73)S
- Historical practice as integral and routine to architecture, an interpretive
 practice of addition (pp. 74)


-Chapter 2 -- Recollecting the Building's Trajectory (pp. 75-113)
Intro section (pp. 75-77)
- Introduces the chapter as a summary of the "building career" of the Whitney,
 focusing the building's own design moves and the controversies which arose
 around them (pp. 75)
- "recollection" is curation of the past (history) and re-collecting of
 archival material, in this case documents (pp. 75)
- Comparison of design moves, how those specific moves challenge the definition
 of social and what buildings do; this follows the kind of historical inquiry
 OMA architects do at work (pp.76)
- Relies on assumption that a building is pragmatically knowable and not
 symbolic (pp. 75)
- Generally gets at a changing answer to the questions of what a building does
 and what it means to extend a building, what the social s and what it is made
 of (pp. 75-76)
- Note 4: Latour's assertion that looking at earlier stages in the construction
 of facts, machines, etc. provides a clearer view of the mechanisms by which
 controversies operate

An Upside-down Museum in Manhattan (pp. 78-87)
- Section on original Breuer building; covers the two most pertinent design
 moves: upside down structure & lack of windows (pp. 78)
- Upside Down (pp. 78-81)
- Describes inverted pyramid form of Breuer's Whitney, the specific spatial
 distribution it makes-possible (pp. 78)
- Stressing the way the inversion produces a specific kind of street-museum
 relation, an experience of viewing-into (pp. 78) that transforms pedestrians
 into visitors (pp. 79)
- Also stresses the reciprocal, the street brought into the museum as a
 component of the art-viewing experience (pp. 79)
- Response to the design: polarized, the building as a provocative artwork in
 itself (pp. 79-80)
- Adding to the city through intensity of difference, assembling more and more
 allies and critics around it to become active (pp. 80-81)
- Note 7: model of social from STS, more connectivity  more resources  more
 social

No Windows (pp. 81-87)
- No windows = more exhibition space & flexibility of space (pp. 81)
- Stiff, inflexible enclosure, MEP network, & track network means the interior
 space gains a level of flexibility that would otherwise be lacking (pp. 82)
- Ability to move walls, to change up lighting, to have consistent HVAC
 performance across whole exhibition space with no windows to modulate
 interior enviro (pp. 82-83)
- The location and spatial distribution of utilities takes on a larger role in
 the way the building works spatially (pp. 83)
- A series of stable "services" enable the building's own reconstitution for
 each exhibition (pp. 84)
- This kind of flexibility, the kinds of intimacy it is able to produce,
 modifies how American art is engaged: allows the diversity of American art to
 be articulated in the spatiality of the museum exhibition (pp. 84-85)
- Follows a new flexibility of institutional program: publishing, research,
 collecting, archiving, preserving, head-hunting (pp. 85)
- Design for the dynamics of living artists, rather than inert art archives
 (pp. 86)
- Stresses how the building draws new connections between various groups,
 becoming a social actor (pp. 86-87)
- A Decade of Design Controversies (pp. 87-107)
- Section on the Graves schemes; focuses on two design moves: enveloping the
 Breuer building & expanding horizontally on site (pp. 87)

To Embrace the Breuer Building (pp. 88-101)
- Summary of controversy around "merits and appropriateness" of Graves' schemes
 which envelop Breuer building in a large trademark-Graves mass (pp. 89-90)
- Three design plans: the original & two others that responded to the
 criticisms of disrespect to the Breuer, the third took 5 years to develop
 (pp. 90-91)
- Extended "extension trials" associated with Graves allowed Whitney & Breuer
 to be redefined (pp. 92)
- Coalescing of adversarial groups: pro (architects, museum admin, journalists)
 & anti (architects, community groups, journalists) (pp. 91)
- Graves' schemes as "stabilizing," of integrating the Breuer into the
 normative city framework, of dignifying it as thought the pros (pp. 93-96)
- Compared to OMA's strategy: to continue to the Breuer strategy by amplifying
 it rather than speculatively "completing" it (pp. 96)
- To continue Breuer rather than continue the city (in a way) (pp. 96)
- Second and third Graves schemes involved community consultation which made
 these groups active designers: civic leaders and neighbourhood residents (pp.
 98-99)
- Also, supporters of the original Graves scheme doing design work outside the
 architectural office in expressing their support/regurgitating arguments in
 favour of building (pp. 100)

To Expand Horizontally (pp. 101-107)
- Graves' horizontal expansion counter to Breuer's vertical distribution (pp.
 101)
- Whole collection chronologized and on display as opposed to exhibition driven
 spaces (pp. 102)
- Graves re-interprets Breuer building as flexible "kunsthalle" wing of a
 stable, permanent institution; Breuer building is transformed entirely
 through making it a component of a larger horizontality (pp. 102-103)
- Graves extends the museum program: eg. library, study space, storage, etc.;
 museum "experience" becomes object of controversy (pp. 103-104)
- Museum as "serious scholarship" vs. museum as entertainment experience (pp.
 104-105)
- Rethinking collection canon attached to expansion controversy, rethinking
 institutional management (role of trustees) attached too (pp. 106; note 36,
 38)

What Buildings Do (pp. 107-113)
- Every kind of engagement with the Breuer Whitney was one of
 re-interpretation; the new meanings and definitions were added (pp. 107)
- Each extension trial lead reopened the original building to reveal its
 salient features and mechanisms  rethinking the social, design, architecture,
 art, etc. (pp. 108)
- Method of getting close to protagonists and watching their statements change
 (note the proliferation of Names in this history) (pp. 108)
- The continual almost-extending as a "collective attribution of meaning" which
 sustains/verifies the "achievement" of the Breuer (pp. 109)
- Continual controversy, the controversy just relaxed and moved to the everyday
 "little battles" (pp. 110); the building makes the controversies (pp. 112)
- All extension trials became more-than-architectural even though they were
 sited architecturally (pp. 111)
- Note 44: architects as "socio-technicians" (social engineers); John Law's
 framework for thinking engineering as a technology for associating and
 channeling other entities and forces


-Chapter 3 -- Making Visuals, Gaining Knowledge (pp. 113-159)
Intro section (pp. 113-120)
- Introduces focus on models, specifically the blue foam (XPS) (pp. 113)
- Stressing the flexibility, ease of working, and ubiquity of this material
 (pp. 113-114)
- Portability, reproducible, updatable (pp. 114)
- Model environment between reality and abstraction, where OMA architects work
 most often in this phase of design (pp. 114)
- Introduces what this chapter will include: an ethnographic tracking of
 specific material operations in design process through the frame of model
 making (pp. 114)
- Focusing the blind spot of the lit below: the specific experimental/cognitive
 work done through models and their connection to building; the way a building
 could not be conceived without the assistance of models (pp. 116)
- Reflection on how architects learn about the building-to-be from models,
 specific everyday practices of gaining knowledge through modelling (pp. 118)
- Collective modelling, repetition, accumulation of models (pp. 119)
- Presents a quick lit. overview/state of the research on models; expressions
 vs. narrations vs. conceptual art (pp. 115)
- OMA models are all three of the above (pp. 116)
- More coverage of lit on architectural knowledge-gaining and transfer (pp.
 117-118)
- Relation of physical models to their digital counterparts, their contiguity
 with other kinds of screen-based representations (pp. 117)
- Outlining another blind spot in the lit: how architects gain knowledge of
 "mediators" in the design process; design/support tools (pp. 118)
- Mediator = a non-human or human that "can transform, translate, distort, and
 moduiy meaning." Does not reify the social (like other intermediaries), not
 necessarily predictable (pp. 118)
- Assumption (through STS) that most of architectural cognition is externalized
 and empirically accessible (pp. 119)
- The communication/operation with non-humans that allows architectural
 cognition to be empirically visible (pp. 120)
- Translating Knowledge in 2D-3D and 3D-2D (pp. 120-128)
- Stressing the integrated use of representations: all rep. are used all the
 time at once (pp. 121)
- Network of reps, some elements take the fore depending on what is needed in
 design; no set start point (pp. 121)
- Making-observable, cooperative communication, ability to trigger design
 actions
- Cross-referencing techniques between representations (pp. 122)
- Sketching as main form of communication btwn architects (pp. 121); note 16
 shows faxing of sketches as a means of communication
- Models and sketches refer to each other; closed system of diagrams, images,
 drawings, etc. (pp. 122)
- Multiple kinds of reps can capture specific kinds of information, there are
 tradeoffs (pp. 122)
- Computer and physical work at the same time as triangulation of a "realistic"
 picture of building (pp. 126)
- The movement from models to flat images is demonstrated & how it requires
 passing through the computer (pp. 124)
- Keeping a trace of experiments; manipulation and correction in photoshop (pp.
 123)
- The time differential 1hr modelling:5hrs photoshopping (pp. 124)
- Specific practices of the computer (at the interface): zooming, silence (ie.
 no talking), "inaccurate" smoothness and continuity (pp. 125), repetition
 (pp. 127)
- Note 19: movement from 2D to 3D and back as revealing what was hidden, making
 empirical
- Transmission of info between visuals (pp. 126) which forms a kind of feedback
 loop where more and more knowledge is added through successive movements
 between flat images and models (pp. 127); here addition and accumulation are
 equated (pp. 128)
- The continuous "updating" of models and images and their various speeds (pp.
 128)

Knowing the Building by Slicing the Foam (pp. 128-136)
- Focus on foam cutting routines (pp. 128)
- Heterogeneity of actors involved in modeling, human and non-human (pp. 128)
- Hybridization or accommodation of multiple actors to each other as single
 units (pp. 128)
- Active cognition in shared process of foam cutting; the technique has the
 capacity to generate specific kinds of architectural forms (pp. 130)
- Noting the other sensations of cutting foam (smell) and the effects on the
 architects (health) (pp. 128-129)
- Trade-off between health/safety and speed (faster = more dangerous & more
 harmful) (pp. 129)
- Foam- model making as craft process (pp. 129-130)
- Malleability of foam allows this craft, Design (schematic) process to
 continue into later stages of architectural process (pp. 130)
- Note 26 covers the model during the construction process as a parallel to the
 building's construction which is updated to reflect construction (covered
 from the side of the architects and not from anyone else's position)
- "Feel" of making with only partial awareness of direction, open to tentative
 & accidents, mediation of success and failure, the ability to make mistakes
 (pp. 133)

Repetitive, routine actions  the new (pp. 132)
- Compares foam to casting, casting as a medium of presentation when
 characteristics are stabilized (pp. 132)
- Description of the foamcore model making process (pp. 132-135), the way many
 small actions accumulate into larger practices (pp. 136)
- General conclusion: model making is highly skilled and experimental, they are
 collective and additive (pp. 136)
- Gaining Knowledge by Observation of Models (pp. 137-141)
- Splits model making into two "phases": active making (shown above) and
 "appreciating, perceiving, and enjoying"; note that in both phases thinking
 happens with action (pp. 137)
- Variety of "ways of observing" which preserve the unity of the building as
 model (pp. 138)
- Appreciation is triggered by models not site; strict hewing to the observable
 (visual and tactile), the observation of consequences of models (pp. 138)
- The physical model as directly sensible as opposed to the digital model which
 is heavily mediated (ie. each sense must interface with the computer with
 some sensing being entirely disregarded) (pp. 139)
- Presents a standard arch. theory approach to observation which focuses on
 observation and appreciation of site (pp. 137)
- Dealing with complexity of building by starting small and simple, adding
 layers (pp. 139)
- Distinctive precipitation of what's important (graspability at a glance for
 Principle) and reversibility of design process (old models are kept just in
 case you need to "go back"; observation as an interpretive practice (pp. 140)
- Model does not act alone: it is the trigger for new processes, it is
 constantly checked and re-checked, it demonstrates a series of
 transformations in design, it "pushes forward" and can be "gone back to" (pp.
 141)

Knowing by Testing the Models (pp. 141-145)
- Testing, measuring, probing of models as knowledge gaining techniques (pp.
 141)
- Probing of parameters and "realities" of the building, setting up conditions
 of further operations (pp. 142)
- Note 35 on models an investigative instruments/research aids; models provide
 knowledge that reaches outward from the test-specific to "external realities"
 (pp. 142)
- Testing = posing questions and answering them with model "tests" producing
 "dispositional rather than factual knowledge" (pp. 143)
- Varying conditions and seeing what happens; "architectural reasoning" as
 empirical thinking through models
- Confronting models through existing knowledge (site parameters, existing
 constraints) (pp. 144)
- Models as holding together the whole process of gaining knowledge about the
 building, mediation of material production and knowledge production (pp. 145)
- Knowing the Whitney by Scaling (pp. 145-151)
- This section is a version (sort of) of "Scaling up and Down" (Yaneva 2005)
- Shifting of scales produces knowledge about the Whitney building, a practice
 which requires specialized equipment, instruments, and routines (pp. 145)
- Circularity of moving between small and large scales, each scale model
 remains present (is not ephemeral) (pp. 146)
- Retained existence of all models enables returning and re-examining (pp. 146)
- Scaling deals with an architectural "epistemological paradox": you don't know
 what you need to know yet; scaling allows for probing what a specific
 question means (pp. 147)
- Scaling & materials of scaling offering resistance, opposition, tensions (pp.
 148)
- But also makes a smoothness of knowledge extraction: no translation necessary
 to "know where" (pp. 149)
- Eventually, knowledge is "stabilized", models are stabilized and take on
 "linear", independent developmental paths (pp. 150)
- Gaining Knowledge as Architectural Plans Circulate (pp. 151-159)
- Further definition of Whitney through circulation of architectural plans (pp.
 151)
- Circulation = physical trajectories & their transformation into numbers
 (sizes, costs, equations) (pp. 151)
- Notes that the issues of how plans are mobilized in discussion/negotiation &
 how they are used for calculation/data extraction is under-explored in design
 theory (pp. 151)
- Plans as archive of the whole design process, they are a "material support"
 to design (pp. 151)
- Two main trajectories: 1) OMA  Ove Arup Engineers; 2) OMA  DCI Cost
 Consultants (pp. 151)
- Also, travel to clients, local architect in NYC
- Note 49: Extensive note on the relationship between OMA and contractors. Of
 importance is: a) mutual learning relationship, b) organization of liability,
 c) project responsibility organization (pp. 152)
- Coverage of the "intensive collaboration" with Ove Arup in London (pp.
 153-156)
- Multi-media communication: in-person visits, fax, phone calls (no trace of
 email) (pp. 153)
- Engineers comment on/over plans, the process of "bargaining" through
 competing needs; adversarial relationship to an extent (pp. 153-154);
 engineers interpret the plans (pp. 155)
- Engineers extract info/knowledge that architects cannot with their own tools,
 then feed it back to the architects who make the plans more and more specific
 (pp. 155)
- Coverage of relations with DCI cost evaluators in California (pp. 156-157)
- They only saw plans and nothing else at first, getting more details when they
 visited (added reps) (pp. 156)
- Translation of resources (ie. materials, labour: the concrete materials that
 make a building) into costs, leaving room for error (pp. 157)
- Use of formulas, of parameters to form a mirror computer-stored "cost model"
 to answer architects' questions and test their assertions (pp. 157)
- In these cases each of the groups speaks with their own tools and are able to
 speak each other's "languages", they create disordered environments (pp. 158)

How is a Building `Obtained'? (pp. 159-161)
- Note on the word "obtaining" (term used by architects) as opposed to
 "projecting" or "anticipating" (pp. 159)
- Points to the "trials" associated with slowly making a building more
 thinkable (pp. 159)
- Design as backward and forward moves; drifts, ruptures, modifications (pp.
 159-160)


-Chapter 4 -- Multiplying Options, Meeting the Public (pp. 161-195)
Intro Section (pp. 161-163)
- Starts with context on the move from scheme A to scheme B; the need to reduce
 cost (pp. 161-162)
- The "optioning process" of fitting the scheme A to a new budget
- This chapter is about the optioning process, the generation of scenarios, the
 presentation and its techniques of staging representations, and the responses
 from clients et al (pp. 162)
- Tables of models make design moves visible, but also make building
 accountable, analyzable, responsible for its activities (pp. 163)
- Deploying Scenarios (pp. 163- 169)
- New options are formed based on tight constraints, not as open an
 experimental as previous modelling operations (pp. 163)
- Working from already-stabilized design features; "what would happen if"
 probing which involves scale reduction to specific features (pp. 164)
- Responding to budget alters the entire mode of thinking "addition" as defined
 by scheme A, a process of fragmentation into scenarios dealing with specific
 parts (pp. 165)
- Local, tiny change reconfigures large scale conceptual moves; a small change
 is amplified as the rest of the building conforms to it (pp. 166)
- The way design rethinking through budget specificity requires returning to
 earlier activities: rethinking the historical in the project but with a
 tighter frame (micro-technical of construction and its costs) (pp. 167)
- Not an open-ended or unlimited option process, only the most probable options
 are generated; the previously existing project drives the options produced
 when re-constrained (pp. 168)
- Two steps: multiplying scenarios  cutting back to most probable, feasible,
 and refined
- Attachment of architects to existing design and the formation of adversarial
 relation with client, kept within boundaries for the sake of execution (pp.
 168-169)
- Adversarial appears as architects defending their scheme as the only possible
 successful scheme
- Also appears as the parallel client side re-evaluation of their own needs
 this late in the game
- Staging the show for the clients: making visible the design process as
 rhetorical (clients as witnesses of design) (pp. 169)
-  Stabilizing, Eliminating (pp. 170-177)
- Deployment of few, particular options involves preliminary selection of what
 is variable before optioning even starts (pp. 170)
- Various scales of assuming at every level of design: on a personal level of
 individual designer before discussing w/ team & team level before discussing
 w/ client et al (pp. 170)
- Assimilative differentiation of options: they are different enough to be
 immediately seen, but not so different as to be incomparable; there are
 criteria of differentiation, ways to be properly different (pp. 171)
- Loop of "inputs" (= information about any changes to given conditions/client
 reqs)  production-reduction and back (pp. 171-172)
- "Forgetting" of past options, and adding new options to table, a cumulative
 process of small evaluations, reductions, etc. (pp. 172)
- Production and elimination are two sides of the same process (pp. 173)
- No choice in the optioning process: the architects don't choose the options
 (pp. 173)
- Things that were unthinkable before could become thinkable for the sake of
 differentiation (pp. 175-176)
- Validation of old scheme by setting up a binary choice with the new scheme:
 the new scheme proves why they old scheme is better (pp. 176)
- Scheme B is not a logical development of scheme A but a competitor on the
 same level (pp. 176)
- Making the Models Talk (pp. 177-187)
- Degrees of public attention directed at NEWhitney, though not as much as
 Graves/Breuer (pp. 177)
- Large amount of time spent planning the presentations to clients, engineers,
 external consultants (pp. 177-178)
- Limits on who can be present in the meeting, often members of the team hear
 outcomes second hand (not to mention the researcher herself) or only see prep
 for the presentation/aftermath (input-outputs) (pp. 178)
-  Presentations are archived for internal use and reveal the rhythms of
  project work, when work is put on hold, when it has to accelerate (pp. 178)
- Process of planning presentations: inventorying, format, timing, location,
 décor, space (pp. 178-179)
- Each could be different for different groups (AY compares Budget Committee to
 Landmarks Commission, to Mayor) (pp. 179-181)
- Also choosing what material is shown to who; material that is more or less
 "questionable"; making sure elements are SEEN and messages UNDERSTOOD (pp.
 180)
- Making visuals act in an "illocutionary way" through layering ("speech
 generating scenery") (pp. 182)
- Moving through layers to help client better understand the design (pp. 183)
- Limits to what presentation can do: can only improve understanding, cannot
 force anyone to understand if they don't want to, can only entice to act (pp.
 183)
- Presentation is multi-media environment (pp. 183)
- Strategies for convincing: precedents (pp. 183-184), realism of visuals (pp.
 184), scalies as fictive public (pp. 185), photoshop tricks (pp. 185-186)
- Client continually present through the speculative anticipation of their
 responses to visuals (pp. 186)
- Presenting the Building (pp. 187-195)
- Whitney model as composite object, collecting a series of material conditions
 into its form; reflects the labour that went into it (pp. 187)
- Meaning of models produced through adjacency, they're not logically
 deducible, but related (pp. 188)
- All models form a continuous representational space that is not historical:
 they all point to a single thing in the present as a facet; many entrance
points (pp. 188)
- Presenting as adding: starting from one simple point and adding more info and
 models (pp. 189-190)
- A section which specifically describes the meeting with the mayor of NYC (pp.
 191-193)


-Conclusion -- Towards a Pragmatist Approach to Architecture (pp. 195-202)
- Recapitulates the theoretical position: ignoring external frameworks and
 going to the specific practices of architecture (pp. 195)
- Assertion that over-sociologization of architecture erases their specificity
 as practices
- Critique of critical sociology (the trifecta of Bourdieu, Foucault, Derrida)
 as not empirical enough; following William James' radical empiricism instead:
 a pragmatist approach (pp. 196)
- The pragmatist approach
- Witnessing, description, architectural specificity: accounting, understanding
 its institutions and cultures (pp. 196)
- Assertion that there are no external social factors since all of it is
 already inside architecture and architecture makes the social (pp. 197-198)
- Social of heterogeneous elements, human and non-human (note well how all
 elements can be thought to be of the same type) (pp. 198)
- Practices over theories; routine over extraordinary (pp. 197)
- About who makes architecture possible (in AY's case, it's the Architects)
 (pp. 197)
- Performativity, what a building does not what it means (pp. 197-198)
- Key role of negotiation and controversy: how buildings spark controversy and
 are in turn shaped by it (pp. 199 & note 5)
- Architecture never starts from scratch but is a process of redesigning, there
 is no pure design from nothing (pp. 201-202)
- "There is always something counteractive in design" some constraint or other
 (pp. 201)
- New task for architectural theory: to produce accounts that trace
 "pluralities of concrete entities" to produce richer accounts of buildings
 and their processes of design (pp. 202)

You are viewing proxied material from dome.circumlunar.space. The copyright of proxied material belongs to its original authors. Any comments or complaints in relation to proxied material should be directed to the original authors of the content concerned. Please see the disclaimer for more details.