Overall from what I got out of the readings for this was a focus on family and community, which was an interesting shift from the previous readings. The reading that stood out to me the most was The Smithsons, “Criteria for Mass Housing”. Phrased as mostly a series of questions, it was successful in making me apply these questions to architecture that I have seen and be critical of my reasoning on whether they are successful and what the purpose of housing is. I also enjoyed that it was rather humorous, there were some small sidenotes, like the parentheses after asking “Is there enough storage? (there is never enough storage)”, added a sort of warmth to the reading (Smithson, 1957). In a way it made the reading very grounding, I started to see architecture more in the view of day to day life, with an emphasis on the quality of life that it can provide to different people.
Also, when looking at the “Investigations in Collective Form”, I found the concept to be very interesting. When I started reading about the megastructure approach, my initial visual of it was similar to that of train cars, as each car provides a different service and could be exchanged. That visual for me was further supported after seeing Tangue’s model, with different connected compartments (Maki, 1964). However, I do not think that in terms of urban planning that this is the best method. The method that resonated most with me was the group-form approach. I think it maintains more organic growth that, to me, is necessary in settlements while at the same time creating a common language of organization.
Maki, Fumihiko. Investigations in Collective Form. St. Louis: Washington
University, 1964. Smithson, Allison, and Peter Smithson. Criteria for Mass Housing, 1957.