“to investigate the compass of architecture’s potentialities”
What is the locality of the present day as we live in the age of globalization (along the context-meaning axis)?
As a generator of “relational space” can the city be a new model of learning in the field of architecture?
The dissolution of identities is one of the fundamental questions of contemporary subjects of the present day –however, can it also be an opportunity for architects to generate new positionings?
To believe that it is in the nature of architecture to engender different forms of communication and that architecture is inclined to come into being without a set of mutually agreed and accepted common rules; to re-define the phenomenon known as design,
Not to foresee a design; but to work towards a design through conditions, actors and means; not to ‘create’ something but to ‘allow it to become’,
To expand the space of possibilities by multiplying conditions, actors and possibilities; and to strive to find the interfaces where thought, information and possibilities will discover each other,
To investigate forms of social interaction and communication in which architecture enters into a process of self-instrumentalization,
To pursue the meaning-content relationship engendered by ‘local space’; to trace a type of architecture that will sustain and multiply itself through all times not with its physical presence but on merit,
To produce, in the face of the accelerated expectations of the global world, ‘strategies of deceleration’ using the means and methods of the environment,
To define the client not as an individual or an institution, but as a ‘situation’,
To resist the attraction of architecture focused on the sanctified ‘object’ or ‘building’; and to treat necrophiliac instincts and reflexes with suspicion.
Office=Environment / What is Architectural Office (AO)?
It is not the name of an organization or a system. It is an environment.
It is an environment in which to produce our work in an efficient manner at the standards we desire.
AO is not a place where work has to be done to sustain an institutional structure, or to pay salaries and rent. Should the occasion arise, it may be abandoned for a more productive environment. New participations and organizations may be formed...
Money is not the sole indispensable resource for MO/AO.
At AO projects are not produced with the single aim of making money. Every project is in fact a new field of knowledge, and these fields collectively nurture MO/AO. On the other hand, there is a price for each research activity carried out for new fields of knowledge. No work is done pro bono, and especially not with an eye for the acquisition of future work...
AO does not incorporate all its resources, it protects itself from such unnecessary burdens. It possesses the ability to mobilize that can be reorganized in tandem with the unique content and conditions of each project...
AO may contain a single person, or 15 people... This is determined more by the possibilities offered by the job rather than the means of the environment. An organization based on the scale of the work, will grow or shrink... In other words, it is an organism that can grow only as much as necessary. It grows as long as it can retain its properties.
AO does not have a hierarchic system, and work is not produced in a linear flow. It is self-organized, and it is a place where non-linear communications and flows transform into production and work.
The standards of work carried out at AO are not defined by office conditions, as is the case in c onventional office models. AO is an environment in which models that render various quality prospects possible.
Work produced within AO cannot said to be of a standard that the conditions of conventional office models allow. AO is the place where models are produced which will enable the specific possibilities of quality pertaining to the work. (A17)