Q: "How do you feel about the early designs you did as a freshman or sophomore in architecture school? How did they look like?"
It’s a question I’ve been getting often as of late, so I thought I’d semi-formally answer it on the blog.
I chuckle a little bit whenever I’m asked this, because it involves me looking at my own motivations and process at the time, and comparing them to what I know now.
And there is a really big disparity between the two.
Quite simply, I can say now that my approaches back then were flawed, unrestrained, form-centric more than they were occupant-centric, and paradoxically incohesive. They were messy and didn’t consider a lot of things properly.
But that’s fine. Because that’s how a lot of our early works really do end up.
It’s a rite of passage of sorts, especially for this generation of contemporary designers that are giddy to produce iconic forms. (This ain’t all bad. At least it means you aren’t settling for boring architecture.)
It’s normal, and in some ways, needed in order for you to discover how to develop as a budding architect.
Besides, if I were designing the same way today as I was when I was a freshman, then it either means I didn’t need architecture school (yeah, sure), or I didn’t grow at all.
Today I’m going to discuss a few of my earlier design projects, how I worked on them at the time, and what I amusingly saw when I looked back at them. The three are my first two houses, and an archaeological studies center for within the university. Continue reading Don’t Be Discouraged: Why Having A Flawed First Design Project is NORMAL. (Q&A #4)