1

2002 March 12, 2002 – Introduction of Homeland Security Advisory System at Yellow As part of a series of initiatives to improve coordination and communication among all levels of government and the American public, President George W. Bush signed Homeland Security Presidential Directive 3, creating the Homeland Security Advisory System (HSAS).Sept. 10, 2002 – Raised from Yellow to OrangeThe U.S. intelligence community received information, based on debriefings of a senior al Qaeda operative, of possible terrorists attacks timed to coincide with the anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States. Information indicated that al-Qaeda cells were established in several South Asian countries in order to conduct car- bomb and other attacks on U.S. facilities. These cells had been accumulating explosives since approximately January 2002 in preparation for attacks.Sept. 24, 2002 – Lowered from Orange to YellowBased on a review of intelligence and an assessment of threats by the intelligence community, as well as the passing of the anniversary of the September 11th terrorist attacks and the disruption of potential terrorist operations in the United States and abroad, the Attorney General in consultation with the Homeland Security Council returned the threat level to an elevated risk of terrorist attack, or yellow.2003 Feb. 7, 2003 – Raised from Yellow to Orange Intelligence reports suggested that Al Qaida leaders emphasized planning for attacks on apartment buildings, hotels, and other soft or lightly secured targets in the United States.Feb. 27, 2003 – Lowered from Orange to YellowThreat level lowered based on a careful review of how specific intelligence evolved, as well as counter-terrorism actions taken to address specific aspects of the threat situation.March 17, 2003 – Raised from Yellow to OrangeThe intelligence community believed that terrorists would attempt multiple attacks against U.S. and Coalition targets worldwide in the event of a U.S led military campaign against Saddam Hussein.April 16, 2003 – Lowered from Orange to YellowFollowing a review of intelligence and an assessment of threats by the intelligence community, DHS, in consultation with the Homeland Security Council lowered the threat advisory level to an elevated risk of terrorist attack.-13 May 20, 2003 – Raised from Yellow to OrangeIn the wake of terrorist bombings in Saudi Arabia and Morocco, intelligence reports indicated that terrorists might attempt attacks against targets in the United States.May 30, 2003 – Lowered from Orange to YellowFollowing a review of intelligence and an assessment of threats by the intelligence community, DHS, in consultation with the Homeland Security Council lowered the threat advisory level to an elevated risk of terrorist attack.Dec. 21, 2003 – Raised from Yellow to OrangeThe U.S. intelligence community received a substantial increase in the volume of threat-related intelligence reports.2004 Jan. 9, 2004 – Lowered from Orange to Yellow Following a review of intelligence and an assessment of threats by the intelligence community, DHS, in consultation with the Homeland Security Council lowered the threat advisory level to an elevated risk of terrorist attack.Aug. 1, 2004 – Raised from Yellow to Orange, specifically for the financial services sectors in New York City, Northern New Jersey, and Washington, D.C. Raised the threat level for the financial services sector in New York City, Northern New Jersey and Washington, D.C. as a result of new and unusually specific information about where al-Qaeda would like to attack.Nov. 10, 2004 – Lowered from Orange to Yellow, for the financial services sectors in New York City, Northern New Jersey, and Washington, D.C. State and local leaders as well as the private sector strengthened security in and around specific buildings and locations as well as throughout the financial services sector after the threat level was raised on Aug. 1, 2004. Permanent protective measures were put in place that did not exist before this date.2005 July 7, 2005 – Raised from Yellow to Orange for mass transit In light of the attacks in London, the United States government raised the threat level in the mass transit portion of the transportation sector, including regional and inner city passenger rail, subways, and metropolitan bus systems.Aug. 12, 2005 – Lowered from Orange to Yellow for mass transitSince raising the threat level for mass transit systems on July 7, DHS worked with federal, state and local partners to develop and implement sustainable mass transit security measures tailored to the unique design of each region’s transit system. In light of these increased long-term measures, the Department lowered the national threat level for the mass transit portion of the transportation sector.2006 Aug. 10, 2006 – Raised from Yellow to Red for flights originating in the United Kingdom bound for the United States; raised to Orange for all commercial aviation operating in or destined for the United States. The U.S. government raised the nation’s threat level to the highest level for commercial flights originating in the United Kingdom and bound for the United States and raised the threat level for general aviation to High to include all in-bound international flights, other than flights from Great Britain, and all flights within the United States.Aug. 13, 2006 – Lowered from Red to Orange for flights originating in the United Kingdom bound for the United States; remains at Orange for all domestic and international flights. DHS lowered the aviation threat level from red to orange for flights from the United Kingdom to the United States. The U.S. threat level remains at orange for all domestic and international flights. The ban on liquids and gels in carry on baggage remains in full effect.[source - www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/hsac_final_report_09_15_09.pdf]

1

Procedure

Position

tangibles

3

5

7

wa

te

r j

et

ro

ut

eP

ho

to

gr

aP

hc

ol

la

ge

mo

de

l

sc

riP

tb

ro

nz

e c

as

td

ra

wl

as

er

cu

t

9

Technique

a way of carrying out a particular task, especially the execution or performance of an artistic work or

scientific procedure

“...no amount of

technique can conceal a

paucity of content.”

-Sol Lewitt Principles of Conceptual Art

THE TOOL IS AN INERT OBJECT THAT MUST BE GUIDED

BY ITS USER. THE TECHNIQUE IS THE SPECIFIC WAY IN

WHICH THE USER CHOOSES TO WORK WITH THE TOOLS.

11

13

Inescapable Given

a non-causal given, the thing that cannot be controled and more specifically, the built project

“The circumstances

are not a mold into

which life is inserted

and whose form life

adopts: This is indeed

to be fooled by a

metaphor. There is no

form yet, and the life

must create a form

for itself, suited to the

circumstances which

are made for it. It will

have to make the best

of the circumstances,

neutralize their

inconveniences and

utilize their advantages

- in short, respond

to outer actions

by building up a

machine which has no

resemblance to them.

Such adaption is not

repeating, but replying,

- an entirely different

thing.”

-Henri Bergson Creative Evolution

15

Confrontational Contingenciesan event or circumstance that is possible and directly confronts a built project, the non-causal given,

overriding the projects original architectural characteristics replacing it with its own [Cabinet of Curiosity, The

Width of A Wall, Labyrinth, Volatile Site, etc.]

17

19

21

Methodologya system of methods used in a particular area of study or activity

23

THE METHODOLOGY IS THE WAY IN WHICH

ONE THINKS OR APPROACHES A TASK. THE

TECHNIQUE IS THE SKILL USED TO REPRESENT

THAT METHODOLOGY.

25

“It is natural to want

to replace something

important lost to the

destruction of war with

itself. It is believed that

the phoenix rises again

from its own ashes...

...The attempt to restore

the fabric of old cities to

their former condition

is, however, a folly that

not only denies present

conditions, but impedes

the emergence of an

urban fabric and way of

life based upon them.”

-Lebbeus Woods War and Architecture

27

first conflict

*****

29

Field of Conflicta non-causal given, the built project, confronted by at least two contingencies, which creates a conflicted

scenerio that must be addressed

31

33

35

37

39

41

43

“This assertion of the

omniscience of the

expert, of the specialist,

of the pragmatic,

rational artisan, of the

virtuoso, of the talented

professional, is a barren

and blind ideology, since

it leaves unexamined

those mechanisms

which engender a

myopic, wilfully partial

view of the ‘good life,’ as

a universal and natural

aspiration.”

-Kevin Rhowbotham Form to Programme

45

47

“In the spaces voided

by destruction, new

structures are injected.

Complete in themselves,

they do not make an

exact fit, but exist as

spaces within spaces,

making no attempt

to reconcile the gaps

between what is new

and old, between two

radically different

systems of spatial order

and of thought...

...they offer a dense

matrix of new

conditions, as an

armature for living

as fully as possible in

the present, for living

experimentally.”

-Lebbeus Woods War and Architecture

49

51

unedited dialogue with Perry Kulper:

The thesis I’m working on emphasizes methodologies of making,

techniques that might accompany methodologies and a rigor

or refinement necessary to those methodologies. I know you

are very busy, but I was hoping you might be able to refer me to

some writings that focus on these ideas.

...Titles of methodologies I am thinking about: Shadow Casting,

Recontextualization, Sectional Fiction, Appropriation

...I’m thinking of techniques as a means of working or

representing that methodology: bronze casting, drawing

(mapping, rendering, annotating), photographing, multi-media

collaging, modeling, writing

thanks for your note and apologies for not getting back to you sooner- part of it is being incredibly busy, but the other is that i’ve been trying to think about anything on methods, or representation techniques, that might be useful. to be honest, i have nothing written that i have come across to do with methods, particularly in the ways that you might be thinking of them. innumerable people have, over the years, encouraged me to do a book on methods, in terms of how architects can make work. to be honest, it interests me and i’ve done a bit of arm chair work to do with methods, but i haven’t made time to attempt such a project- i should as i think architects are generally underdeveloped when it come to understanding the values attached to different means to produce work. but that’s another conversation.

if you could find a publication from the mid 90’s (just a guess as i don’t know for sure) called ‘form to programme’, but kevin rhowbotham it might be of some use. the reason i know a little about this is because kevin gave a lunch time talk at sci_arc at about that time and showed images, some of which may be in the book. the basic premise of the book, as i understood it through his talk, is that the form follows function dictum is dead. he, along with a number of very committed students, developed a number of techniques (here, techniques, methods, etc become linguistically tricky) to work from form to program- these included, if memory serves, appropriation, bodies and space, mapping, index, parasites, etc.

in terms of what you’ve got below, i might share a thought or two. for me, methods are how you carry something out. for example, recontextualization might, for me, not be a method- in a way it’s an effect, or effects, that one might be trying to accomplish. why might it not be a method? because you could carry out recontextualization in any number of ways, or with any number of methods (narrative working, parametric modeling, automatic practices, appropriation, etc). appropriation (one of 14 methods i’ve identified) would be a method, but the other three are, again from my perspective, not methods. shadow casting might be more like a technique. recontextualization is a relational problem that can be carried out in a number of ways. sectional fiction suggests characteristics, or attributes of a particular kind of representation, but could also be carried out using a number of methods.

i can tell that my thoughts are putting too much emphasis on the terminology, which ultimately may not be of use to you in the thesis work you’re up to now. i don’t know that it would help at all, but i’d certainly be willing to have a chat in the new term.

MS

PK

53

i’ll send this along now and will continue to give your query a thought. i will send along a thought if it arrives- especially in terms of writings. i don;’t think they’re out there, to be perfectly hones.

have a good weekend and thanks for your note matthew. sorry again to be so long in reply. good skill with the work- it sounds interesting to be sure.

Thank you very much for your email. I am interested in the

terminology, and whether I am using it correctly. I don’t mean to

bother you and I understand if you don’t have time to respond.

I would like to explain how I am thinking about the terms just to

clarify, even though I think you understand, seeing as you have

already given me helpful criticism.

Im thinking that “methodology” might be used to simply

describe a procedure. The procedures Im thinking about are

form changing, or adaptive methods. For example, if i chose

a typewriter as my subject and enlisted the methodology of

“Recontextualization” as a way of adapting the typewriter,

I might imagine the typewriter to only be able to function

on a 7-11 stair. Through the transformation of parts and

relationships between parts, I could realize the new form

using a specific technique of making...casting, drawing,

collaging. So as I was thinking about it, this whole procedure of

making or transforming would fall under the methodology of

“Recontextualization.” I might need to use different terminology,

or find an actual list of methodologies. The funny thing is I

was actually having the most difficulty with appropriation...

as an adaptive procedure. I think this list is rather shallow and

disparate. Im hoping to make this list much more robust, as well

as figuring out what these procedures should actually

be called.

Sorry for multiple emails, I wanted to know if it would be okay

for me to put our conversation in my thesis book. It is a working

document and I believe having it represented in the book as a

process of thought will only be beneficial for me. I will not put it

in the document without your permission, so if you do not get

back to me I will take that as a no. Thanks again.

thanks for your e mails... i’m sorry i am on the run this morning, but am hoping to be able to send a proper response to your e mails. you are more than welcome to include the e mail in your manual, or record of the work that you’re up to. we are out of town tomorrow- saturday and i hope to have a chance later this eve to send a note. if not, i will send it upon our return. the work sounds interesting, and from my perspective, timely. have a good day matthew.

thanks for your e mails... i’m sorry i am on the run this morning, but am hoping to be able to send a proper response to your e mails. you are more than welcome to include the e mail in your manual, or record of the work that you’re up to. we are out of town tomorrow- saturday and i hope to have a chance later this eve to send a note. if not, i will send it upon our return. the work sounds interesting, and from my perspective, timely. have a good day matthew.

MS

MS

PK

55

technique

methodology

sectional fiction

bronze casting

Gravity throuGh time

routing

shadow casting

laser cutting

recontextualization

drawing

57

field of conflict

contingencies

labyrinththe width of a wallvolatile sitecabinet of curiosity

*****

59

6161

63

“The programme

document, the brief,

has been progressively

reduced and abstracted

to avoid the contentious

issues of quality

and value, which

are progressively

interpreted as

matters of subjective

deliberation and

beyond examination.

What remains is a list

of quantities, or as the

operating jargon would

have it, a schedule

of accommodation...

The commitment of

institutional education

to render all educational

activity measurable,

and thereby equivocal,

makes the resulting

metrical programme

inevitable.”

-Kevin Rhowbotham Form to Programme

65

*****CONSTITUTION

AmEndmEnT *1: Arming A rigorous methodology of making has been lost among many architects today. This will be the focus of our semester. The role of the tool, the technique, and the methodology have to be defined as we, designers, seek to “arm ourselves.” We will interrogate tools, develop techniques, and speculate on radical methodological approaches, as a means of adapting the built environment that surrounds us.

Technique Medium: Iconic FigureMethodology Medium: Mechanical Object

AmEndmEnT **2: STudy ThE EnEmyEach of you will be given a built project or a non-causal given (for example, one of Albert Kahn’s, now derelict, suburban homes in Detroit), which will become much more than just a case study, rather it will become a framework or foundation for the rest of the semester. You will be asked to exhaustively draw the project, while understanding its systems and organizations at multiple scales. During this moment of analysis, realizing your acquired methodologies of making and revisiting them as a refinement process will be crucial. At this stage, nothing remains certain. While you have your project, the future event cannot be known. No built project stands erect, impervious to an unpredictable moment of urgency, a catastrophic event, or a radical shift in function. Know your tools and make them ready for deployment.

AmEndmEnT ***3: ConFronTATionDuring this phase of the work, you will be confronted with a list disparate bullet points, or contingencies. (Labyrinth, Cabinet of Curiosity, The Width of A Wall, Volatile Site etc.) Each bullet point will evoke a conventional element of architecture, whether that be site, program, circulation, scale, etc. You will be asked to appropriate at least two of the contingencies, and redefine, transform them, make them your own.

Scope: lies in the tools, techniques, methods accumulated for action and how they are deployed upon the Field of Conflict...you have been asked to undertake and deeply understand a methodology of working, as well as the techniques and tools that accompany that methodology. Who are your allies in this method..mood...attitude? Are there any indirect agendas in your work?Site and Program: must be resolved on the field of battle

within the Field oF conFlict

67

AmEndmEnT ****4: dEPLoyWith your tools in hand and the field set, you will be asked to act. The non-causal given must address the list of contingencies. it will have to make the best of the circumstances, neutralize their inconveniences and utilize their advantages - in short, respond to outer actions by building up a machine which has no resemblance to them -henri Bergson Depending on the scenario you find yourself in, certain elements of your non-causal given will begin to shrink away, while the contingencies boldly stake their claim on the project. Adaption is inevitable.

AmEndmEnT *****5: TrEATyWritten in sweat and blood: Technique:

Methodology:

Non-Causal Given:

Field of Conflict:

5 models of exploration (different tools and materials of any scale)5 drawings, mappings, renderings, collages, or anything in-between (25x30)

2 composite drawings of object (plan, elevation, section, axon at 1:1)5 models, drawings or anything in-between (illustrating each of your 5 methodologies)

2 composite drawings of built project (plan, elevation, section, axon at 1/8”)

You Decide (whatever you need to convey your adaptation)

3