Origins
Although the tensions and perceptions surrounding heritage are widely understood, the knowledge around defining exactly what heritage encompasses still has a long way to develop. The need for an expansion to the definition of heritage was realised. This interrogation bled into a refinement of observation sensitivity, particularly within the recognition of both tangible and intangible cultural layers. These layers are visibly and invisibly performed amongst the common, where for me; the vernacular is to be questioned and constructed, rather than given and assumed. This observational capacity allows a revealing of not only the socio-economic and political spheres of the urban, but the symphonic temporality in the everyday. There becomes a question of - how can we provide more responsive, inclusive and sensitive place-making for these evolving voices. It’s somewhat about allowing the existing a respectfully offered chance, a chance for the contingent, ritualistic vitality of local traditions to continue, yet be redefined, questioned, reflected upon.
Process
My informed practice and theory within architecture, design and research isn’t encapsulated through a fixed form of methodology, where to be identified in scripted method, for me, could be assumptive and potentially ignorant towards the many unfixed temporal rhythms of a situations past, present and future. The impulses that radiate towards a situation, from any direction; are openly yet critically listened to, where each project is treated individually as an evolving set of independent, yet interdependent enquiries. This approach enables hidden questions to be uncovered, thus, allows the possibility for unanticipated potential to be discovered. The desire to continue interrogating, challenging and redefining the conventional status quo, particularly the responsibilities of our role in both the urban and landscape; aims to influence the way we could live in a more responsive future.
Stratified lens
Critical narrative is at the core of every process, where the simultaneous application of both macro and micro lens is essential to my approach in all stages of analysis, design and resolution - aiming for solutions that not only speak and listen to existing conditions; but drive with contemporary, resilient aspirations. This relationship of lens translates to a devotion of design and urbanism at all scales, believing in the wider frameworks ability to bind synergies between matter, all the while informing poetic details within.
Architecture for who?
For me, a somewhat successful architecture forms its own identity through unanticipated place-making; the architect is all but the giver of an opportunity. Now one can argue to architecturally ‘tell a story’ without assumption, one must infinitely understand the evolving collective and individual memory of all. Should we be looking to an architecture where prospect of story is left to the not yet experienced synergies of body, space and place; where the architect has created the book from undertaken research, but allowed the vernacular to continue writing itself. Simultaneously, to what degree should the architecture provide an invisible form of influence to this sensitive writing? To what responsibility do we hold to offer change in this way for a better future? There is certainly a considerate balance to be had.
Story telling in the form of photography or videography, comes from spending valuable time within a community or an individuals life; documenting such momentary frames. This can be left in the form of research, an exploration that holds potential to empower and influence. Now architects, after analysis is taken, have a significant responsibility for the creation of experience. With the simultaneous evolution of individual and thus, collective memory, one can argue analysis could be of infinite layers. To what moment do we pause to create? That is down to the individual, though it can be said to create or ‘tell a story’ with assumption - is to diminish potential for life.