New Direction

So, after many months of investigation and experimentation I think I’ve finally come to my conclusion.

The reality is, if architects are to engage in the informal built environment, normal design practices must adapt to their conditions.  In a place with no formal rules, ownership or legality, but still needs that can be met through the modification of the built environment, the Architect must become a squatter.  The project becomes a sequence of buildings, or spaces, built over time, instead of a single project with a specific start and finish date. 

I’m starting to ask myself some questions so I can move forward (some of these can be answered with a Yes or NO so they’re not really research questions):

Q: Would it be one building filled with program spaces, or would they be scattered on unclaimed space through a small area?

Q: If there are no roof rights (and buildings have been built to a standard that can accommodate this), couldn’t buildings wrap and climb over other buildings?

Q: With so many needs that have to be met within the community, would any formal building project that is being designed by a formally trained individual, with access to funds (presumably) have the ability to take on a small portion of the overall problems?  Like water sanitation, access to latrines, introduction of public amenities or transportation? 

Q: How would architecturally designed (and built) space be different from what can already be produced by the informal settlement?