This section is about our personal ways of responding to what we have found out in the previous study of site. This area is also influenced by our individual interests and starting points for a design. The Response could be generated from aspects such as art, economic and historical.

Individual Studio Responses:


When I design a building in an urban area, this behaviour is like the time i threw scree into the river. Both the scree and I had responses from river ,such as sounds and a water reaction. The sites urban context made for a more complex, invisible and unpredictable response/reaction. For example in my studio work, I think of the Thames as a liquid memory reflecting different elements at different periods of time. This reflection consists of different layers of time and content.


As Louis Kahn stated: "the brick talk to me, put me in that way, the concrete speak to me, make me to that shape." The site speak to architects in some kind of way. After I finish the analysis and research of the site, I often come up with some idea of what the design could be. The final appearance continues to speak to me after I review the information gained from the site. The research report of the site than acts as the site from that point onwards, therefore it is very important to analyse the site correctly at the beginning of this design process. Throughout the design process problems emerge, there could be different ways of responding to these problems, I would then discuss these ways of responding with my tutor and colleagues, and decide which one is the most suitable to solving the issues arisen. And I will ask myself: “Is it the best response” before I start making.


I have several approaches for responding to a site, this depended on the results I got from the site. I usually try and consider myself as different roles within the site and try to think how would other participants respond to the site. I try to create a real situation that the participant would experience and then let myself experience the same scenario, enabling a natural reponse to the site. Once I understand the responses from the different roles, I mix them together and try to solve all the conflicts and key points brought up. Additionally I change the scale of site and also create sketches, models, writings and drawings to stimulate me and produce a fresher response to the site.


I did my response drawing after I have done my last site survey, which is located in Bermondsey. In my response drawing, I tried to relate to the condition of the site, (of which is very quiet and dull) with the site history, my personal feeling, and what I chose my role to be. I wanted to do an experiment with the site, to examine what would happen if the site is inhabited by the primitives, and how a stranger could build their place in a very different world.


My response would reflect the historical background to the site and the surrounding area. It will be a sympathetic response allowing aspects such as the grain or the architectural knowledge of it to influence the process and the final outcome. Response to the site will either showcase or have some reference to the sites past or its heritage. This could be in the form of using an existing building or structure as a part of the towns heritage which could be documented in the archive they house. The type of surveys done on the site could also inform how these historical buildings are dealt with and responded to.


My Response is about the sorting out of objects and critically analysising and thinking about how they can be used. I think my derive in London Thames is a travel of Urban life. An example is the Situationism theory, which is about how the fragments of people's experiences of the city, compose the real city. In my project and my site, I want to make people aware of the fragments of urban life, therefore my response is to clear up the sounds,images and stories collected from the site. I will then abstract this and consider the role of my designs as a mediator of this urban information.


In my opinion, Response and Make relate to each other. Response is the purpose of Make, Make is a container and a consequence of response. In my past experience, the drawing or construction of building is the only way of making. However, before generating the potential building, we could also create some intervention or installation to test the site first. This kind of making contributes a lot to the final outcome.


If architecture is a story performed on stage and the 'site' acts as the stage, then response would be a character or part you would perform. At this point, there isnt a final script, but the circling of ideas to create this final script or end product. Having surveyed site, seeds of ideas are scattered around. In this stage, it is necessary to make them tangible as much as possible by using a range of techniques such as sketching, drawing, painting, modeling and organizing workshops.


We found as a group that different ideas of response to the site is triggered by our personal background and site findings. The different ways of response explain how we reflect to our site. Defining a response allows you to gain a clear direction to the next step in the design. Therefore, response is an essential part of the process,acting as a tool to narrow down the issues addressed and focus our intentions on valuable design approaches.