MACKAY-LYONS

Do you find value in MacKay-Lyons’ “Three F’s for an Architecture of Regionalism: fitting, framing and forming?”

As has been previously mentioned, these “keywords” for MacKay-Lyons are not at all new ideas. I also don’t see a direct correlation to a regional architecture in the way his theories are laid out. His idea of “fitting” simply refers to site context investigation in its simplest sense: searching for “appropriate strategies to permit the placement of [its] program within a prescribed terrain.” Yet when a designer is considering “regionalism,” there should be a lot more collecting of knowledge about the culture, history, materiality, etc. of the place – not just the immediate landscape. Additionally, “framing” isn’t even really a basis for a theoretical idea – it’s how a building is held up. Yes, he’s arguing that the structure should be exposed to leave “the final shape [of his maisons] open to interpretation,” but that’s more of a design decision than a theoretical rule for architects to follow. In terms of the “forming” argument, I really don’t even see it as a separate “F” from framing since he again talks about how his aim is to “avoid any restrictive predetermination of final external form.” Overall, I’m not really convinced of the architect’s argument about the “Three F’s,” but the images of his work are very compelling and beautiful (I just don’t see their relationship to the theories).

Would you like to participate in the building the Ghosts? (This implies, “would you like to have that design/build experience.”)

Absolutely! As a designer, it is of utmost importance to understand how a building comes together in “the real world” and how it works structurally. It is much more difficult to design successful buildings when you as the architect are simply relying on “the structural engineers to figure it out.” I hope I can find the right opportunity for me to experience this hands-on part of design very soon!

-R. Peterson