Lecture: Site, What you need to know, a conventional approach.

• No … but
• there must be a well thought out reason for the site, whatever the site is.
• The site need not be any more real than the program.
• A theoretical thesis could well have a theoretical site.
• A thesis about fantasy could well have a fantasy site.

However …

• A thesis about architectural language or contextualism or about the landscape or the vertical surface or the public realm would most likely need a real site with extensive documentation.
• On a scale of believability, the higher the thesis is (the thesis as a practicum or precursor of professional practice), the more important the site and its documentation.

• No .
• The principle criteria is always whether or not the site is a suitable vehicle to test the thesis.

• No, but …
• You need enough documentation to do the project.
• The more the site is key to the thesis, the more important the documentation.
• The higher on a scale of believability the thesis is, the more important it is to have visited the site.

• Typically yes.
• Beware the too big site.
• Quality of the final product is more important that quantity.

• All documentation, including relevant maps, aerial photos, façade photos, topographic surveys.
• All analysis drawings and models.
• Site model for study purposes (although it could also be used for presentation purposes

• You make do with what you have.
• Use what site documentation exists and interpolate the rest.
• Interpolate site contours if necessary.
• Interpolate facades, site elevations and site sections if necessary.
• Interpolate a "Nolli map" context plan if necessary.
• Interpolate site massing if necessary.
• The level of detail is dependant upon the issue at hand.
• In almost every case the project you design will not be built. Thus high levels of accuracy in base documents is not essential.So long as the documentation that you produce is internally consistent, it can be used.
• This means that site plans, site sections, site elevations and site models must agree with each other.

• Bigger is not better!
• Thesis that are intended to produce a building do not need to be big, unless scale itself is the issue.
• Site maps of downtown Syracuse and the SU campus are available on line in AutoCAD format. Use them for scale comparison.

• Consider The "loaded site" (the highly preferential site)
• vs.
• the site of infinite possibilities (the non preferential site).

• alienation in architecture and modern society
• the terrain vague
• post structuralist theory
• suburbia
• the architecture of anonymity
• architecture as sign/symbol/iconography
• the architecture of the strip/highway/intersection
• genus loci and the problem of the in between
• sense of place
• predictability vs indeterminism in architecture

then non preferential sites may work.

• genus loci and the place specific
• the urban space
• the vertical surface
• the modern intervention in the historic context
• and the vast majority of other projects

then …

you will probably benefit from a specific context.

"Give them something to live up to." WS

• While they may seem restrictive to some they can be useful in removing from the design equation aspects that otherwise confuse, are difficult to resolve and thus lengthen the design process without contributing to the issue or the quality of the final product.
• The success of any thesis rests as much on the development of the proposal and its presentation as it does on the idea itself.
• Thus things which accelerate the design process are assets.