- Project in danger of becoming too self-referential. Need to position the Ego in a more subjective way. Analyse what constitutes Ego.
– Niemeyers Brasilia as an example where the crowd is always dwarfed. (Interestingly I also watched the Graham Shane lecture which included an interesting analysis of Brasilia – the most lively spaces are the informal shanty towns on the outskirts, originally formed by the construction workers that were employed to build the city. Interesting that the construction of vast domineering blocks and spaces at the centre of the city created the opposite at the outskirts.)
– Is it the battle ground or the conditions of the battle that I go on to explore? The link to the Ego is lost with the urban form I have suggested. The hole does not correspond to the ego-istic city or design levelled by the collective I am talking about. Would be more true to the ego-istic personalities and cartoons I have created to explore the conditions of the battle rather than the place (narrative becomes the site).
– New York creates architects with big Ego. The conflict between the different architects working on Ground Zero at the moment, all battling to have the key monument in place of the Twin Towers.
– Shift perspectives. (This also goes back to viewing the city through characters such as in The Wire). Window cleaner view, caretakers view etc.
– Unresolved conditions of the city often caused by signature architecture. At the same time if we remove the ego mechanism from architecture and just follow building codes and regulations the city becomes depressing. The rules make the city boring. Architecture has to battle the rules.
– Other personality traits or architects. Why do we care so much about our buildings? The building as a physical manifestation of our creative ability and a lasting legacy long after we are gone. Architectural projects become an extension of the self.