> What could be more 'embodied and emplaced' or more 'sensuously particular'
> > > than social housing - where people actually live and spend most of
> their time?
Sounds like you're a candidate for Boudon's study of Le Corbusier's Pessac housing project
Charles Turner
-------------
That wasn`t me. It was part of Foster's review. Doesn`t matter. I started out with a deep ambiguity toward modernity. I loved to dream about it, but... Then I had to face up to the fact that art school was all oriented in that direction and they were not going to give me a degree for figure drawing. So I got on board and had a lot of fun with straight lines and angles and all that.
But then living in rundown old houses in Berkeley drove me in another direction, how to accomodate that. By great luck, my first construction job was a whole remodel of a Hearst era building on UCB campus. The architect for the job must have been very conscieous of preserving the past design integrity of the building because he mimiced it with updated materials and layout.
Anyway, these experiences taught me that the problem with modernity, is you can`t live there. Living space has to develop in some organic way that I sure as hell can`t figure out in advance. It has to have some starter material.
Notice for example Donald Judd's loft is a rehabed garmet industry building. I don`t know how he lived there. I mean it must have been strange raising kids and cooking in such a place. Imagine the rug rats, peeing on the floor. Ice cold, immaculate finished wood floors... Well, that make you want to pee on them.
CG