Methodology - part 2

… this week.

My last methodological post led me to defining parts upon which I can insert into typical types of vacancy and models of those pieces; metal/materiality, wood/structure, string/movement, and nails/areas of conglomeration as seen through photo of those models.

However, it is still needed that I study and define in greater depth those parts, as well as defining what a typical vacant lot is.  To do this I will be taking photographs of my previous models, which have stirred up a lot of thought, and then diagramming a greater understanding of the parts (hopefully) on top of this. 

… upcoming weeks.

Once those parts are better defined it will be possible to place those parts into sites, or typical vacancies.  But before this can be done, it is necessary to identify a taxonomy relative to vacancy, whether that be vacant lots, vacant buildings or perhaps both is as yet undecided.  I am proposing that I do this by taking a look at Philadelphia and a selection of block sectors that were chosen to describe generalities in a Philadelphia City Planning Commission report done in 1995.  The census information is taken from 1990, and to get me started this is okay.  I will, however, need to update all of this information and chosen block sectors relative to the most recent census; to do this GIS will be utilized.  In the end this process will define the site as Philadelphia.

In conjunction with these two courses of action, and rather sooner than later, I intend on grounding my argument with economic/vacancy claims that will allow me to focus on the vacancies themselves throughout the rest of the process.

Also, a critique suggested that the models imply a tension between framework and program and what happens with the parts in these vacancies; so perhaps that is something to explore in more depth in a few weeks as I define ‘program’.