The danger in being avant-garde is that everything else becomes irrelevant.

Float a giant box. Skew it. You have Swiss minimalism.

Canada is cold. People just don't walk outside. So make it interior in the winter, and exterior in the summer. Is that so hard to do? Open the stupid windows!

People drive. How to store a car? Surface parking is the cheapest way to go. Underground parking just doesn't cut it. Break up the surface parking into pods.

Construct a giant box with the cheapest materials. It looks bad. It looks too heavy. There's no visible roof. So you make a box that hugs the ground, and then you put a roof on top. The roof wants to ascend, so you put windows underneath the roof. Kinda like corbelling. Kinda like what Mies did.

The box has got to attract attention. That's what commercial architecture is all about.

I've been looking more closely at Brossard, and its development. I did a short study on the surface parking of the area, and I talked to Thiago about the suburban condition. There are several interesting issues about the suburb, including the New Urbanists and the Smart Growth theories of planning- a good article can be found in the Harvard Design Magazine this month. I've also looked at the origins of the Chinese population in Canada, and the socio-economic profile of Montreal.

Now is the time to say: what is the point of all of this?

Well, first, the greatest success of my thesis thus far has been the idea of nostalgia and transience. The two notions are intimately tied with the conditions of mass society, the advent of the car, and globalization. The suburban sprawl only aggrevates these problems. Now, Frampton is definitely against all this, and architecture is fighting a losing battle against the world of commodification. If tectonics is supposed to be a way to resist the trends of mass society, how does it happen? How does it even begin in the very heart of the matter- our suburban neighborhoods, our highway interchanges, our shopping malls? New Urbanism is very much about returning to a small town image, and Smart Growth, from what I know, isn't quite the answer either- sensibility and environmental awareness? Neither address any form of tectonic critique that we so need.

Well, first of all, is tectonics the answer? To Frampton, tectonics is more about a reevaluation of the practice of architecture. Architecture cannot continue its trajectory of subverting its own ontological basis for surface effect and fashion. If it does, then it becomes ineffective as a world-making device. It becomes a parady of itself, looking at concepts and art for legitimization.

So the point is that first, define what architecture is- first and foremost structural and constructional. Second, address the problem of inadequate public realms- especially for the Chinese community. The two are linked- it's NOT a paradox.

Well, first, a Chinese mall has to be really CHINESE, not simply a sign tacked on the door- a representation of Chineseness. For one to enter, you must have a sense of belonging. Therefore, it must resist transcience. How can you gain a sense of belonging in a shopping mall, the last place you'd want to stay for extended periods of time? How do you do it without some feeling of nostalgia.

In Swiss architecture, the focus is on the nature of materials, and the nature of structure. An exercise in these two things alone constitutes the basis of thoughtful, critical architecture.

So instead of horizontality, how about verticality? Instead of sea of parking, how about hidden parking- or even multi-use parking? Instead of urban scale, how about an architectural scale? Instead of using the car, how about taking the bus? Instead of accepting the status quo, why not rebel against it? Instead of boring, make it interesting. Instead of no windows, how about 100% windows?

How can the Chinese community feel relevant in today's suburb?

Well, it's been a month now, and so far, I've been led on many different tangents, some of which have been quite unfruitful. The latest meeting was a bit of a disaster, as I still don't have any clear idea as to my research paper. Martin wants me to concentrate on the idea of the tectonic argument in relation to Arendtian terms of work and action. I think that Frampton may have addressed that already in his essay "The Status of Men and the Status of his Objects" but I'm not too clear about that either. For the past few months, I've been asked the question, what does Frampton mean by tectonic culture and each time, the answer that I give is not completely right. I think everything is all there but I just to concentrate and find it. What kind of expressive construction is Frampton arguing for? How does that construction relate to the space of public appearance? How can tectonic procedure faciliate the space of public appearance? These are questions I need to find answers to, and quickly before the summer starts.

Also, it is important that I start my own tectonic procedure in terms of the shopping mall. From the top of my head, I need to familiarize myself with the context of Brossard (of which my interview with Thiago should help). I also have to find examples of steel construction- and focus on a specific tectonic parti related to steel. My program is still not solidified. Lastly, I need to experiment with the tectonic aspects of steel. What can I do with steel as a tool for criticism of the suburban condition? Why steel, and not concrete? Or wood, for that matter?