In all honesty, it was difficult for me to invest myself into the project and in our neighborhood during the initial analysis. Part of me can blame only documenting the physical and environmental aspects of the site, while the other piece was confused on where to direct the focus of design. Who was the primary focus of all of the gathered information supposed to be aimed towards? The history team did a wonderful job of arguing and supporting the case for the surrounding neighborhood. Housing seemed to be pushing for the interests of MCRA while homelessness analyzed through the lens St. Vincent de Paul’s. And while these three groups may not have expressed keen interest in food systems, our professors guided the last programming group into the discovery of the local food deserts. In essence, there were four different groups, not contradicting, but contending for consideration in design; all of which warranted a thorough review.

     While our approach to our investigation was justified, communication between the overall group of students was extremely complicated. No one was truly aware of what each group was tasked with and as result, a lot of overlapping of responsibilities occurred. One physical instance of this problem was our presence on the site during Mid City Speaks. There were too many people vying for the attention of the residents, and consequently I am afraid that our overwhelming presence may have been intimidating. A simple solution to this for the future may be to separate the class into groups that can come to the event in waves, decreasing the total number of students at one time but increasing the possibilities for one on one interaction.

     Moving on from analysis and criticism, we are left with a question to take forward: What is important for the neighborhood and its residents? Simply put, the answers are to increase safety, create an area for children to go after school, a space for workforce development, and a grocery store. Although these answers may be simple by themselves, together they create somewhat of a conflict of interest between the neighborhood consumers and the business patrons. However, moving forward, this instills a welcome challenge of how to remedy complex desires through design.

     Architects have a complicated role in regards to the profession of design. While it is our responsibility as designers and community partners to provide a comprehensible and suitable solution for the client, a lot of the time individual’s personalities and desires for a project overshadow the actual needs of the project. While it would be great to design whatever we liked, in all practicality, this is not possible. There are two main categories for which we design: wants and needs.While projects typically fit primarily into one of these categories, it is not to say that there is no overlap. It is important to state at this point that I am not speaking of ethics or morality when I say wants and needs but to the physiological and psychological impact that the shelter can provide.

     In the case of our specific client, it is unclear to state at this point whether this is a need or a desire from the community’s point-of-view. From the perspective of the students, this is a much a need to fulfill a class requirement as it should be a want to improve something outside of our studio culture.