The evolution and transformation of traditional identity and values into new building patterns in housing that is rooted in tradition
This project concerns children of a very complex nature of which we know very little-about. This is reflected in the many different opinions of what exactly to do with these multiply handicapped deaf children and in what way. After researching this field, I have formed certain ideas. However, I have learned to avoid the approach of 'the detached architect who imposes his singular idea on people who alone must live with the hard product. My intention has been to offer a building pattern instead of a single unchangeable design. This building pattern represents flexibility to accommodate many different ideas and philosophies whose concern ranges from the basics; such as the chosen site, ratio of children per home, and given activities; to the minor details, such as color, building materials, and lighting.Due to course requirements, I chose one specific design arrangement and finalized it through to the working drawings portion of work. This design wasselected primarily because of my preference for it. Critics may find this arrangement very poor, but they must not extend their criticism to the entire study without studying the system or design pattern of organization suggested and its many alternative designs.Although I claim that the pattern is very adaptive to different ideas and philosophies, certain institutional aspects were avoided in all alternatives. For example, I have always maintained the idea of individual homes. There was never a desire to create one large dormitory as an alternative.Multiple handicaps were assumed to imply deafness or hard of hearing in addition to one or more handicaps such as blindness, cerebral palsy, orthopedic handicap, emotional disorder, mental retardation, to and learning disability. The rate of incidence of, handicaps was assumed to be similar to that as found by McCay Vernon in California. The total number of children expected to use the building would be a limit of 126. Each home was expected to have 10 to14 children with 2 house parents. The number of homes would reach 9. Three homes would constitute a cluster with 3 clusters for the entire complex. Some variation of these figures can be accounted for in the design pattern.