FJE's main critique of Duckworth-Smith seems to be that his project is both too narrow and too broad in focus. My impression of FJE's criticism was the following: Firstly as an architect D-S should be presenting a resolved building design as a 'solution' to his site of investigation - that is that his project is too broad. Secondly, that as a resolved building design this should deal fulsomely with all aspects of design quality - that is that his project is too narrow. (I note that FJE levels neither of these criticisms at Weller.)
This broad-narrow criticism does not seem to engage with Duckworth-Smith's work on the grounds it was presented. D-S's presentation of his work did not claim to ‘solve’ these potential sites, but to engage with them, and address one of the perceived (or actual) resistances to their development. Contrary to FJE I find D-S's acoustic-based enquiry of these sites timely in direction and focus. I view this as one of the many possible routes of enquiry into the question "How can Perth become more dense?" Which to my mind is the question immediately raised by Weller’s (amongst others’) assertions that it must. There are a plethora of possible answers to this question and some have geographic locations and building forms that would have more spatial and lived quality than others.
D-S starts a move in one such direction of quality from a review of amenity by mobility in Perth's suburbs. He has located a typology – the East-West bus corridor – that to my knowledge has not yet been addressed in this context. (Our old highways and suburban railway stations have for example received much more attention. Perhaps they are more glamorous.) D-S draws on his specific skills and interests to address one significant constraint to this site – acoustics – while acknowledging the work of others who have worked in similar sites with different focuses.
Where FJE's criticism fails is in not being able to locate D-S's work within a developing field of enquiry. Within this context D-S’s work opens up more specific questions and possibilities for exploration. To my mind this 'opening up' is a research success, rather than failing.
D-S starts a move in one such direction of quality from a review of amenity by mobility in Perth's suburbs. He has located a typology – the East-West bus corridor – that to my knowledge has not yet been addressed in this context. (Our old highways and suburban railway stations have for example received much more attention. Perhaps they are more glamorous.) D-S draws on his specific skills and interests to address one significant constraint to this site – acoustics – while acknowledging the work of others who have worked in similar sites with different focuses.
Where FJE's criticism fails is in not being able to locate D-S's work within a developing field of enquiry. Within this context D-S’s work opens up more specific questions and possibilities for exploration. To my mind this 'opening up' is a research success, rather than failing.
