Getting trashy with thesis

2 weeks ago, we had a Pecha Kucha-style presentation.  It theoretically was supposed to be 7 slides, 30 seconds per slide = 3.5 minutes of an attempt to explain where we are with our research and what our focus might be.  We split into 2 groups and ours was the delinquent one, with frequent "hit the escape!" moments to pause the incessant countdown of slides.  So much for punctuality.  We did end up having interesting (semi-timed) conversations, and I came out of it with a slightly more focused direction on... where to be looking.

My presentation went a little like this (without words of explanation, for now):

Some questions that Andrew and Liam (our reviewers) had:

• Define more precisely my definition of "waste" (which ranges from building materials - which are "not so trashy" - to food scraps - which are more "trash")
• Is an examination of rubble too narrow? what exactly would the theoretical premise be?
• What is the desired result in the end?  (new building typologies based on a conception of new building blocks, or a designed... waste-to-energy plant like BIG?)
• What is the ideal context for this work?  Post-catastrophe?  Daily waste management (i.e. demolition, etc.)?

In a subsequent post, I may 1) articulate what I meant by each slide, 2) explain my fascination with waste/trash/garbage/the end of the cycle, or ruins/remnants/leftovers.

As I started down this path, I got both excited and discouraged: excited that this could be something cool to explore with few tried architecture possibilities (outside of repurposing various building materials in the spirit of Rural Studio) - and apprehensive that this might then, mean, that for further research, I would need to visit some pretty smelly places.