On Hickam Air Force Base, on the island of Oahu, there is a battle occurring between the Air Force administration and the Hawaiian Historical society over 33 historical houses. The houses were formally officer's barracks that were constructed over 90 years ago. The houses have gained Hawaiian Historical Protection status. For the last four years, these houses, that sit on the beach looking onto the channel that leads into Pearl Harbor, have sat empty. The Air Force has decommissioned them because they operate too inefficiently, and lay in an "accidental potential zone" for commercial aircraft. Three options have been proposed for the handling of the houses:

1. An adaptive reuse project is carried out changing the function of the houses to commercial uses.

2. The houses are to be moved to an alternative location and renovated.

3. The houses are demolished.

In my thesis, I wish to investigate which option (definitely not the third option) would be most suitable for the units, and to carry that option through the design stage. Does a historical building lose its historical value when removed from its original context? Will an adaptive reuse strategy deteriorate from the building's historical significance? If relocation is the best option, how does one choose an alternative site? There are many questions that can be raised. I do not yet have an argument, or statement, to create a thesis with but I believe that there is potential in this debate that is taking place in Hawaii.

Response to Jose

The reading presents an interesting new way to view a problem that we have been dealing with for the past 4 years. While he describes the sequence of designing a project, we have followed a similar path with similar strategies in solving the problems in our eight studios. I did feel that the analogies he used were not clear enough and he could have expressed his ideas in a simpler, more direct way. 

There were several points that he makes that I believe are important to keep in mind while going through my own process of developing a thesis. "It is expedient to study the full complexity of the matter without tripping over all the hurdles encountered." Already I find myself not following this important bit of advice as I begin to think about my thesis. I have made the mistake of liking the idea of a particular project before deciding what argument I want to make. I find that my thoughts about what argument and general focus I want to study quickly diverge into thoughts of program, site, occupancy, etc. It is at this point that I have to consciously step back from the project and remember to look at the "big picture." Those other things will come, but for now it is important that I take the first step; I need to find my phantom.