The idea in the "Transplantation" proposal to transplant favorable elements of the old and new urban districts was extremely clear and attractive.  Introducing into the large-scaled new urban district places that have the human scale and physical sense of the old urban district has the potential to create a new district.  What element ought to be introduced from the new urban district into the old urban district?  In this proposal, a large plaza was created, but I don't believe that is the answer.  I think it could be, for example, the sense of cleanliness or the large human scale of the new urban district.

With respect to the "Hotel/Motel" proposal, I think there is a contradiction in trying to rebuild the urban district of Taichung using motels, which are extremely closed units.  However, I think I understand how hotels can become urban lobbies.

The "Gear" proposal was to engage two gears, one large and the other small, in the city and to control and manipulate them.  However, it wasn't clear what form of building these gears would take.  Gears are a metaphor, so it is important to translate the idea into form.   Unfortunately this was not made clear in the proposal.

In the "Motorbike" proposal, motorbikes are introduced into buildings in the city.  That itself is interesting, but the implications of that ought to have been explored further.  Do the designs of motorbikes remain as they are?  How is the  existing infrastructure used?  Those things are unclear.  In addition, the speed of motorbikes is quite different from the walking speed of humans; therefore, the relationship to pedestrian spaces ought to have been considered as well.

The "MRT" proposal connects the old and new urban districts three-dimensionally with new transport.  The fact that the MRT travels on various levels of the city is what makes this proposal attractive.  I think the way it uses the city three-dimensionally is good.  If the relationship between automobiles and motorbikes had been elaborated a little further, then automobiles might not have entered all streets in the urban area, streets could have been used as green roads or parks, and the proposal might have been more relevant to the old urban district. which is experiencing a hollowing out.

The "River" proposal connects the four separate rivers now flowing through Taichung and uses them as a canal.  What is interesting is that it allows the river and riverbanks to be used on various levels; they can be used for transportation and accessed three-dimensionally.  People can enjoy the rivers as a part of everyday life.  The idea is quite interesting.

My first impression of this workshop is that it enabled me to get a tactile sense of a city in the grips of growth.  In Japan, particularly Tokyo, one is apt to lose one's sense of reality.  It is a part of the role of the architect to consider the city.  I think I got a real sense of that.  I would add that I realized if we architects confront the city in earnest, we can direct its growth.

That is also a way of saying that here, concepts entirely different from known ideas about Tokyo and cities in the West apply, and that the theme was an extremely difficult one to tackle.  I think this workshop was quite meaningful in that it confronted these questions directly.  Over the course of the workshop, I was able to observe the changing mood of the students: confusion about the city; which changed to anguish over the difficulty of producing an architectural solution; recovery and a determination to go forward; and at the end of the final review, a sense of achievement and a bit of self-examination.  Seeing them immerse themselves completely in architectural and urban issues in a foreign country was quite exciting for me.  I would like to thank Y-GSA and the students for giving me this opportunity.