For those of you who have been reading my blog from the beginning, you know it has been sort of an experiment for me in regards to relating my thoughts and designs to people both within and out of the architecture field.  Now that the site is over six months old, I thought it time to reflect on its successes and failures.

As far as giving me a public outlet for my thoughts, it has certainly been successful. Those who have read it seem to have a much better understanding of my interests within my field, even sending me articles and other items they feel I would enjoy.  I am especially pleased by the interest it has aroused in those around me who have little architectural or design background.

On a less successful note, the blog is not nearly as well read as I would have thought I could achieve, and I am somewhat at a loss as to how to expand its readership at this point.  The site is also not visited outside of potential employers, school colleagues, family, and friends.  However, I feel these particular goals are much more long-term and of much less importance than improving my writing skills and supplementing my visual portfolio with written thought process.  Since I feel my writing has greatly improved (along with my day-to-day speaking abilities) and this supplemental written material has been very  much of interest in my recent interviews with potential employers, this blog is therefore a success.

The online portfolio has acted as a great introduction to potential employers, though I have found it difficult to discuss projects over a computer monitor.   I have had to also create a tangible hard copy version to pour over in interviews.  It simply seems to be more comfortable for all involved, surprisingly myself included.  I imagine this would hold true if pitching yourself in person to a client as well.  So saving paper has not been achieved, although this site’s role as a paperless introduction has been a resounding success.

Thus far this website has garnered me one unsought job interview, a long-term goal which I was delighted to have achieved so early.  It didn’t work out due to location and timing issues, but it was nonetheless extremely encouraging.  I have no doubt this website is and will continue to be very beneficial to me, and therefore a very good, if slightly time-consuming, venture on my part.

Thank you to those who have been supportive of my experiment here.  I do plan to continue it well into the future.  I think it will always be a fabulous place for me to “play” and “think,” especially as I enter the much more serious real world of architecture.  I hope you continue to read and give me feedback, I really do love it.

Yesterday I was riding around Portland with a friend when I commented upon the large number of homes for sale around us.  My friend, who is currently looking to purchase, explained to me how homeowners are refusing to acknowledge the market depression and still advertising their homes for the same prices they would have pulled a year ago.  Hence why so many were for sale- the typical number go on the market, and then stay on the market due to overpricing.  So when the next round go for sale, they join an already overpopulated market, making my short ride through the city look as though the place was turning into a ghost town.

The amount of homes available within the city certainly alarmed me.  I began to wonder how the suburbs were faring, if this was the state of decent neighborhoods within one of the most desirable U.S. cities.   I imagined whole new suburbs appearing by these massive construction corporations who cannot afford to stop building sitting there and rotting due to lack of clientele.  My friend joked it was the turn of reverse gentrification, with the suburbs now becoming the place for squatters and crime.

Although it was meant as a joke, the comment made an impression on my mind.  Reverse gentrification, as she put it, has already started happening in quite a few cities since the nineties.  The yuppies are purchasing cheap parcels in downtown, fixing them up, and moving in.  The poor get pushed out, and currently there is little thought or effort to figure out where these multitudes go.  In Portland, where virtually all neighborhoods have been gentrified, the “trouble areas” literally have moved to the suburbs.

It will be strange to see the problems that will arise.  The suburbs are not built for people without plenty of spare cash.  They require a significant amount of gas money in order to drive to work, the grocery store, entertainment.  Those who cannot drive, namely youth, already suffer from lack of stimulation, often turning to petty crime in their idleness.  Once these become the homes of multitudes without the cash to constantly fill up their gas tanks, what will happen?  Will the class divide become literal as the rich have no need whatsoever to venture into the outer lands of the poor? Or will many choose to refuse the suburbs, staying within the cities as homeless?

The gentrification of cities is currently a celebrated subject.  It has made inner cities vibrant again.  But when revitalization fails to strike a balance with all the social classes, I wonder what its future holds.