Response to critisism - Where Do I go from here

The critics who were on the review were interested in architecture primarily as an esoteric singularity rather than as a backdrop for human interaction, and I believe that because of this much of the criticism was focused not on what was presented, but on architectural issues which had not been conceived of or manifest physically at the time of the critique.

A common question received during the review was "so what is your project about?" The critics saw that there was a program and an idea, but wanted to know how this was to manifest itself architecturally. What makes this an architectural problem and not a social engineering problem?

The critics insisted that none of the six projects presented by myself or my peers were in line with what they expected to see as a thesis. They stated that the point of a thesis was to explore issues of architecture which will act a set-up for a methodology of how we are to approach problems in the future (our careers).

I admit that this line of criticism got to me and has wrecked havoc on my confidence in this project. I have a deep personal suspicion of any sort of attempt by architects to "socially engineer" space, to cause it to conform to any specific singular vision or dogma, and to impose onto the inhabitants of the space a rigid and fixed solution to a problem which is ever evolving.

I have been unable to answer why I believe that this is an important project for me personally, why I think it has meaning architecturally. I have been unable to devise a methodology of exploration which has any fruitful meaning or which provides any substantive understanding or process.

In short I'm stuck, and have very few options to go forward.

SO, with that in mind, what can I look at?

As an architectural issue, this project is very much about transience and impermanence: While the organization is fixed, the focus of the attention is ever changing as new waves of refugees from very different cultures successively build onto an area.
Architecturally it becomes an issue of "How do you create a space which is flexible, and adaptable, yet serves a range of needs, and societal views?
The first part of the project needs to take on a role of a center where

There is a need to provide at the same time some stability. The intent is permanent refugee resettlement to the united states, not transients. So architecturally it becomes about neighborhood creation, and establishing sub-cultural boundaries in a built environment. Part of the project should be neighborhood design.