Wednesday, October 8, 2008
issues:
What I strive to do with my project is to create an architecture that can double/act as a landscape. Maybe it is a harmonious integration of the two. It is a versatile space that can adapt to the changing requirements of its host environment. The issue I am having is how much is architecture and how much is landscape. What constitutes as either category, and what combination will create the best spatial environment? My thesis involves the 'filling' of the existing void space to make connections to the exiting urban fabric. This means that the space needs to act simultaneously as an arterial connection, a void, a formally organized architecture, a landscape, and it must also be able to transform over time. So what does this mean in a physical form... ?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
it strikes me that program (either architectural or landscape) will be the thing that defines the physical form of the thing-itself and the characteristics of its interchange with the world. it will define zones (of use, movement, etc) and the possibility of events - all of these in relation to the existing context/programs/needs.
ultimately, all of the pieces of the puzzle (your "intervention", the spaces-in-between (ie. landscapes), and the existing) will be what charges what/how the design will be defined and designed.
Post a Comment