All the urbanism…
“We need to view the fragility of the planet and its resources as an opportunity for speculative design innovations rather than as a form of technical legitimation for promoting conventional solutions.”
This quote is especially true today for the profession but also very important in the context of education. What does it looks like when we comply with building codes and regulation but not allow it to drive design or stunt it. We need to push for creativity and innovation especially now when it seems like there are always new rules coming up. By doing so, we may even find that blurring certain boundaries between functions one wouldn’t think would mix, might spring up new ways of living or new typologies. A good example of this in my opinion is Big’s Amagerforbraending waste Treatment Plant.
This project blends the boundaries between what a waste treatment plant is supposed to be and a place of leisure. By mixing the two, the project creates a type of space of interaction that also raises awareness about waste in the city. The building also has a different relationship to the terrain it sits on, and well as the user’s experience. I find that this is a method that we need to use more in design today - creating spaces of interaction that serve more than one function, or different relational approaches.
This second example is different - on the other side of the spectrum.
A storage shed at a vineyard but serves multiple functions: “to provide an armature for a photovoltaic roof (electric), collect rainfall for irrigating (environmental) as well as to provide covered storage for farming vehicles as well as space for workshops (social).
The point is that it can be done across multiple scales and uses.
Your point about blurring certain boundries and mixing can relate to the "bog boxes" of today and what it means to blur their functions, find a new way for them to live and create a new typology. Is there a moment for these reuse projects in todays urbanism to become something other than they were? Something other than junkspace? Does reusing them, and at what scale, result in something officially better?
ReplyDeleteThe small scale implementation, such as the shed that you've shared, is totally logical and practical. However, I'm not so sure about the example given for the large scale. Do these two starkly different programs (waste treatment and skiing) really need to be combined? I feel that there are a myriad of more practical and affordable ways to spread awareness of municipal waste, if that is the intent. BIG is known for eccentricity, that's what sells their projects. In my opinion, adding a huge ski slope to a flat, low-lying city doesn't seem like an intuitive or worthwhile approach to creating new typologies.
ReplyDelete