Isn't that a Landscape Architect's Job?
In Tuesday’s lecture, we
learned about Álvaro
Siza’s Piscina das Marés – Leça de Palmeira
and how this architecture has a beautiful relationship to the site and strong narrative
architecture. Siza did not bulldoze the site into a flat form, but instead
cultivated the site around the existing rocks. Seeing this space in person was awe-inspiring,
even in the off-season with no visitors. The architecture blended into the
landscape seamlessly and accentuated the view without overpowering it. This
poses the question: do we as architects need to consider the landscape as
carefully as Siza does? Shouldn’t that be a job for the landscape architects
and civil engineers that we work with? How do architects who design in places
such as Clemson and Greenville (without such imposing landscape forms) consider
the landscape in their designs?
Due to the need for architects to be generalists, it is important for us to consider site conditions nearly as heavily as landscape architects. In larger scale projects like Siza's, there would likely be a landscape architect involved, but it is important for the architect to know enough about the site to have constructive and collaborative conversations with the landscape architect. It is also important as an architect to recognize the skills of the landscape architect - who offers a specialized skillset - to make the best decisions in site planning. In cases of smaller projects, there may not be a landscape architect involved, which requires the architect to be able to make these decisions with civil, as they often have a very practical approach that lacks the 'design intent' that architects can offer. All projects require collaboration with other disciplines, so the architect needs to be mindful on how to navigate this collaboration for successful (in this case, site) design.
ReplyDeleteI feel that there is no strong line between an architect and a landscape designer. We as architects, must be sensitive to the site context. We set the theme for the project that we also saw in the movie about Getty Museum in LA. We must not think that this is not my job to think and act when it comes to basics like designing using the site context.
ReplyDeleteI think so much of this question is embedded in how the vernacular architecture touches the land. In this project, specifically Portuguese architecture, there is a heavy hand of the building on the landscape through the materials they use - granite and other masonry. Siza takes that idea and really emphasizes it through the rough concrete and its relationship with the rock. In South Carolina, I think if we were to take a similar approach, we would have to look at colonial and pre-colonial structures and how they meet the ground. All in all I don't think it is the literal topography itself that then lends to the approach, but asking the question as to how and why has architecture of the area reacted/responded to the topography.
ReplyDeleteI feel that while architect's don't necessarily need to consider terrain as heavily as Siza does in every project, we do need to take into consideration what can be on a site that isn't just flat. Even of the topography is only used to influence one aspect of the design, keeping it mostly in tact keeps the unique features of an area in tact as well.
ReplyDeleteI think landscape is important to consider in every project. It is a way to create a space that feels unique. If every building was built on a flat, leveled plot of land, every site conditions would be relatively the same. The only differences in site would be latitude (sun angles) and soil makeup. Any floor plan could fit on any site. Every form might become monotonous, dull, and lacking character at all. I believe interactions with existing landscape is arguably one of the most important considerations a designer, especially an architect, can make.
ReplyDeleteI think landscape is important to consider in every project. It is a way to create a space that feels unique. If every building was built on a flat, leveled plot of land, every site conditions would be relatively the same. The only differences in site would be latitude (sun angles) and soil makeup. Any floor plan could fit on any site. Every form might become monotonous, dull, and lacking character at all. I believe interactions with existing landscape is arguably one of the most important considerations a designer, especially an architect, can make.
DeleteI think the most successful projects don’t separate architecture from civil, from landscape architecture, etc. An interdisciplinary team approach tends to bring in more specialized perspectives, so that we don’t have to ask “Isn’t this the landscape architect’s job?” but rather “Hey could you (the landscape architect) come help me figure this out?”.
ReplyDelete