In re-evaluating the ideas I presented in the house as thesis, I have clarified a few ideas about the direction I would like this thesis to take:
I am more interested advancing the cultural relationships to our environment and sustainable behaviour rather then anything along the lines of a building science perspective. I believe those elements will come in as a secondary level to anything I design.
I have been focusing on the ideas of “consumption” and “user behaviour”, which I think are also other elements that should become a secondary aspect to my designs.
Moving forward, I would like to refine my thesis as a re-evaluation of our cultural relationships to the environment, not influencing our consumptive behaviour but influencing ideas about a sustainable lifestyle. Culturally, how can our buildings promote a greater relationship to nature that creates spaces that are healthier, and promote different spatial conditions for specific uses?
In a library, the conditions that you would want to create would be a sense of calmness, creativity, concentration, and silence. I think the waterfront presents a great opportunity for this. Also, the idea of the library is that it preserves some of our most valuable resources in literature. The value of natural resources needs to have the same resonance, and my idea is to combine a botanic garden/seed library into a traditional library use to foster a culturally mutual benefit between the two uses.
Here are some initial sketches:
Though this is a bit antithetical to what has been the overriding theme of this project - that is to say, DESIGN, it would be really worthwhile for you to clarify for yourself how you will integrate these new ideas you have brought. The notion to have "our buildings promote a greater relationship to nature that creates spaces that are healthier" is admirable but very difficult to identify as to how you would execute that idea. The rhetoric is fine but the challenge for all of you is to take those ideas and execute them. It is also pretty overtly programmatic to intend to "promote different spatial conditions for specific uses" - isn't that what architects do to begin with? Or is there a loss in translation here?
ReplyDeleteRegarding the design, there is no evidence that you have design ideas that showcase your intention. The rough massing is extremely primitive without providing a sense of scale. More importantly, you really have not identified how these masses support that connection to nature you outlined as critical in your work. Coming back to the first point made in these comments, identifying the architectural ways you will highlight that relationship to nature first will allow your audience to understand how the massing/forms are appropriate.