A good architectural work is one that took consideration of the site/surroundings.
There are actually two aspect of site that we should consider. Architects too quick to just think of the physical site situation only. What about the non-physical aspect of the site?.... eg. the people who inhabit the site - which should draw you to also consider the social and economy aspect of the site as well.
Putting those aside, going back to answering the quest of many lecturers of your site context...
Let's say, RELATE to site means connecting to site, and the less sophisticated way of thinking is to follow the architectural language of the site, or literally to do something of the same. So this could be ONE of the approach.
As for RESPOND - the online dictionary synonym to that word is REACT - as we all know there can be a positive reaction or a negative reaction like wise, a positive respond or a negative respond...
RESPECT is quiet a general word or old fashion way or perhaps too romantic way of talking about a site context. Well i still think it is just too general... less say my building is similar in terms of height with the adjacent buildings... perhaps it can pass by being respecting to the site.... really?.... if i really want to respect the site, it should maybe be a building that is lower?...
I voted for RECREATE simply because its the most intriguing option. But this doesnt mean it will be my approach for all my projects.
Even if i am recreating or redefining the site - to give a new meaning to the site - i can also still relate my architecture form to the surroundings or even respect it....
To me, it is important to consider both the non-physical and physical aspect of the site. Non-physical being ISSUES - Physical being OUTLOOK.
My guess is when you are questioned on your 'connecting' to the site problem - its issue pertaining the physical aspect of your architecture. This is your own challenge or conviction, to make decision based on what you think is right / best... or makes most sense.
And really, its sad that we just have to look at the facade to see if the building is connecting to the site or not, because the issue of the site context is more sophisticated that just the face of it.
D) recreate :D...hahaahahaha
ReplyDeleteD
ReplyDeleteIf we do recreate, is it still consider connecting back to site ? cz we often been question didnt relate to site ~ :O ?
ReplyDeleteA good architectural work is one that took consideration of the site/surroundings.
ReplyDeleteThere are actually two aspect of site that we should consider. Architects too quick to just think of the physical site situation only. What about the non-physical aspect of the site?.... eg. the people who inhabit the site - which should draw you to also consider the social and economy aspect of the site as well.
Putting those aside, going back to answering the quest of many lecturers of your site context...
Let's say, RELATE to site means connecting to site, and the less sophisticated way of thinking is to follow the architectural language of the site, or literally to do something of the same. So this could be ONE of the approach.
As for RESPOND - the online dictionary synonym to that word is REACT - as we all know there can be a positive reaction or a negative reaction like wise, a positive respond or a negative respond...
RESPECT is quiet a general word or old fashion way or perhaps too romantic way of talking about a site context. Well i still think it is just too general... less say my building is similar in terms of height with the adjacent buildings... perhaps it can pass by being respecting to the site.... really?.... if i really want to respect the site, it should maybe be a building that is lower?...
I voted for RECREATE simply because its the most intriguing option. But this doesnt mean it will be my approach for all my projects.
Even if i am recreating or redefining the site - to give a new meaning to the site - i can also still relate my architecture form to the surroundings or even respect it....
To me, it is important to consider both the non-physical and physical aspect of the site. Non-physical being ISSUES - Physical being OUTLOOK.
My guess is when you are questioned on your 'connecting' to the site problem - its issue pertaining the physical aspect of your architecture. This is your own challenge or conviction, to make decision based on what you think is right / best... or makes most sense.
And really, its sad that we just have to look at the facade to see if the building is connecting to the site or not, because the issue of the site context is more sophisticated that just the face of it.