As architects and students of the field all know the relationship between architecture and its site is of large importance. The building becomes nearly seamless (most of the time not visually) with the land and/or infrastructure around it. I find this to be one of the most beautiful parts of architecture and would like to hear what other people have to say about how architecture connects and communicates with the site. Or even just one of your favorite projects that really embodies the idea of building+site=architecture.
If you look at building in terms of geologic time we are just setting a temporary construct into a context which will far outlast anything that man could ever create. I find it interesting that the process of building requires us to excavate and move stone and soil that has been in place for thousands of years. I guess the thing to think about is what you are doing worth it? or is your architecture a pimple on the ass of the earth that should just be eradicated with a natural disaster? Many a beautiful projects in beautiful sites are just that...Is falling water better than a natural waterfall or stream course? does it add to the value to that site? is it economic or aesthetic?
I understand the trope, but keep in mind the landscaper is a rare building.
Also consider that urbanization has the effect of-
-compacting soils changing hydrological dynamics, including runoff. Before you write that off, consider the flood on the Mississippi River since 1997. That's urbanization.
-changing soil ph, and adding pollutants to the soil
- destroying high quality agricultural land
-disturbing soil, encouraging invasive plant species to move in, choking out natives.
-Turf, great for building photos, way underperforms when compared to meadows
Finally got around to posting this and finding the quote; nice to reread this portion from our friend Steven Holl.
"Building transcends physical and functional requirements by fusing with a place, by gathering the meaning of a situation. Architecture does not so much intrude on a landscape as it serves to explain it. Illumination of a site is not a simplistic replication of its "context"; to reveal an aspect of a place may not confirm its "appearance." Hence the habitual ways of seeing may well be interrupted."
"Architecture and site should have an experiential connection, a metaphysical link, a poetic link.
When a work of architecture successfully fuses a building and situation, a third condition emerges. In this third entity, denotation and connotation merge; expression is linked to idea which is joined to site. the suggestive and implicit are manifold aspects of an intention."
Connecting with the site
As architects and students of the field all know the relationship between architecture and its site is of large importance. The building becomes nearly seamless (most of the time not visually) with the land and/or infrastructure around it. I find this to be one of the most beautiful parts of architecture and would like to hear what other people have to say about how architecture connects and communicates with the site. Or even just one of your favorite projects that really embodies the idea of building+site=architecture.
If you look at building in terms of geologic time we are just setting a temporary construct into a context which will far outlast anything that man could ever create. I find it interesting that the process of building requires us to excavate and move stone and soil that has been in place for thousands of years. I guess the thing to think about is what you are doing worth it? or is your architecture a pimple on the ass of the earth that should just be eradicated with a natural disaster? Many a beautiful projects in beautiful sites are just that...Is falling water better than a natural waterfall or stream course? does it add to the value to that site? is it economic or aesthetic?
I understand the trope, but keep in mind the landscaper is a rare building.
Also consider that urbanization has the effect of-
-compacting soils changing hydrological dynamics, including runoff. Before you write that off, consider the flood on the Mississippi River since 1997. That's urbanization.
-changing soil ph, and adding pollutants to the soil
- destroying high quality agricultural land
-disturbing soil, encouraging invasive plant species to move in, choking out natives.
-Turf, great for building photos, way underperforms when compared to meadows
Finally got around to posting this and finding the quote; nice to reread this portion from our friend Steven Holl.
"Building transcends physical and functional requirements by fusing with a place, by gathering the meaning of a situation. Architecture does not so much intrude on a landscape as it serves to explain it. Illumination of a site is not a simplistic replication of its "context"; to reveal an aspect of a place may not confirm its "appearance." Hence the habitual ways of seeing may well be interrupted."
"Architecture and site should have an experiential connection, a metaphysical link, a poetic link.
When a work of architecture successfully fuses a building and situation, a third condition emerges. In this third entity, denotation and connotation merge; expression is linked to idea which is joined to site. the suggestive and implicit are manifold aspects of an intention."
-Steven Holl, Anchoring p9-
such a great quote and humble architect.
Here's how you connect with a site:
THE ROOT BRIDGES OF CHERRAPUNJI
this.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.