i am working on my thesis, i have selected an island which is a rock, people go there for scuba diving, snorkeling etc, but there is no such facilitation over there that is why i want to facilitate the tourists, but my teachers continuously ask me that why camouflage... I told them i want to blend in that context by providing the facility and I want nature to be more more significant, because for me the integrity of nature is by far more important and in such natural settings architecture merely serves as a service provider...
also by camouflaging i mean that blending,visually and contextually and also when you talk about camouflage so there is an idea of intruder or enemy so in my case i want to maintain the ecological balance by building in such natural harmonized settings..
help me and give me opinions
Non Sequitur
Feb 27, 17 10:13 am
What happened to all the good comments in your previous thread?
Also blending into the natural context does not equal camouflage unless you're literally trying to hide the building a la army bunker.
There are thousands of great examples of minimal impact architecture set in natural settings. It is quite alarming that you can't put a few examples together.
archiwutm8
Feb 27, 17 10:21 am
"help me and give me opinions"
No pleases or thank you?
Nam Henderson
Feb 27, 17 10:36 am
@Non you mean this thread? Oddly seems to have been created by same person, along with this one more recently... Wonder if OP keeps forgetting they started a thread / or is just not able to find it?
What gives Maleeha? Didn't like the first set of responses you got?
Non Sequitur
Feb 27, 17 10:43 am
^Correct Nam.
There actually was some useful content in that original discussion, although perhaps way above the OP's "thesis" scope.
marki543
Feb 27, 17 10:44 am
I love mixed of modern and nature, all new building going on that way
randomised
Feb 27, 17 11:23 am
Why should buildings look like nature, just let the nature look like buildings et voilà, camouflage!
i am working on my thesis, i have selected an island which is a rock, people go there for scuba diving, snorkeling etc, but there is no such facilitation over there that is why i want to facilitate the tourists, but my teachers continuously ask me that why camouflage... I told them i want to blend in that context by providing the facility and I want nature to be more more significant, because for me the integrity of nature is by far more important and in such natural settings architecture merely serves as a service provider...
also by camouflaging i mean that blending,visually and contextually and also when you talk about camouflage so there is an idea of intruder or enemy so in my case i want to maintain the ecological balance by building in such natural harmonized settings..
help me and give me opinions
What happened to all the good comments in your previous thread?
Also blending into the natural context does not equal camouflage unless you're literally trying to hide the building a la army bunker.
There are thousands of great examples of minimal impact architecture set in natural settings. It is quite alarming that you can't put a few examples together.
"help me and give me opinions"
No pleases or thank you?
@Non you mean this thread? Oddly seems to have been created by same person, along with this one more recently... Wonder if OP keeps forgetting they started a thread / or is just not able to find it?
What gives Maleeha? Didn't like the first set of responses you got?
^Correct Nam.
There actually was some useful content in that original discussion, although perhaps way above the OP's "thesis" scope.
I love mixed of modern and nature, all new building going on that way
Why should buildings look like nature, just let the nature look like buildings et voilà, camouflage!
You have already posted this topic here - http://archinect.com/forum/thread/149991204/camouflage-and-architecture-why-architecture-needs-to-be-camouflaged-thesis-topic
We will close this thread