Thursday, February 19, 2009
Landscape/Site/Time
In architecture, when designing a project, it seems the potential building being designed and the site it is on have a very close relationship. One being very contingent on the other and vice verse. The site we work with on these projects, seems to be a petty substantial aspect of it. Is the site as important as most architects make it out to be? or is it just a piece of the Earth that can be constructed, flattened or anything to make it a place for the buildings and structures we design? I mean, there are plenty of bull-dozers in the world to go around, right?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Designing a building for a specific site is one of the values that make architecture what it is. I feel that designing with the site is a good thing to do because then the building and the site become one, not just any building that you can choose from a catalog and place it anywhere you want. We already harm the earth with activties that we do daily, but I think it is our job as inspiring architects to try to preserve what already exsist.
ReplyDelete