These readings coincided beautifully with studio issues of scale and a recent site visit to sublime Big Sur, California. To briefly relate, our site is situated on a voluptuous, rolling mountain scape with views to an infinite ocean/sky horizon in one orientation and boundless mountain range in another. At once we are encountering issues of scale and relating to the sublime as we site our buildings. Pollak suggests that the designer can "bring forth and intensify existing forces by weaving new scales of activity into the site." In an attempt to get another desk crit in before next studio, what else can or should we as designers do with or to a sublime site? I think it is a great description of or protocol for working with the sublime on multiple layers.
I question just one part of the article. Pollak states that none of the projects she mentions blurs the boundary between architecture and landscape. Do you all agree with that? How can Siza's pool project, that extends the water and horizon, not sometimes be considered an ambiguity between architecture, constructed ground, and landscape?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment