Contextual Sensitivity

حساسیت به موقعیت / متن

---

Context •Community Design •Architecture •Urban Design •
Posted by Rezwan • Sep 15, 2008 • (1) Comments •
Printer friendly • • مطلب را به بالاترین بفرستید:

Taking stock of your present reality...

ُChad Oppenheim, progressive Miami architect, was asked the following question (see full interview):

How has the culture, the climate and the topography of that city [Miami] infused your design philosophy and shaped your residential work?

To which he answered:

We’re very contextually sensitive in all our work, and we accentuate the positive of any location, and Miami has a lot of positives: Look at the natural resources of light, tropical breezes, water, sky. All these natural elements, that are free materials to work with, are a tremendous influence. We want to let the architecture be submissive to the natural beauties that surround us.

I’ve always been fascinated with Miami. When I was a kid, I watched Miami Vice, and it showed so many interesting, playful, fun buildings, and I assumed there was an anything-goes mentality. So I originally moved here because I felt there would be a liberal attitude toward design; I had a notion there was a lack of architectural history here, more so than in other more established cites—and that would make it easier to push the envelope.

But when I arrived, I discovered that liberal mentality was actually very limited and applied only to minor pieces of architecture. The general, prevailing style was Neo-Traditionalist and Post-Modern.

We didn’t set out to change the city; there was no big objective or larger mission. But we knew we could do things differently, improve things, and little by little, we have tried to inject a more playful, warmer Modernism—doing open lobbies, rooftop gardens, big outdoor pools that capture breezes, creating places for enjoying the moment. By doing so, we gradually became more influential.

Taking a look at Shiraz, what do we see?

• The prevailing style is...eclectic Shiraz vernacular. Individualistic traditional neauveau? Multi-stone, brick and iron-scape/mosaic with a bit of mirror bling and tile?
• The attitude...liberal? There's a tension between traditional, yearning to break free, and a free for all..
• Everything is built with the urge to maximize building space, and minimize public public space - the building boundaries come right to the edge of the properties. From the look of it, developers aren't successful at combining many properties to create fewer, more integrated, operational structures. It's every man for himself, with short apartments squeezed onto tiny lots.
• Speaking of short, there are some problematic height restrictions. In the historic quarters, you have a 2 storey maximum, with people building basements 3 stories deep to counter it. Elsewhere, only a few structures are allowed to be tall. The result is sprawl and inefficiency. Why don't we have more skyscrapers in Shiraz? The zoning that forbids it [need more facts about this. Existing laws, debates?] seems to be based on a fear of heights and earthquakes. An earthquake expert I know says that skyscrapers in Iran are pretty safe. The taller a building is, the less it is affected by earthquakes, like balancing a pole on your finger. The destructive energy is dissipated. Another contextual issue to explore.

As to the climate and topography, we have light and sky, and an underutilized river. Used only as a transport artery. The city is cradled in some gentle and distinctive hills.

I sense a lack of iconic attention given to the mountains around Shiraz. The sleeping giant is not featured in tourist brochures. You hardly know he's here. Cape Town, South Africa is defined by table mountain, and Honolulu is defined by Diamond Head, but Shiraz isn't married to its sleeping giant, as far as I know. It's a major geographical asset that could help identify the city.

There's a great place to watch a sunset over the giant. And behind it, a great location for a natural outdoor amphitheater with a view of moon rises and sunsets.

Environmentally, I still don't have a grasp of the region. I was watching "Life After People", the History Channel special that asks: "What happens to earth if--or when--people suddenly vanished?" Great special effects, and it was fun to see New York city skyscrapers after 500 years decaying into mounds and being covered with vegetation. But this scenario applies to places with a lot of rain and weather. Iran, in contrast, gets very little rain. Would skyscrapers here stand for millennia?

The movie points out the irony of modern building materials, how they will not stand the test of time, in contrast to good old fashioned stone and clay. It gives great incentive to build a few major stone monuments, just so we have some big things to draw attention to ourselves a few thousand years from now.

« Next Article Property Rights, Planning & Markets - Intro

Previous Article » B-1 Driver's License