Should the building's site be treated as a blank canvas for the architect to paint on, or should the site influence the end result of the building? Carol J. Burns states in "On Site: Architectural Preoccupations" that there are two ways architects deal with the issue of site: a cleared site or a constructed site.
The cleared site ideology is an "assumption that the site as received is unoccupied, lacking any prior constructions and empty of content." The land is cleared to make a foundation for the building and beyond that the site has no more function. This blank site idea is often implemented in places where there is no history of construction to link up with. In my opinion when the architect chooses to clear the site they are disregarding the natural elements that already exist as part of the site. By leveling a site the architect has now made the building Mobile. A building with a neutral site can be picked up and place anywhere. The site becomes servant to the building. Contrary to a cleared site a building that responds to the forces of a site uses the constructed site method.
A building that forms a relationship to the site becomes apart of its natural environment. The building is no longer a foreign object that is solely created by the architect but becomes a combination of architect and site forces. The materials used to construct a building should also be considered in correspondence to the site. using materials that are common to the region is more economically responsible due to amount of fuel used in transporting those materials.
I believe that it is the responsibility of architects to improve upon the existing site not degrade it by demolishing its inhabitants. The buildings we create should invoke the spirit of the site.
No comments:
Post a Comment