Was trying to organize the points we'd want to make in the presentation/text and came up w a number of drivers:
SITE
Between the landscape, views and existing buildings theres enough site reasons for how we organized the program. Its not particularly conceptual strong or interesting, but it could be simply about respect for the site. Or better, it could be about activation of the site and buildings from a picturesque landscape into a dynamic, social zone/area/center of cultural productivity. Which kinda tiea into the second point.
PRODUCTIVE PRESERVATION
I think what we're doing is particularly interesting (back pat, back pat) because we're proposing a way to not only creat a new cultural center, but do so while preserving the existing landscape (by not building all over the prized parts) and highlighting the existing buildings. A new lease on life for the structures, so to speak. Its transformative by being protective/conservative (conservative as in act of conservation, not safe).
PROGRAM
Perhaps too much a variant of the REX gallery argument, but theres an argument to be made about independent, individual galleries and the simultaneous flexibilty and variety that they can provide. The project can host multiple, disparate shows or single large throughout shows. Important, though I dont think its a "this is what our project is all about first and foremost" kind of thing.
EXPERIENCE
This neither. But we should point out the oscillating relationship that the building and subsequently the user would have between the art, the landscape, and the square (courtyard? Square is more urban/active I guess).
Others?
And thoughts on what the main driver should be?
CENTER/SITE VS ICON(S)
ReplyDeleteThe desire to create a center and site for art rather than a new icon that would compete w the manor. Or the shift of focus from a singular object (manor) to the site as a whole. Simultaneously highlighting the manor and existing buildings while shifting the emphasis from an iconic building to an iconic site.