Design
6.3 DESIGN PROCESS Trying, testing, and using opposites I narrowed down to three possibilities:
How can one be sure that the proposed design is the best outcome to reach a state of melancholic contemplation? The best degree of confidence I can achieve is through trying, testing, and using opposites (described in Section 5.4.3). The first phase was testing the projective design alternatives. Then, once a direction was chosen, each aspect of the design went through further iterations. The process illustrates the back-andforth nature of decision-making from the design guidelines to the design devices. Each decision necessitated another choice, which opened up the door to consider using the design devices to fulfill other aesthetic properties. I demonstrate the process by elaborating on two examples: Vanity Stair and Curio.
1. Traverse the moraine and drop down where there is a natural dip
2. Zig-zag down the talus slope from the viewpoint
6.3.1 VANITY STAIR I began with the task, which was to descend the terminal moraine to reach the water. The question was how?
?
3. Direct descent down the talus slope
Applying design guidelines For this task, two design guidelines appear to be immediately relevant: “orient to Haupapa” (5) and “amplify above-below connection” (6b).
gla
lm na mi ter
Each option had implications for the aesthetic property:
cie r
ine ora
1. No dramatic relationship between sky and earth, gradual decline, lack of orientation, simplest to build, functional. 2. Orientation keeps switching, amplifies the relationship of the path to the slope, challenging engineering (falling rocks etc.). 3. Dramatic connection between earth and sky, orientation to Haupapa, medium engineering challenge, meditative movement.
ke l la na mi ter
E OV d AB arate se p
W LO d BE erse m im
I chose Option 3 because it best met the above design guidelines. From there, I had to make two sets of decisions: how should the staircase descend and should it change in width?
92
