HKU BAAS Design 2 - Archive of Nature

XU BEN CELINE 3035329742 COLLABORATED WITH CHU KIT YING IVY SHE CHUN TING WESLEY

ARCH2074 DESIGN 2 WALLACE CHANG PING HUNG SEMESTER 1, 2018-19

THE UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG DEPARTMENT OF ARCHITECTURE

Content

/ Overview / Seeking a nature-based solution / Layering of Visitor experience / Design Proposal / Reflection

Overview

Our group’s research b ­egan with some a ­rtificial and n ­atural elements that impressed us during our trip to the site, Lung Fu Shan ­ ­ Environmental ­ Education Centre. With ­ further study into these elements, we got a ­ better ­ understanding of the n ­egotiation between nature and human from both sides’ p ­erspectives, which also ­ became our stance in initializing the ­ design concept for the ­ extension of the environmental e ­ducation c ­entre.­T ­aking both human experience and nature sustainability into account, we f ­ ­inally find a balancing point which could benefit both sides without ­ compromising each other’s needs and comfort zones.

Seeking a nature-based solution

In early stage of our investigation of the site, we ­ mainly f ­ocused on the bond between ­ ­ nature and ­ human, and how to make use of ­ current ­ environmental conditions to enhance this bond. We hoped to merge ­ nature and human ­ together, yet ­ gradually we found ourselves in a trap of too much ­ intervention on nature, since we were actually consideri­ ng ­ everything from human’s perspective in this stage.

One lesson is the nullah and fallen leaves along the path to the centre. The nullah functions as both i ­ ­nfrastructure and landscape, showing the potential of integrating people into the nature environment. Also through observation, falled ­ leaves in higher level could be rearranged to lower level where lacks nutrition, via water in nullhah. However, there seems to be too much clumsy intervention to the ­ original ecosystem.

Section of path to Lung Fu Shan Environmental Education Centre

Transportation of fallen leaves

Backyard

Ecological Pond

-Home for fruit bats

-Water resources

Herbs Corner - Insects repellence

Trees Butterfly Garden -Honey plants

-Shelter -Food resources -Playground

Mapping of major species inside centre

Another impressive issue is about the species living inside the c ­entre, which was surprising to learn that there’re more than 150 species here, yet most of them are rarely to see during daytime mainly because of lack of shelter. Therefore we proposed a cell structure as a playground and shelter for animals, to attract more to come at daytime, and serving an educational purpose for visitors to visualise the interaction between animals and space in the centre’s ecosystem.

Soon we ­ realised that nature and wildlife will never follow our settings, and an artificially ­ ­ installed “Playground“ can never do better than nature itself. The playground is more like something trapping nature.­ ­

Units for different species

Breaking the partitions

Could this really happen?

From the above two lessons, we realised that ponderously inviting human and nature together could cause much trouble to nature environment, and even “trap” nature in the garden. Besides, the real nature without human i ­ntervention, in fact, is supposed to be the untouched terrain of Lung Fu Shan, with arrays of trees. If we are to seek a pure nature-based solution for the centre, the best way ought to be “Let it be“ recover the g ­arden by loosening the soil and plant new grass seeds, to what it used to be ­ before constructing the centre, which would meanwhile, be not so welcoming for people due to the mosquitoes, damp and torridity.

After Restoration

Before Restoration Concrete

Sandy Soil

Loam

(artificial)

Loam

(natural)

Nutrition Low

High

Soil Types in the Centre

Zoning

Structure

Shape

Simplification

Skywalk Prototypes

Hence we put foward another approach - a skywalk elevated from the ground after modifying the garden back to a wild one, which achieves a balance b ­ ­etween ­ recovering nature and enhancing visitors’ experience by allowing them observe the garden ina unique perspective.

Layering of visitor experience

With the skywalk as an introduction to the centre, we layerd the 足 experience by visiting the centre into three stages - hands-on experience, 足 足 informative briefing and reflection on the journey - each getting deeper and d 足eeper into the understanding and experience of nature. We hope to invite the three layers together in one semi-open space, located in the flat part of the back slope, ater passing through skywalk.

Spatial components: Hands-on experience - Garden/Workshop Informative briefing - Exhibition Reflection - Lecture/Meditation Space

Exhibition

Garden

Lecture/ Meditation Space

Workshop

For the facade design, we adopted a Chinese garden like system which is designed as a framing and focusing device that is comfortable for ­ visitors to ­ discover nature and other species without interruptting them. Thus we began p ­rototyping frames and walls limiting or e ­xpanding visitors’ observation, which means when a v ­isitor stands in ­ different places, his/her view will vary ­ accordingly. We experimented this with ­ ­ different width and density. We also tried some ­ prototypes that ­ integrated the nature exhibition into the frame structure using resin or containers, which also function well in terms of guiding people to focus on ­ important elements and achieving education goal of the centre. ­

Original Idea -

Framed pathway Guiding & framed viewing

Developing Idea I -

Spectator

To see/not to see To be seen/not to be seen single wall 0 degree 50 density 50 distance 5 thickness

single wall 45 degree 50 density

single wall 90 degree 50 density

Spectated

Developing Idea II Bringing exhibition into the wall Line/Small size

Line (individually rotated) /Small size

Line/Large size

Speciman exhibition

Line/Hybrid sizes

Developing Idea III -

Spectated

Spectator

Spectated

Spectator

Spectated

Spectator

Spectated

Spectator

Design Proposal

1 6.8 m 5.0 m 3.9 m

0 m

-6.8 m

2

3

4

1: Entrance 2: View of city 3: Eco-pond from above

8

7

4: Red-stem fig tree 5: Roof garden & workshop 6: Exhibition & theatre

6

5

7: Library & history museum 8: Butterfly garden

Wood Frame as structure & Display Stand

Roof garden & workshop

Roof panels

Structural Frame

Stage & Seating Platform

Base Terrain

Entrance to centre

Roof garden/ workshop

Ecological pond

Trees

Buildings

Entrance to roof garden

Exhibition into wall

Lecture room/ Meditation space

Overview of design proposal and site

Reflection

I could still recall that my studio supervisor asked all the students “What is architecture?” on the first day of this semester. My answer at that time was “solving problems in an elegant way”, though I was not really sure about how to define “elegant”. It’s neither purely about the form, nor purely about the ­concept behind.

Yet from the whole semester’s studio work, I gradually learned what an “elegant” solution should be like - starting from a simple idea, and ending in a simplified form. Initially my group focused on the experience of visiting the centre, which was quite abstract and challenging if taking it as a parameter for our design.

And all of us three were kind of trapping ourselves repeatedly and making the solution as complicated as possible, which I knew clearly was out of the track of an “elegant” approach. Then we began to overturn what we did, and looked back more critically. We tried hard to eliminate the superfluous design, and highlight the real idea - the experience, which was refined again and again.

Finally we are confident to say that we get to the point despite the i ­mperfection of the design proposal - at least we got a clear sense of “elegance” in architectural solutions. Purify the idea and then perfect it. ­

2018 DECEMBER