Reflections I

Critics and thoughts about of my first iteration

1. Tower pertinence to the site 2. Public space, no public realm 3. Untapped opportunities for adaptive re-use

1. Tower pertinence

The first reflection about my first iteration of the project is the tower pertinence since it ends up being the BAS approach for a residential building. In my intent to achieve a hybrid and dense building that meets all the parameters, in some way I put aside the key element of this thesis that is the relationship people with themselves, others and the environment.

One questionable aspect is the visual and environmental impact that a tower might represent on the site. To test this, it has been done a shadows analysis confirmed the negative impact that a tall tower will have for the immediate context across the year.

Another arguable aspect is its architectural contribution to the city. This kind of buildings is the response that cities today are giving to densification. If we speculate about an ideal future, maybe the relationship between people and the city should be on a more domestic scale. In that sense, a tower is not enabling that type of environment. If it is only about nature, a tall tower that provides views to the water and vegetation in balconies or facades would supply this point, however, it would annul the other two ecologies that Guattari proposes as necessary for living in harmony.

Having said that, it has been tested a second iteration which allows densification and obtains a significant project scale and relevance, but which does not dismiss the relationship between people. Besides, it has been incorporated through parametric design the concept of porosity that may boost the introduction of nature into the interior space. This second iteration aims to develop an architectural space that shifts the way dense buildings are conceived nowadays: rather than tall towers which are associated with out of reach elements, these types of horizontal and porous towers might be merged as part of the urban scenery. Shadow Studies. Scenario 1: Vertical density

Summer Autumn

Winter Spring

9am 12pm 3pm

Reviewing first iteration

Shifting densification strategy

Increasing urban porosity Shadow Studies. Scenario 2: Horizontal density + Porosity

Summer Autumn

Winter Spring

9am 12pm 3pm

Another questionable aspect of the first iteration is the public realm strategy. Even though the idea of openings to the central core to create a permeable public space seem to be an appropriate first movement, the programme selection and the fact that it is separated into two levels had to be revised.

The mix of programs did not create an active public realm across a wide time frame range. Programs related to health and education at a ground level would imply that the circulation of people would be restricted to certain periods. Furthermore, despite the central green void was accessible, it did not mean people would use it or engage with the place.

On the other hand, the location of the community-focused program on the third level did not make this social activator to be truly inclusive. It was meant to be for public access, but the architecture did not create an environment that invites everyone to be part of it. In other words, the place was public but not necessarily designed for the public realm.

As a response to these findings, the next iteration will place the social condenser on the ground level and will include only small areas for health and education to show the tip of the iceberg. Most of the programme will be dedicated to culture, community and retail. 1. 2.

Potential problem > Another alternative

3. Adaptive re-use

In the first iteration, the only elements that were retained were the historical building on Malop St and Little Malop St façade, as well as the two corners on Moorabool St. This design approach is arguable in two aspects.

First of all, the only use that the proposition made from them was limited to language. Even though there was a clear intention to preserve them, they were not integrated into the external language of the buildings. Secondly, it was wasting some valuable possibilities, especially structural, for adaptive reuse that other buildings like the car park building or the one on Moorabool St were giving.

A business-as-usual approach would intent to maximise profits rather than celebrating the past. If we can speculate about the future, an ecological approach would definitely be more aware of the context. On one hand, by trying to make the most of existing structures and proposing an integral architectural design that starts from that milestone. Secondly, it would avoid as much as possible to keep contributing to the damage that construction waste does to the planet. Architects and urban designers will be more engaged with the natural environment in the future. Last but not least, by incorporating existing elements as a way to celebrate the past and manifest it in the building language. 1. 2.

Reviewing underutilised buildings > Reassessing conservation strategy