SITE ANALYSIS = SIGHT ANALYSIS
To understand the situation in which the work is created, one
needs to understand the site conditions from many points of
view, physical, social, and philosophical. To work in a natural
landscape is a fundamentally different activity than to work in an
urban context, even if the value system and the artistic intentions
are the same for both. If “you can’t top nature,” it is best to
approach the circumstances of the site by trying to integrate the
work with the natural conditions. In sum, nature is regarded as a
given. In the city, on the other hand, one is dealing with “the
hand of man in spades,” and one must consider to a greater
degree the history of the place as well as its physical configura-
tion, the uses of the surrounding buildings, site, human factors,
and most of all, scale.
The following outline of a method is provided that one might em-
ploy if asked to work on an urban plaza. One might first begin with
an extended visit to the site, acquiring as many impressions as pos-
sible: without ambition; without conclusions; without any particu-
lar focus. More critical than a fixed a method for making the work
is trying to develop a sense of the site, in some ways recalling the
genius loci of the English landscape garden. Next, attention is turned
to the physical configuration and context, with impressions and
information acquired by walking around the site in a rough circle.
We repeatedly approach the site along the lines of principle access;
these initial interfaces and impressions are critical.
The width and attitude of the surrounding streets need to be consid-
ered, and one must come to terms with the prevalent scale. Aspects
of local buildings, their materials, details, and sense of craft, also in-
fluence the nature of the work. Driving in increasingly larger circles
around the site, one surveys the characteristics of the neighbour-
hood, aspects such as the plants used, colors in which buildings are
painted. From these observations an implicit register is derived, fixing
what established ideas about design, materials, color, etc. are normal
for the place, and what specific properties could be used in order to
surprise. One tries to avoid focusing on the wrong thing; for example,
letting craft or material establish itself as the subject of the work
instead of its vehicle.
The final – and very critical – step is to leave the site and let the idea
crystallize. When one has formed a rudimentary response, one re-
turns to test it in place: How does it feel? Can one imagine it on site?
Next follow an incubation stage, a stage of doubt, a “hypnogogic
state”, a questioning. It is a haptic as much as a mental construct.
Once one is comfortable with the idea, the mechanics of the work
can be considered. How can it be made, for example?
Defining the final category as site conditioned/determined, here the
response draw all of its clues (reasons for being) from its surround-
ings.
In response to sitting, watching, and walking through the site and
surrounding areas, one distills the reactions to determine all the fac-
ets of the response: aesthetic sensibility, levels and kinds of physicality,
gesture, dimensions, materials, kind and level of finish, details, etc.;
whether the response should be monumental or ephemeral, aggres-
sive or gentle, useful or useless, sculptural, architectural, or simply the
planting of a tree, or maybe even doing nothing at all. Or, perhaps
doing what at first may be perceived as nothing at all.
One rarely uses drawings to conceive and develop the work. But the
presentation of the idea is based on the composition of the sponsor- OPTION 1
ing group, and the ability to visualize – certainly the need exists to POSSIBLE BUS STOP LOCATIONS = 67 NO BUSES IN SQ, STOPS CLOSE TO AUCKLAND CENTRAL = 30
establish the validity of the idea. The presentation drawings also
provide a sense of the “thing,” and they establish the proposed work
as art, architecture and landscape.
OPTION 2 : DISBURSED OPTION 3 : CONCENTRATED
BUS DROP OFF ONLY IN SQ, BUSES @ PERIMETER = 30 BUS DROP OFF ONLY IN SQ, CLOSE TO AUCKLAND CENTRAL = 30
BUSES
WAITEMATA WATERFRONT DEVELOPMENT DESIGN COMPETITION STAGE 2 : MASTER PLAN
OCTOBER 2000
007 2/7