These images show the process of "going back to the drawing board" although keeping past lessons learnt to inform the new design proposal. The first image shows a bubble diagram which creates links between the different spaces, physical, visual and services. This process helped me to look at the brief as a set of buildings/spaces which would complement each other and how best to go about this.
I used the spaces required for the activities in the brief to create a set of shapes which could be used to compare to the current grandstand and site boundaries. These were arrayed firstly as the brief set them out then rearranged to see how much of the site it would cover. This crude arrangement does not take into account voids, circulation space or landscaping nor for the logical and aestheticly pleasing arrangement on site. It does allow one to see how much space could be required. It strengthens the argument for occupying two levels but strongly denounces the use of three levels, except possibly in small spaces where this could be required, such as a camera tower.
This process helped me to decide on the removal of the current grandstand. Its position on site, and space taken up the two biggest concerns. Due to its angle on the site the grandstand claimed a lot of land which could not be effectively used without a significant loss of land. Also its position right on the edge of the site caused problematic flows around it especially in it south-western corner which severely hampers site movement and wastes a lot of space in the process. Also less than half of the buildings foot print translated into seating area and as such used much more land than was necessary.
If the building was to be kept without the entrance building being kept it would in my view be a hypocrisy as both are a link to the past as much as each other. Neither exhibit a remarkable example of their type and with other much more important buildings in the local area heritage listed there would not be a strong need to keep this building. During the rugby season the oval is effectively cut in half with "temporary" structures erected for seating and television broadcasting and advertising requirements as well as a television tower built on the side of the current community centre. Since these buildings remain for over four months it can not be argued they are temporary but merely seasonal.
If this building was of such importance this should not be allowed as it would demean the current buildings and clutter the visual landscape with ugly season structures. By rebuilding on the site the need for this might be reduced or even removed to allow the site and oval to be enjoyed year round without the disruption of the seasonal "temporary" structures.
No comments:
Post a Comment