The fourth year jury was refreshing from the point of view of change of scale of projects. It enables to comprehend the contextual complexity, micro-urbanism & resultant architecture. After reviewing the 10 presentation it was perhahps clear that architecture can not be afforded to get relegated to an object anymore. The distinction between regional and modern are always at conflict somehow. The resolution of both may be an ideal conditions. The regional is an condition that is embedded in our context and modernism that needs to be dealt with. I think we are exactly doing the reverse: modernism is assumed to be embedded and imagined that regional that we can deal with. The resultant manifestation is not unknown but our inquiry is still seems to be strangely obscured & contaminated with imagined elsewhereness.
The two projects were worthy of note, one with the clear diagram of reinforcing the main road axis and other axis align with jetty. The resultant form was linear for functional articulation dotted with public spaces. The project had tremendous clarity and had clean urban gesture.
The second project was re-adavptive use of industrial sheds. The alignment of ramp with open space and connection of two old sheds with wrapped movement system, programmatic shelf inserted within are clear indication that architecture with small “a” seeking transition in context. The project demonstrated skill and spatial qualities.
The quality architecture always has few properties and no matter where,
Architecture as simple diagram representing context.
The depth of facade
The articulated perforation and spaces
The articulation of wall and roof.
The stylistic overlaying of distinct imagery and programmatic intervention does not amount to a progressive synthesis of contemporary condition of our architecture and cities.