Reference to the previous task
The previous task (Mapping Proximity: Görku) tried to understand and disentangle the present mechanisms of growth and use of the selected site and propose some possible transformation by adding or reconfiguring housing program.
Using the concept of proximity, all participants read and mapped the site and its direct environment and proposed a sustainable housing project. Developing this task during the workshop week, and based on the visit and all provided information, many of the following questions were answered:
-Can we frame the historical growth of the site, taking into account as well cultural and social factors?
-What accessibility does the site have? On which model of mobility do the inhabitants/visitors rely?
-Which are the morphological characteristics of the site? What does the figure/ground scheme look like?
-Which functions are located on the site and by whom and when are they used?
-Which type of barriers can be detected on different levels and where do they manifest themselves?
-Can we detect conflicts of use(rs)? Are there any underused or unused spaces?
-Which set of (relative)distances can de recognized on different scales?
- Do we recognize patterns of social cohesion on the site?
-What is the level of compactness of the site? Where do we recognize low dense and high dense conditions?
-What is the structure of the site? How does the existing housing program relate to its environment?
-Related to all previous questions and taking into account a given addition of housing program, which solutions/transformations do we propose?
New Task: the proposals revisited
The outcomes of this task were most interesting and proved a critical and coherent attitude related to the site and its potentials. However, the short available time for presentation and its the format did not always allow to frame the urban proposals. The following questions, aiming at a broader reflection about proximity, remain:
How can we relate the proposals at different levels to the concept of proximity, what is the (social) model behind the proposed interventions?
Can we define the proposal as a unique strategy or were reference projects used? If yes, how were they used?
How can we relate the proposals to a broader discourse on low or high dense landscapes and its possible (re)densification? Did we base our interventions on tactics of densification or did we only reconfigure the existing urban fabric and do we know why?
When did we use systematic approaches? When a structural approach? (see feedback and evaluations)
What is the vision behind the proposal and which strategies can be used to implement them?
This task of Revisiting the proposed Urban Projects provides some distance of the work done and will try to frame the proposals. A coherent and critical description of the proposal is to be elaborated by each mixed group with the following objective:
-frame the proposed intervention conceptually (see remaining questions above)
-describe the proposal in a way external students or teachers could understand the proposal
Outputs / Deadline
Please use the available ppt template to develop this task.
Each of the 10 (mixed) groups will upload one document (ppt A4, max 7 MB)
The documents should all be uploaded by June 20, 2011.
What is Oikodomos?
OIKODOMOS is a research project financed by the Lifelong Learning programme 2007-2009 and 2010-2011 carried out by higher education institutions and research centers from Belgium, France, Slovakia, Spain, Switzerland, Turkey and the United Kingdom. The goal of the project is to create a virtual campus to promote the study of dwelling at a European scale. This virtual campus is going to develop new methods to study housing in a multidisciplinary way, interweaving different courses and seminars, digital repositories and on-line learning environments, cases analysis and project workshops taking place at the participating institutions.