The methods in which inhabitants utilize interstitial space
Architecture, specifically housing today has become a measure of wealth and power, completely disregarding the surrounding context and most importantly the occupant. With the current urban development plans and construction, architecture has destroyed our environment and the method in which humans relate to each other, creating a new lifestyle. This type of life is revolving around the object, changing how humans inhabit architecture and the city.
The phenomenal expansion of cities in the Middle East has made the current housing typology irrelevant to today's adapting society. The placement of villas and compounds within cities like Dubai and Doha promote the use of the car and therefore add to urban sprawl; dividing the way in which a city functions. This reliance on the car as well as current city planning schemes, and real estate laws has redesigned the relationship of the built environment to its surroundings; subtracting opportunities for open public space between buildings. This change in the method in which interstitial space is utilized no longer promotes an open social environment. The relationship of these spaces can be established at various scales, from a home to a neighboring home, to the scale of a plaza to the surrounding block. The current housing has become an object surrounded by the perimeter wall, completely disregarding culture and climate, and segregating housing from one another. The relationship of public and private space existing in both interior and exterior space is overlooked. I propose to design a housing development in which the relationship between units promotes a social environment that can be utilized in the harsh desert climate. Designing both the positive and negative space between buildings can change the method in which interstitial space is used.
Architecture, specifically housing today has become a measure of wealth and power, completely disregarding the surrounding context and most importantly the occupant. With the current urban development plans and construction, architecture has destroyed our environment and the method in which humans relate to each other, creating a new lifestyle. This type of life is revolving around the object, changing how humans inhabit architecture and the city.
The phenomenal expansion of cities in the Middle East has made the current housing typology irrelevant to today's adapting society. The placement of villas and compounds within cities like Dubai and Doha promote the use of the car and therefore add to urban sprawl; dividing the way in which a city functions. This reliance on the car as well as current city planning schemes, and real estate laws has redesigned the relationship of the built environment to its surroundings; subtracting opportunities for open public space between buildings. This change in the method in which interstitial space is utilized no longer promotes an open social environment. The relationship of these spaces can be established at various scales, from a home to a neighboring home, to the scale of a plaza to the surrounding block. The current housing has become an object surrounded by the perimeter wall, completely disregarding culture and climate, and segregating housing from one another. The relationship of public and private space existing in both interior and exterior space is overlooked. I propose to design a housing development in which the relationship between units promotes a social environment that can be utilized in the harsh desert climate. Designing both the positive and negative space between buildings can change the method in which interstitial space is used.
Alex,
ReplyDeleteI think this revision is very helpful, because you are being a bit more specific about your intentions. It seems like some of the problems that you describe in relation to middle eastern cities can be directly related to global trends, perhaps originating in the US, and some originating within the Islamic culture. I saw a set of Laboratory building done by Henning Larson, where there was a building for men and one for women. It is unsettling at times to think of the separation of genders in these terms, but has the potential to produce very interesting architecture when dealing with stringent moral codes.
Drew Lightfoot