.JPG)
.JPG)
What I explored was the position of the pieces I have created and some more possibilities that were brought up in the critique yesterday.
The first deals with the idea of keeping the pieces horizontal to match the diagram I have of the columbarium. What I see with this is that the pieces now start to line up better with the columbarium. Also the horizontal pieces deal with the pedestrian path from the side and by shifting the bottom piece it creates and entrance from the bottom
The second attempts to keep the vertical pieces but work better with the issues of movement brought up yesterday. I also rearranged the pieces to create different spaces
From here I want to explore cutting the voids out. I think that I should try to translate the void of the columbarium more literally
i think that both variants have their strengths and opportunities (both in terms of relationships to the existing and to the paths/entry). the first changes the notion of movement through the site, which is not necessarily a bad thing, and proposes an alternate reading where your intervention reads as parallel to the original (rather than a passage through).
ReplyDeletei agree with you on the necessity of exploring the voids and of being very careful (and conscious) as to how you translate the colombarium into your building... i would start literally (as you seem to suggest) at first and then, if need be, become more abstract and playful.