Staging Post Development and Comments

Staging Post as presented to Ed and Francesco;

 

170227_Staging_Post_Idea_Final_Page_01 170227_Staging_Post_Idea_Final_Page_02 170227_Staging_Post_Idea_Final_Page_07170227_Staging_Post_Idea_Final_Page_03 170227_Staging_Post_Idea_Final_Page_04 170227_Staging_Post_Idea_Final_Page_05 170227_Staging_Post_Idea_Final_Page_06

 

Discussion and Way forward (Ed/Fran comments in italic):

  • Separate Roof (lightweight)  and Robust working platform (level 1) – Emphasis separation, level 1 could go straight into the ground as piles 
  • How does the building evolve over time? Building could be dismantled and assembled as the acts change – first floor platform could be built as surfaces and groins which are planted in to the Dover Strait. (Will work up idea this week)
  • Design should express program, roof seems willfull. I think the roof should be an architectural gesture but I will evolve to be more functional expression
  • Huge volume of stored shingle could itself be the foundation. The size of raft needed for storage support would be a significant undertaking so I could use shingle mixed with sand to create a firm base on to which 1x1x1m gabion style containers are built up to be both a store and base for the building above. (drawing to be done)
  • You have the advantage of a building that is used over a building lifespan (100+ years) which may be renewed or rebuild in that time. By having a building that is being built and un-built reflects the site itself (nb: temple drawing)

 

I also went through my staging post “box”, see below, which was partly preferred (architecturally) although acknowledged that it was restricted and would not necessarily allow the deconstruction and flexibly required over the 3 acts.

old_170227_Staging_Post_Idea_Page_02 old_170227_Staging_Post_Idea_Page_04 old_170227_Staging_Post_Idea_Page_05 old_170227_Staging_Post_Idea_Page_08 old_170227_Staging_Post_Idea_Page_10 old_170227_Staging_Post_Idea_Page_11

 

Leave a Reply