Olafur Eliasson stated that space becomes a background for interaction rather than a co-producer of interaction* (2007, p 18–25). My chosen technique for my iterations is creating slabs, columns and spatial loops which is widely used by the Dutch architecture firm, OMA (Office for Metropolitan Architecture). I learnt that they are known to reconfigure the layout by manipulating floor planes in order to connect; thus forming a single trajectory.** I describe the way they create space as open and ambiguous, thus having continuous, subtle loops to make the layout form into one. My choice of structure to apply OMA’s ideas is the Goulburn St. Parking Lot. What motivated me to use the structure as the basis is that car parks are known to have levels are so connected that it seems vague to a general user. It’s also know as one of Sydney’s ugliest buildings so I like a challenge to try to create a space a user can interact with rather than just see. It relates to OMA’s style so much, that it supported me to create something a little bit better in order to make it engaging. To understand OMA’s intentions, I have created six iterations using balsa wood and paper to exaggerate the continuous loops.
> 1st Iteration: I started of with adding two slabs of wood as the barriers of the gaps where drivers park their cars. The paper I rolled is intended a start of what ‘continuous’ might be like visually. What I liked about it is that’s its really basic. However it didn't work very well because it’s restrictive on open spaces since you could only see two holes and the user might feel trapped or claustrophobic.
> 2nd Iteration: To make it more open, I cut the paper into a strip and coil it up like a spiral. What I liked about this is that I could imagine the wind and the atmosphere will flow through gracefully in the space in a single trajectory.
> 3rd Iteration: I tend to take things further by adding elevation to my third model — providing some height. It still repeats from the previous iteration. With all honesty, I didn't think this through very well — I didn't think it works exactly how I would like it to be. For example, those square poles make the space look like a bridge from point A to point B.
> 4th Iteration: I removed a third of a section in the middle and stretched out the spiral. The result of it allows a section of the coiled paper to drop between the two platforms. What I liked about this iteration is that a space being open doesn't have to mean a big coil stacked on a high platform. This shows that this iteration can still relate to the idea of open spaces with spatial loops while maintaining a connection — playing with negative space.
> 5th Iteration: Not much has changed from my previous iteration, except when I decided to make the platforms face the same way. The results that it still maintained its connectedness between the separate platforms. What I liked about this iteration is that it still respects the ambiguity of space. However, I think the result is too repetitive on the paper coil. I have to understand that continuous, spatial loops doesn't have to mean something that goes to a circular motion.
> 6th Iteration: Also known as my final. Continuous spatial loops don’t have to mean a spiral or a coil, so I took the liberty to create volume from OMA’s ideas. What I did to connect the slabs together with the same column is to basically join them together. The effect of it makes the space more hierarchal compared to the rest. This was done by adding a platform in the middle, slabs on each side and the curved, loopy oval with opened rectangles on top which I am steering away from what Olafur Eliasson was pointing out, “People have realised that static objects are more marketable than their relative and unstable counterparts.”*** What I liked about my final iteration is that it combines all my previous iterations into one. It also creates limitless, possible movements with this iteration.
An unknown person has said that beauty is the eye of the beholder which means that slabs, columns and spatial loops can still look dynamic when a user is engaged to it. I think I have achieved that by understanding that slabs, columns and loops aren't always boring or mundane, there is some beauty in it. What I've learnt from my iterations is that each process can appear different but still remain it’s connection and flow in a continuous motion. Especially when the space feels open to users, hence paper that is cut into a spiral. As I work on the models, I can see a story of ambiguity.
What if…
This action of turning the spaces vertically makes them look like a structure — like something looking grounded.
References:
- Eliasson, Olafur. “Models are Real”. In Models: 306090 Books, Volume 1. Edited by Emily Abruzzo, Eric Ellingsen & Jonathan D. Solomon. New York: 306090, Inc., 2007: 18–25
- Eliasson, Olafur. “Models are Real”. In Models: 306090 Books, Volume 1. Edited by Emily Abruzzo, Eric Ellingsen & Jonathan D. Solomon. New York: 306090, Inc., 2007: 18–25 pp1
- http://apps.o5.no.s3.amazonaws.com/oma/www/20150804011750-1426-o1n/2048.jpg
- http://oma.eu/projects/jussieu-two-libraries ‘Read More’ pp6.
