Today's conversation with both Laura and Karl reminded me of "architecture without architects." Rudofsky's book "Architecture without Architects" was, as i remember, about buildings that are not intensionally created by designers, but constructed by aborigin people who are in need of dwelling space with certain conditions. The picture below is residential area which is built on existing level of ground. Even if this is never planned by any single architect we can say this is reactive to their circumstances.
Just as Karl mentioned, architecture has worked as a shelter from external dangers. But does our dwelling place has to protect us only in a way of blocking us from outside? Can architecture not be a single block on the ground but an interactive system dealing with outdoor conditions? I think our project starts from doubting our conventional way of constructing buildings.
However, there might be a slight difference between what we design and what eco-friendly architecture does . Sun chart is a precise measure of sun's location on regions yet it would not explain the total picture of what the site might be in such Sun condition. If we rely only on those meticulus analysis, Nordic pavillion is never supposed to be built in Venice. The design process we are going to do would not merely be caculating amount of sunlight in our site yet contemplating more about how we can use given light conditions as a better way to design a school.
We just have started to build solid of shade based on 15 -days cycle. Sep 1st, 15th, October 1st 15th.. all the way to the end of May is our range of month in which the school is going to be mostly active. :)
Just to let others know ,this is one of the Korean tranditional houses, and I think they mostly has its own courtyard. In General, houses are designed to be open to outside. (Some people might have already noticed that Chinese houses are quite closed, whereas Japanese and Koreans' are not quite). Yet to keep itself warm many of houses are facing south.
