Stadium Form - basically, the concept of a stadium is taking its form, not its function. The circulation inside the stadium would be consider to transfer its function to a hotel(if it works).
Zoning - M = Manufacture(somehow relates to business)& R = Residential. Which means the site allows to do both building. Therefore, hotel is good for this place. The number on the zoning maps are in Feet, not meter.
Noise control - the site is right next to the highway. I decide to avoid the entrance which is facing the highway.
Elements - Inside the hotel, there are : Reception, Bar, Restaurant, Sport activity such as Gym & Swimming pool, Bathroom, Living Room & Meeting Room, etc. outside the building, there are: Driveway, Green area, Drop off area & loading area(service entrance).
Thanks for the comments! ^^
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
i look forward to seeing how you make the translation from stadium to hotel.
ReplyDeleteIt is a pity that you are not taking it further and considering the spectacle aspect of the typology as that is why stadiums take the form they do, and otherwise your decisions can easily become superficial. Form is only a very small part of the practice of architecture - consider OMA, BIG, even Richard Meier where the form is derived from the activities going on and the relationship of the building to its surroundings.
When a building is pure form like with frank gehry the design is entirely personal and idiosyncratic, not derived randomly from another typology.
Which is to say if you take the stadium as a typology I would expect that the design would conceptually be linked to the functions or at least the effects of having a stadium typology filled suddenly by a hotel. It should be like deciding to inhabit the coliseum - the stadium requires transformations that go far beyond form to make it work, but much of the original functions would remain, and thus create a unique architecture.
regarding the entrance, the noise control makes sense but there is no rule that says the entrance needs to be in front of the building. it can be underneath it. the entrance can even be 3 stories above the ground; above a forest; in an atrium; over a parking lot; over a kitchen and restaurant, etc. if you are really thinking of stadiums i suppose that parking makes no sense on this site, but stadiums at least generally have more than one entrance. why not take that as a starting point?
I think the point of mashing up typologies is that you are forced to re-think your assumptions about what you KNOW, and as a result learn how to be a more creative designer. if all you are going to do is make an oval why not call it that and remove reference to the stadium altogether? If the typology is limited to that effect that would be more convincing to me at least.
But like I said I am very interested to see how far you are willing to take the challenge. My advice is to go further than you believe is reasonable. And then go farther.
By the way, have you read Bernard Tschumi? He was quite famous for mixing typologies in the 80's and 90's.