- Clarity – What is the burring problem of you project?
The notion that we are still in a position to be able to choose the buildings that we wish to reuse is one of the past. Regardless of cultural significance, heritage or previous architectural intent, the current state of the environment availability of resources and public opinion dictate that we need to adapt and reuse before we recycle, before we demolish and rebuild we must explore all possibilities with what exists.
- Validity – Have you contested you idea in a defined context of your project, be it social, cultural, environment, political, economic or philosophical?
The buildings that previously existed on the F.A.M.E. where adapted to a new and more involved use. The previous 8hr life cycle of the site was replaced with a new 24hr life cycle.
The material previously on site was reused according to the following methodology
1. Can the existing material be used in its current form
2. Can it be used with minor modification
3. Can it be used with major modification
4. can it be recycled and reused in a component of its existing form, ie recycled concrete for aggregate for new concrete
5. Can it be recycled to a new use
- Imagination – Is you idea inventive? Or have you creatively reassure the validity of an ‘old’ idea from the past?
The inventiveness of the idea is embodied in the reuse of everything on the site to make something new, before new materials where incorporated, the challenged places upon the architect by the limitation of the pallet available drives the necessity for creative thinking.
- Inhabitation and Program – How do you define the narrative of your inhabitation? How is such a program accommodated, or even enshrined by your architecture?
The story of the inhabitation moves from the previous idea that the site is a space for work, for commerce of various forms, but nothing more to a story that speaks about not only life but life cycle. The programs defined within the building are of residence, education, production, business, fun, agriculture and transportation, these are recognized within the architecture through the use of market gardens looming above the city, produce and people coming and going via helicopter, floor plates that accommodate multiple uses and that span the gaps created by the previous forms while at the same time being constructed from the voids that have now been created within the previous structure.
The apartments and work spaces are surrounded by greenery removing the notion of the concrete city.
- Artifice and Formal Configuration – How ingenious is your organization of cavities, solids, walls, skins, rooms, circulation, columns, beams, ceilings, doors, windows, openings, enclosures, roofs, outdoor and indoor space, as well as through the coordination of plans, sections and elevations?
The building attempts to blur the interior exterior boundaries, through the introduction of green space into all other programs of the building. This is combined with the placement of previous exterior elements inside and interior elements outside to further blur this relationship. The new interior fit out is modular in design, continuing the design narrative of adaptation or demise, the modules not only can change programs from work to living to agricultural production, but also within each module the user can define space as they need it.
- Construction and Structural Systems – In what way have you materialized the above aspects of you project?
With over %70 of the built form being recycled or reused, The “new” structural elements have been cut from the existing slabs columns and lift cores. The upper areas are composed of these rearticulated elements. In lower areas where floors have been removed the spaces have been braced with re used elements of the ground level pergolas. This steel was also used to reinforce area where the helicopter pad elements of the transport interchange have been added to the sides of the towers
