building and context
misplaced? fit in strategies
Hagar Qim and Mnajdra
mapping
All eras of architectural history have developed their own ways and manners in dealing with nature and their own or foreign cultural heritage. When do we consider architectural interventions "in the wrong place", "inappropriate", "unsuitable", or is the "setting" wrong for the right "film"? Why do certain built interventions fit the location? Why do others appear incompatible with existing buildings or interfere with natural surroundings? How is inappropriateness defined in a specific context? Are there more or less adaptable design strategies?When does imitation of the existing context become ingratiation? How can newinterventions strengthen the surroundings? Must the identity of the site bepreserved under all circumstances, or can its continued existence only beguaranteed by transformation and replacement?
In the study "misplaced ?" basic geometric cubes are placed like implants insensitive urban or rural environments in order to test their compatibility withthe surroundings, so to speak. The approach of this study is phenomenologicaland relies entirely on the power of pictorial representations ofvisualisations. All environments are real and animated. The"implants" are based on 3D models, some of which are borrowed fromearlier studies. However, they represent real functional buildings. Thegeographical positioning in world coordinates is intended to anonymise the places, some of which arefamiliar and laden with cultural prejudices.
The designfor the international competition won in 2004 for the shelters and and the visitorcentre of the Hagar Qim and Mnajdra megalithic temple site on Malta, a UNESCOWorld Heritage Site, clearly posed thisquestion of adequatearchitectural strategies in highly sensitive environments. In contrast to many competing projects, mydesign consciously avoided blending into the surroundings, but is based on acontemporary interplay between rationalgeometry of the intervention andthe organic structure of thearchaeological remains and the coastal landscape.
The protectivestructures made of steel and textiles deliberately contrast with the mineralquality and gravity-bound nature of the megalithic architecture, but reflectits curvilinear spatial structure and adopt the topography and astrologicalaxes.
In order tominimise the visual impact on the coastal landscape, which is part of the WorldHeritage Site, the overall height of the single-arch structures had to besignificantly reduced during the planning permission process by using twoarches. However, the shape and any changes to the shape of the protective roofscould not be simply put down on paper. The base points were marked out by handin the field. The form-finding process for the shelter structure was based onclear creative visions. The final shape, however, was the result of computercalculations and wind tunnel tests. The shape-determining factor was thereforethe inherent logic of tensile structures. The optimisation of the stress curvesin the membranes and steel arches ultimately led to the best and truest form. On the other hand, the visitor centre, which is indispensable forcontrolling and directing the flow of tourists, avoids any superficial formaladaptation to the existing landscape elements. Its deliberately abstractgeometry, based on the cube, and its placement on an existing car park, barelyvisible from the sea, give it an organising function, which, superimposed likecoordinates on a map, does not interfere with the landscape itself.
Walking through French public parks in themorning, one comes across idiosyncratic groupings of empty metal chairs, whoseposition and arrangement reveal the nature of the nightly gathering, sometimesthe characteristics of the participants and the type of celebration. The sameapplies to archaeological sites and historical city complexes. What interestsme above all is the social, economic and cultural inprint of a particularsociety that can be read out of urbanspatial structures. The study Urban Imprints deals with the footprint of humansettlements. The mapping of historic settlement structures, mostly abstractedfrom Google Earth and redrawn by hand in a CAD system, reveal an astonishinglyself-explanatory quality.
The form of cohabitation,the position and significance of the places of worship, but also therelationship between buildings and the use of open spaces can be visualised inthe composition of mass-and void diagrams seen from above. As side notes, ratherintuitively based transpositions of the historic geometric properties point to approaches for future urbandevelopment concepts.
