It used to be, when I saw dramatic plans to entirely re-make a city according to some sweeping, futuristic vision, I'd raise a "never happen" eyebrow and move on. But with some of the incredible developments over the last few years (Beijing Olympics, Dubai, Shanghai), all bets are off. Here's a description of such a proposal for Ansan City in South Korea. Two things intrigue me greatly. First, the proposal from the firm INABA for the building as wayfinding beacon shown below:
In case it isn't obvious, the idea here is that the lines of the building serve as a gigantic compass to define the cardinal directions of the landscape. Big buildings often serve as convenient landmarks (CN Tower, Empire State Building) but introducing this kind of asymmetry takes things one step beyond.
Another part of the proposal, which perhaps makes such wayfinding aids more important, is a kind modular design (BIG and mass studies), that allows units to wax and wane in size and to change in organization according to need.
As a scientist interested in how the shape of space influences behaviour and feeling, the proposal fascinates me. But if I were a potential resident, I wonder how this kind of fluid organization might unsettle me. Also, in the image just above I wonder how the Corbusian combination of high density, wide roadways, and the underbuilding green space might work out in practice. The pictured low density of cars and the heavily used green walkway: is that a pipedream? How much of a difference does culture make? In North America, I'd wonder if this is another Pruitt-Igoe in the making. Would South Korea be different?
Comments