Abstract:
All too often architecture is conceived with little or no acknowledgement of its site; denying the ground that it occupies and rejecting the very thing that makes it unique. This study pursues a more sensitive treatment of this superimposition that privileges the landscape and deliberately seeks to conceal distinctions between architecture and its environment. The landscape plays an important part in the heritage and identity of all New Zealanders. In its mediating role, architecture has the potential to support a dialogue between the subject and the environment. It is suggested that through the minimisation of physical and visual divisions that traditionally exist between buildings and context, that a heightened sense of connectivity to the immediate and wider environment could be perceived. The desire for architecture to visually reference or even dissolve into its surroundings is particularly relevant in remote or less built up landscapes. Traditional occupation of coastal and bush landscapes will be referenced and precedent projects analysed to establish a framework of techniques that strengthen the dialogue between architecture and landscape. Karekare on Auckland’s West Coast is the site of specific interest. Yet to be developed beyond a small coastal settlement despite its proximity to Auckland; it is essential to continue to protect the integrity of the landscape. There are several contradictions in play. Placing architecture in any natural landscape will inevitably introduce contrast. Absolute integration is not possible and therefore there is potential for utilization of contrast in combination with merging. Furthermore an architecture that preserves the landscape visually is unlikely to retain its physical state. The design addresses the research outcomes by attempting to express the mutual exclusivity of these operations in the juxtaposition of two contrasting forms. A new surf club with public facilities, accommodation and access is proposed. One volume is partially buried and embedded in the site. Although successful in its integration with the landscape, it may be considered invasive, permanently altering the structure of the land. Conversely the second form is primarily designed to touch the ground lightly, creating a more obvious distinction between architecture and landscape.