The work an architect does on site is some of the most important time spent on a project. The significance of a site visit is far more involved than simply documenting the physical facts of a property. From the moment of approach all the way down to walking the site and running your hands through the moss, there is a surge of information that saturates the senses. There is an immeasurable difference between seeing topographical lines on paper and walking the slope of a site. It is how this information is perceived, interpreted and filtered that will lead to a project that inspires and fulfills.
For us, the initial rush over the senses is essential –those qualities of the site that hit you first. It’s these characteristics of earth and light and texture that hit a chord. These primal attributes are meaningful and good architecture gives them a lasting role in the design. Good architecture boils down these traits to their essence –letting them inform and evolve the design process.
Naturally the technicalities of any site must also be documented and reviewed; like property lines, critical areas, steep slopes, utilities, soil bearing capacity, etc. But what we’re talking about here is more cerebral. These are the characteristics that will make the project timeless and significant.
Is the ground damp, is it dry? What is the most pleasing way in which to approach the site? How do the sun’s rays reach the site, is the light filtered through trees? Do the site “constraints” provide interesting design opportunities?
Site visits are an incredible time in the design process, and not a step that should done merely perfunctory. The volume of qualities to be absorbed from a site visit is immense and unique to each site. Here are a handful that we enjoy focusing on (in no particular order):
– What is the slope like, and what does it feel like to walk it?
– What is the view like? Even if it’s just local or territorial it’s significant.
– Which views should be enhanced and which should be filtered or screened?
– How do the clients react to the property, what are the first things they speak to?
– Where do the clients go on the property, what are the first things they look at?
– Are there special plants or trees to be celebrated?
– How do the wind, breeze and airflow move through the site?
– Where is the arc of sunlight in relationship to the site?
– Are there factors about the site that could change in the future?
– Could a house be built on an adjacent property to impede a view or jeopardize privacy?
– How does the water move on site?
– What are the seasonal changes within the landscape?
Let us know what you like to crunch on while you’re out on site.
Cheers
The esoteric side of information gathering is really being lost in American architecture and I think this post speaks to it quite well. Thanks for the thoughts.
I dunno… more and more, in the digital information age, architects are designing without ever having been to a site. I don’t necessarily think this leads to bad design -it’s just that you have to figure out different ways to comprehend the site (Google Earth, photos, 3D renderings, etc).
That’s insightful -watching the clients watch the site.
[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by BUILDblog, Tommy Flipboard. Tommy Flipboard said: Feeling the Site http://goo.gl/fb/XAkU2 […]
I know it’s heresy for an architect to even say it, but I often wonder “Is construction of a building on this site actually going to improve it, or should it just be left alone?”
When the design schedule allows it, I like to make multiple site visits. Being able to empirically map the seasonal differences of the site can add even more useful data for fine-tuning the design. In addition to understanding airflow, water flow and the light flow, I look to define the positive and negative spaces of the site. Then the design can improve upon the negativity of the site and celebrate the naturally positive features.
@Preston -we’ve seen situations before where the correct answer is not doing anything. Good point.
@Ryan -couldn’t agree more, visiting a site in each season is ideal and appropriately informs the design.
When time ago I first visited the Dipolli student assembly building, someone told me that Reima Pietilä walked on and on over the rocks of the site until his feet could remember every little piece of the plot. Only after that knowledge he considered himself able to find the correct design. Probably this is only another myth, but I really believe that the more you know the place the better you’ll find the a correct answer (Even not to do anything as wisely says Preston). The other side of the coin can be found every day walking along so many streets…
When I visit the site, I have to look for snakes and fire ants.
Nice post guys
bob brings up an interesting point… mainly, i hate fire ants.
but also reminds me, one of the few things worth ‘taking’ from a previous job: the siting of a house that was somewhat influenced by wildlife tracks.
also reminded me of a house in the desert, i think by twbta, built over a wash. the architects slipped a window so the kids could watch wildlife around the creek.
how your building interacts with local wildlife can be just an interesting of a study.
apparently, Antoine Predock (a fellow New Mexican) must “urinate” on each site that he designs a building when he does his initial site visit…this was told to me by someone who took him to the Tacoma Art Museum site for the first time…I don’t know if this relates, but I had to share!
geotech, geotech, geotech…
I still think FllW’s dictum that a house must “grow” from its site provides for a lively integration between building and site, particularly when modern construction is juxtaposed with ages old nature.
@ Nicholas- i’ve heard the exact same thing. when you think, it makes a lot of sense actually…a way that you can interact with the site in a very raw and personal way.
1] familiarization: very first thing–i look for the horizon, or any hint of it. this is man’s subliminal connection to the earth. which direction is it? if it aligns with a good view, even better. move through the site and walk the perimeter.
2] i try to find the best spot on the site, and build around it not on top of it [ie. building vs. landscape].
3] i close my eyes, and let the other four senses take precedent. i touch the earth, smell the foliage/air, determine the acoustics [both natural & manmade], and finally I stick my tongue out – what does the atmosphere taste like?
4] if the project allows, it takes an entire year to completely understand a site with multiple visits [and at various times of day-particularly at night].