I think when I was presenting on Friday, my proposal for site relevance exaggerated the connection between form and the landscape. It would be inappropriate to merely elevate the contours of a site in built form three metres above the ground to create a roof. It is overly simplistic.
True site relevance could not be achieved by such a simple gesture.
While the poster did address some of these points, I think it is a suitable time to elaborate.
The form of a roof could be generated [poetically] by the surrounding landscape, but ultimately the function of the roof is to provide shelter and to appropriately diffuse light. This is where modelling of the site and its natural characteristics comes in. We can give the sunlight values to particular parts of the site and then establish parameters for the roof to move or create openings in appropriate spots; or, analyse movement patterns throughout the site to generate optimum positions for openings. Given that this site could be considered blank, this sort of analysis would focus on the urban context.
This seems to be a pretty basic sort of empirical analysis, and I think it probably is, so as the project develops I will further investigate these possibilities.
