It's not a matter of " what, where, who, & why " as much as the concept of “HOW”
How does the site engage the boundaries?
How will it affect the surroundings?
And the question came across me when thinking about the site.. Are there really boundaries?
I went to the site before i read “Site Matters" and i felt restricted within the limits of how the site is restrained because of its location, but after doing the readings
i stumbled upon a phrase that kept me thinking " it's not where the site is but what the site does to the city "
Especially the comparison the comparison of Da vinci's sketch & palmanuova's plan helped me understand how to approach the site and how to analyze it in a limitless way.
Urban sites are conditioned by and contribute to the surroundings; moreover to represent the site we must represent a knowledge that can cope with different realities
And not just getting a reality right.
I personally think that in a site one architect can do millions of concepts, but the more the building is related to the site the more it participates
in many contexts. I'm starting to investigate in the site and looking for something yet still remain invisible to the ordinary eye.
Like Frank Lloyd Wright once said "Architecture is the victim of the elements "so analysis of the site within the depth of looking onto what is not seen a as much as looking
to the visible realities and facts will help guide a project into hopefully an adequate transformation.
Since structure should correspond to the site, I have found that in my site there is a lack of correspondence which creates a tension in the surroundings.
Topography plays the role of a joint vector between 2 sectors: private & public attributed to the presence of historical landmarks which remain private and new non compatible
structures which is public.