CONTRASTING QUALITIES
The territory that I discovered lies next to the crossing point of Bispegata and Sørenga highway. The area is known as Middelalderparken and the ruins of the medieval St Mary’s Church are located there. The park was made in the year 2000 and is still quite new. It is also a part of the “Middelalderåmrodet”, which consist of the Ruinpark and Oslo Ladegård, both situated on the north side of Bispegata. Middelalderparken is separated from the highway with a small water area. Behind the Sørenga highway you can see the new Operahouse along with the waterfront houses of Oslo. There is also a lot of new construction going on in between of Bispegata and the railways. Behind the park is the forest area of Ekeberg.
The feeling that I got from the area was juxtaposed, old versus new, peaceful versus busy, permanence versus change, connected versus disconnected. This is what made me choose the park as my territory. All these contrasting qualities make the site interesting.
The ruins of the medieval church give the location the feel of permanence but even in the middle of the old church while touching stones that have been there for 800 years, you can hear and see the construction of the new. The Sørenga highway is busy and noisy but you can’t help but to feel peaceful sitting under a birch, watching seagulls floating on the water and feeling a cool summer breeze on your face. As for the park it is undoubtedly new which can be seen from the ground and how people use the space. The ground is in some spots brown and feels like it was just moved. The grass hasn’t quite started to grow properly on these places. But the trees make it feel old as they are grown and mature.
You can see that the park hasn’t yet been discovered by the large masses when you are hanging in the park. The users consist of sunbathers, dog walkers, a few tourists and the occasional lowlifes such as drug addicts. The area seems disconnected from the city when you are trying to get to the park as well when being in the park. All the construction has made Bispegata an area you feel is not to be approached, so when you are nearing the park from the city center you get easily thrown off you tracks. The other way to find the park is to near the park from the east side by Oslo Gate. The park is well hidden from this direction as well, but finding the park this way can be a cool experience. You cross the railways over a small bridge and there you are, in the park looking at the layers of ruins, water, highway and the city. You feel connected to the city by sight and hearing but the park has such a feel of permanence and peace that it disconnects you from the present.
The layers were another thing that got me curious about the place. You could almost draw straight lines from the contrasting qualities of the territory. Starting from the west they would be ocean, highway, water, park, ruins and railway. It’s interesting that all these different elements can co-exist in a 50 meters way in such harmony. It gives you the feeling that the territory has strength because it can handle so much action at one time. It is this that made me see the potential in this new territory.
Capture a piece of the view with your camera. Take the territorial attitude to your home and discover something new. Put the pictures together in a new way, keeping the site as it is but adding you moods to the picture. You can connect with spaces, you can be a part of something, even through a glass.
phase 2_ properties and potential of the territory
The spatial attitude that I´m starting to find from the territory is that the park is really horizontal. In the park there are all these layers that create a flowing space. These layers (that are the earth, the ruins, the trees, the paths, water etcetera) are all very flat. They are still strong in the sense that they create borders for different kind of spaces in between. The spaces that are created are vague, but never the less still there.
I’ve kept my work with the models more as an investigation. I’m not sure what I’m looking for and I’m not sure what I’m going to find. I started my investigation in phase 2 with trying to document the park with a site model and some panorama’s I put together. This was my starting point when diving into the actual model work.
MODEL #1 – BORDERS
What defines a border and where does one space begin and the other one end. I´ve tried to create a more horizontal space, with lower walls. The model creates a flowing path in between the hills and walls. The walls hide the landscape even if they are low and create spaces in between them. Even the lowest of the walls feel like borders. They draw a line that seems to mark a point of a beginning or an end.
MODEL #2 – LANDSCAPE TRANSLATOR
This model is about the landscape. I’ve tried to create with abstract sections a very simple example of a landscape. When rotating the model you see how the landscape can be differently read from various angles. It also creates altered series of hills when viewed from different points.
MODEL #3 – LIGHT LABYRINTH
In these models I’ve tried to work with light and views. The idea came from the first model I did, when peering through the openings between the masses. I tried to play with the idea of light shifting through the leaves as well as views appearing in passing. I’ve done two models of this, the first one simply playing with transparency and in the second one I’ve tried to incorporate colors. I’ve done two boxes with limited holes you can peer in. In side I’ve created a labyrinth of transparent and opaque sheets.
phase 3_ territory construction
After the last phase ended I went back to the basics. I tried to answer a few of the key questions, like what is the fragility of your territory, what is the role of the “new structure” and so on. Here is a couple of the answers to those questions.
- My territory is fragile in the sense that it is very strong and adding to this entity is hard. The park is a public place and there for building for example a house wouldn’t work. I’m not comfortable with the idea of building anything that could be considered as private on to the parks grounds. As the park also is secluded adding structures that would make more intimate spaces would not make the park feel anymore safer. I feel that parks in general have their peak seasons for use from spring to autumn, and definitely during the days. Joggers and dog walkers are an exception to this. During the darker times I would imagine that the park is mainly used by the lowlifes and would not attract tourists. This is just the way things are. It’s not necessary to change this behavior of the park.
- Adding to the territory seems difficult. It’s hard to imagine a structure on the park. I feel that there already is a lot of “structures” in the park. The ruins push through the surface of the park creating a portal to history as well as a place of leisure and spots you can stop at. On the southern side of the ruins there are a few trees and benches underneath them creating a different kind of athmosphere. Underneath these trees you can sit and be a spectator of people passing by. The north side of the ruins is kind of a path which leads you to the “center point” of the park, the ruins. The path is bordered from the other side by water and on the other side there are industrial buildings. This path area I feel to be more dangerous and dodgy in atmosphere. This area even though more visible to passers-by and to the city is less organized and there for feels a lot more unsecure in a way. The area surrounding the ruins is more secluded from the roads but feels more secure. The park is built in a way from paths and spots to sit in. The center point is the ruins, all the roads lead there. All the places where I want to stop at are surrounding them. I can be a participant by sitting down on the ruins and claim a space there, or I can take the role of a spectator by sitting down underneath a tree and watch the game of space invaders that is going on in the ruins.
I’ve felt disconnected from my territory. I’ve taken the role of an investigator more than really trying to connect with the park. Distance has made it easier to rationally evaluate the different aspects of the park, but to really feel the vibe from the park is difficult if you put a glass between you and the subject. I’ve wanted to be more involved (which I feel to be important to really get further in my project), so when starting the work in phase 3 this is what I’ve tried to accomplish.
MODEL #5 – SURFACE
The word surface followed me from phase 2. It wouldn’t leave me alone. So I decided to create a surface, that would extract the qualities of the park but be mine at the same time. I started a game which I’ve been playing ever since with the objective to follow one path until it becomes a dead end.
I used repetition as my tool to create a flat surface, but as in nature this model isn’t truly flat. I rises and slopes just bit here and there creating spaces as it goes on. The spaces are not very strong and their borders are blurred.
MODEL #6 – MAKE IT AND BRAKE IT
The next step after making the surface model was to break it down. The same triangular form could easily be put to use to create simple geometrical shapes in a variety of heights and size. These pieces could then be arranged to create the landscape in different ways.
After getting the pieces to my hands I realized that these models are very strong space generator tools. They can be arranged to correspond to varied scales, from tiny to even a big urban city like context. I draw some sections and plans of the pieces to grasp the different scales better and to help when going further in my project.
When arranging the pieces I saw the connection between my territory clearly. You can put the pieces together to respond to the landscape, ruins or both at the same time. I feel that the aspect of borders, landscape in general, layering, light and view are present in this model very strongly.
phase 4_ construction detailing
The territory that I chose used to be one of the most centre places in Oslo. In the medieval times the Church of Mary gathered the citizens of Oslo together. Fire broke the church but the space remained. People found the site of the church again and again adding to the entity as they passed Layers of history were created. The most recent change to the site was in 2000 when the place was turned into a park. The ruins still push through the new surface creating again a setting where people gather to spend some time together, but mostly in the summer time.
I’m the new discoverer. It’s my time to leave my mark. As an explorer I don’t want to disturb what is already claimed. I can’t claim the whole of the territory as my own, as there is clearly evidence of other explorers passing by. These pieces of evidence are things like the paths, the ruins, the trees and the water. The water has symbolic value on its own: it marks the place where the seashore was when the site was historically in its peak. I’ll claim a layer on the surface. I’ll take from the landscape what is untouched and claim it as my own. I don’t want to control future explorers and users of the site, I’ll leave my structure unprogrammed. It’s naked to be discovered and used as they please. And after a while someone else will take over. Add on top of my surface, discovering a new territory.
testing out surface structures - this ended up being a dead end
plan for the new structures
Ei kommentteja:
Lähetä kommentti