The project had two ideas shown in this presentation;Firstly, the code regulating construction in the cliff, is the same that regulates construction on the sea front, which we understood was wrong: strategies to avoid creating a continuous seafront between the urban fabric and the sea was not recommended here, given that the urban fabric, unlike in the previous case, is between the public street and the sea, and using the same strategies could lead to blocking the wonderful view, a public heritage.Going behind the legitimacy of the site made us question the lawfulness of the code, risking investors when asking for a change in the rules not to maximize indicators but to go after the best conditions for construction in the site which we understood as less harmful.
Once we obtained this new condition, the decisions of the building project should reveal the size and condition of the site, in this idea of nature, geography, or place, in its deepest sense, as the first architecture.The system of dwellings was intended as the creation of spaces in the logic of the cliff, between rock soil and a tectonic ceiling that retrieves the pre-existing vegetal condition.Any decision of scale in the project should prioritize the elements suggested by the landscape at the possibility of highlighting references to the human scale: the proportions of the elements come from that dimension, and a door or window are material rhythm alterations of that scale beyond letting people or light through.
www.gdvogue.com
