RE-VALUING WASTE

Generating conditions within moments of apparent waste to encourage more activity to occur. The site currently uses a lot valuable space, which could be deemed unnecessary, and by adding to this present condition the hope is that this would create added interest in the site. This in turn would benefit the local businesses and Deptford as a whole. Moreover, the program of the building would serve as an artistic HUB: connecting artists across Deptford, but also connecting artists from across the whole of London. This would be a space to meet, to eat, to talk, to learn, to see: to be.

INTERACTION

The first space (Project X) is already existing and continues to be a café – here one can eat, drink, talk, meet people and generally observe life. The second space (Library) here one isolates oneself emotionally if not physically, here one reads to be inspired (or maybe not). The third space is really more of an extension of the second – simply a place where one can go sit and work/read. The third and final space (Chamber) is formal and auditory reduction – here one is isolated from the chaos of reality in the hope that this would allow one to freely explore one’s imagination.

MATERIAL

The choice of materials reflects the material study conducted at the beginning of the project, which highlighted that the material quality of the existing context was raw. Within the building there is extensive use of un-polished concrete, unpainted steel and driftwood decking. The building is not supposed to be precious - it is supposed to be full of activity – and because of this the materials need to be durable and simultaneously easily/cheaply replaceable.

URBANISM

BRIEF

Reality corrupts thought.

Our imagination is constantly being oppressed by reality. I wish to create conditions within which one would be able to freely explore one’s imagination, in order for one to then [possibly] find some kind of personal creative truth - specific to one’s own existence.

Firstly, and kind of obviously, removing reality isn’t exactly an easy feat.
Secondly, it would call for horrific events and I don’t particularly wish to create insanity (although insane/genius could be an intriguing line). So this calls for a sort of compromise – not a complete eradication but rather a reduction. In terms of space – ‘reflection chambers’ with reduced form (bare rooms with nothing [everything?] in them) and reduced auditory input (no external noise).
[uncorrupted] creativity ensues. Wonderful.
Project X would remain and continue with its current agenda – a public café. Any intervention would be considerate enough to not interrupt it - realising itself around it/above it/beneath it. The various thresholds between the old and the new would exist symbiotically - public/private : chaotic/ordered : corrupted/uncorrupted.

INTERVENTION

‘Seeping MANIPULATIONS taking over…’

Generating conditions within moments of waste to encourage activity to occur. Manipulations of the old in order to sustain the old. But how long can you manipulate the old until there is no more old?

‘Try not to get to the point of complete suppression…’

TRADING

'micro-Pavilion of Waste'
Italian/British micro-Pavilion
53rd Venice Biennale

MANIFESTO

I would like to suggest that ‘architecture’ is a rather vague term, and that ‘what is architecture?’ an even vaguer question. Throughout history architects have been tormenting themselves to define and answer such questions – hopelessly trying to tame the beast. Needless to say this will continue for all eternity. For me the question cannot truly be answered, that is not to a pure state, not least in the way the question (for this exercise) suggests it would like to be answered: written format. For me architecture is something simpler, or maybe it’s more complex [I’m not quite sure] but something far more intrinsic either way. It is simply an inner feeling - a human condition that engrosses every single one of us - architects and non-architects alike. It is because ‘architecture’ is so hugely personal - an experience - and what defines it is so impossibly subjective that one really shouldn’t even bother trying to clamp it down and define it. Equally I’d suggest that it’s not limited to ‘buildings’ it could be any form of manipulation of space - space being the key word - to create conditions. For me any ‘architecture’ that slaps, pokes, tickles, kicks, punches, caresses, or shakes the soul upwards, downwards and/or sideways for whatever [personal] reason, is SPECIAL.
I suggest we leave it at that.

An intervention: re-valuing what society has classified as ‘waste’ and is all too ready to discard. Slowing down a transient moment within the constant drone that is material turnover, thus exposing the materialistic condition of our present society.