MASTER PLAN (recent messages are on top)


From Miami (Shige), Saturday March 1st, 2002
click on image to enlarge

RE: Neo Master Plan
We meet yesterday and today with regards to the comments Alex send on the problems we see on the placement of the footprint of the museum in the north side of the hill.
We agree on the general location of the Master Plan. To address on some of the issues and level problems described by Alex we propose the following (see attached image):

MUSEUM (YELLOW)
A. The museum area be contained between the 1435 and 1430 contour lines.
B. The more rectilinear footprint will follow better the figure ground of the path and weave into it.
C. We suggest we sunk the museum as proposed by your team earlier with the container proposal.
D. Having the museum at the 1430 level will help to quickly define plans, circulation and service issues.

GATHERING SPACE (ORANGE)
A. We propose to move the gathering space to between 1440 and 1445 contour lines as described in the drawing.
B. We propose a very ephemeral treatment of the ground as suggested by some of you. Only a very small area could be arranged (perhaps for 500 or 1000) and the rest it could be accommodated by the terrain itself (see image, location we choose it has already a natural shape as an amphitheater)

END OF PATH (GRAY)
A. We did not defined this issue but we think there should be a link to the top since people will go to it if there is a path or not.

ABOUT GROUPS:
We have been working on these issues with Cristian Gomez in Chile and would like to include him in the Museum Group

Regards, Shige and Alex


From: Chile (Cristian), Friday Feb 28th, 2002
click on image to enlarge
I THINK WE HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT THE MUSEUM:
WE THINK THAT THE SHAPE OF THE MUSEUM DOES NOT WORK WITH CURRENT SLOPES. THERE ARE 12 TO 24 MT HEIGHT DIFFERENCES IN THE SLOPE. 3 TO 5-6 STORIES IN DIFFERENCES BETWEEN PARTS OF A SKINY BUILDING!!!!
TO WORK IN THE SLOPE WITHOUT MAJOR GROUND WORK OR PILOTIS IT WILL HAVE TO BE MUCH MORE SKINIER OR DIVIDED IN PARTS. ATTACHED IS AN IMAGE OF THE STUDY OF SLOPES. I HEARD COMMENTS ABOUT ENVIORNMENTAL CONCERNS. HERE THERE ARE MORE ELABORATE COMMENTS:

1. Museum (white letters on attached image)

1a. I think the general location of the museum is workable. But I am concerned about the footprint and shape of the museum and gathering space. I added in white NUMBERS the differences in height on the oposite corners of the museum. The variations are too extreme (from 12 to 24 mts). How are we going to solve these issues? The only solutions could be via large pilotis or major excavations or by changing levels which would be very difficult to develop without elevators (service elevators for garbage, exhibition materials) etc.

1b. Another subject that worries me is that if the shapes of the museum buildings are too predominant then those forms begans to signify something to the jury. If we do not point to the union building, church square or other city axis then why the form points to other places or chooses only a couple of those axis. It could raise questions such as where do those angles and curves come from?

1c. A third comment about the master plan refers to where it stops. It is a good gesture that the mass of the the project stops 20 -30 mts away from the top (5 - 8 mts in height only). But if people walk all the way up then they will want to go to the very top of the hill. Either we place a path or not. After all the top of the hill will be only 20-30 mts. This takes me to another point, should the experience of going up be the same as the one going down? Should both experiences happen in the north side?

1d. Question: How does the general shape of the museum weave with the rest of the plan?


From: Miami (Alex), Friday Feb 28th, 2002
click on image to enlarge
Good afternoon in South Africa. I would like to make a couple of comments on the proposal for the master plan of the freedom park I have put both
proposal side by side. Proposal 01 and Proposal 02. I believe that proposal 01 ways down the hill top, I believe the hill top deserves to be open, maybe
with some transitional spaces which would lead the spectator from a gathering space to the museum as well as the rest of the program. I also
believe the pre-colonial nodes in proposal 01 should not be set off to the side, but instead should be set on the path like in proposal 02, which gives
the observer a chance to reflect on his/her thoughts of the past as well as the future. I hope you take these thoughts into consideration, towards the
redevelopment of the freedom park. Regards, Alejandro Ponce


  From: South Africa Thursday Feb 27th, 2002
click on image to enlarge
 Hallo Miami, Sorry for being a bit late - we've been debating the masterplan more than we expected to. We've moved the whole centre down the North slope to avoid the area demarcated as ecologically highly sensitive. The masterplan as attached shows the narrative route and areas demarcated for the buildings. The narrative route replaces the spiral narrative route prescribed in the brief. It starts already at the admin-gateway building with the "Genesis" part of the exhibition and continues up the hill to contain the entire pre-colonial exhibition area along the route and in the "event nodes", which may be sunken into the landscape as you proposed. This is appropriate, seeing that the "older" part of the exhibition is "heavier" in a sense. We keep the Ring Road as a vehicular service road (seeing that the city council has already started constructing it) - it has no significance in terms of our framework; however. We've changed its course to run just about parallel to our pathway along the top of the development and not to cross our pathway. The gathering space and the rest of the museum areas, incl. Restaurant and temporary exhibition, are treated as one entity.
The final part of the journey is the Memorial garden (a part of the Garden of Remembrance) - forming the approach to the Memorial; and the Memorial itself.

We've just over three weeks left before the hand-in. The teams have been set up as follows:

Gateway-admin; narrative route and pre-colonial exhibition: Silke, Annalize and Alfredo.
Museum and Gathering Space: Shigeru, Rudolph and Chereen.
Memorial and the Approach to- : Phia, Karin-Marié and Alex.

In the following two weeks, each group has to finalise their part of the proposal to present at the next conference. We can then discuss the presentation to be completed in the 8 days left over after that. (Hand in-21March). Let's try to stick within the masterplan as far as possible - every alteration to be cleared with the other teams.

We'd like to stick to the idea of "weaving" in the making of each of the elements and the centre as a whole. The landscape (garden of Remembrance) will be handled by the narrative-path team and will have a large role in weaving the centre together. If there are changes you'd like to make to the framework, please let us know. Enjoy the next few weeks of hard work, we're looking forward to it.
Thank you for your participation so far and your great ideas.

Regards
South Africa

PS: The brief asks:
1. To show how our proposal fits into the larger urban framework
2. Concepts for the memorial, museum, garden, admin etc
3. To show the proposal has a uniquely South African Identity

The plans, sections etc. do not have to be detailed - it is only in the final part of the competition that sketch plans have to be worked out exactly. Let's try to give the judges seductive concepts which are presented in such a way that they seem believable without being too very concrete. Remember that photo's of a working model are also required. Bye!