Radical Platforms: A Criticism of the Vertical City
These drawings illustrate our criticism of how the verticality of the city can imply a hierachy of social class - with upper classes living at the top of skyscrapers, while lower or working class live in low rise buildings on the outskirts of the city. We have filled the gaps between the skyscrapers with radical platforms to emphasise the gap between different social classes.
The image below illustrates how the platforms cannot be ignored by the people that live at the top of skyscrapers. We have also placed traditional arish houses on them which not only acts as housing for the working class, but prompts those that live in skyscrapers to look back at the past and their traditions. Having the two forms of housing side by side really brings to light the contrasts between living conditions of different social classes in the city.
i like the idea of mixing social estrates hop on in a lift, but is this considering we leave of the soil? who occupies it, nature? thanks for your coments guys
ResponderEliminarI also like how you have highlighted the relationship between social heirachy and physical herirachy. How will you address the public zone which is often at ground level, occupied by shops and other publically accessible amenities?
ResponderEliminarHi radical students! I really enjoy the idea of creating that horizontal canvas on top of the city. At some point I'd try to make it "real" and select an existing area in Dubai (1 sqkm) to "plug" your proposal. What do you think? Great job!!!
ResponderEliminar