Space in the Woods—A Colonizing Project at Chien-kung District, Pin-tung County

• Main Authors: Chih-wen Wu, 吳志文
• Other Authors: Li-hwang Lu
• Format: Others
• Language: zh-TW
• Published: 2004
• Online Access: http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/handle/88981630052143632400

碩士 === 臺南藝術學院 === 建築藝術研究所 === 92 === In this paper,the author would try to state a procedure of seeking out the relationship between space and human being. after 2 years of making and deliberating on space in 〝Iterbreeding Field〞,the author entered the community and tried to carry out the attempt of〝building the public space in the residents’own effort〞. What we want to probe in the procedure, is the condition for the user to show self-control over the space, and to consider about the deserved relationship between human and space. Furthermore we would like to seek out what should be the form of construction in community architecture. Finally, in Chien-kung District, Pin-tung County we accomplished 「Space in the Woods—A Colonizing Project at Chien-kung District, Pin-tung County」.it shows a continuation of my making and the spirit of reclamation inspired by “Iterbreeding Field “, and is my first attempt regarding the space and architecture of community. As the author contacted with the actual cases of community architecture, we find that the constructing form of most public space in the community is not far from that of construction company ,to such an extent that the author can’t see the space is constructed in the residents own effort were it not been told. In other words, it can’t be distinguished from the form of construction. It doesn’t make sense, for if we do agree that the purpose of making by residents their own is to establish the native character by natives, then how could it be identically the same as the methods of the construction companies in the procedure of building up the space? Shouldn’t it be much more particular, or more suiting local environment? The difference in form of construction should be commensurate with the difference in geographical features. Next we consider from the viewpoint of the purpose of self-effort in the community architecture：In the building process, because of the lack of knowledge and incapability in construction, the residents would give over part of the jobs to the construction company. This is also quite irrational, for if the purpose of construction of the community in the residents own effort is to develop a unique method in accordance with locality and the natives’ speciality, so as to elicit native cultural character and to develop the uniqueness of the local space. Then why should we need the help of giant machines from construction company? From my observation, the “self-effort” of present community architectuer in Taiwan mainly halts in designing and planning in room. Due to the doubts from above ,the author is questioning the constructing experience on the spot of present designer in architecture－ How can they lead the community to self-construct the space if they are not acquainted with materials and building methods, let along to discovery the property of a new material? All these linked with the “making” training in “Iterbreeding Field “ yield a new consideration to the author. What if we can bring the experience from “Iterbreeding Field “ to the community? This is the main issue the author want to deal with in this thesis.