به نام خدا
زيرگذری چون يک پلازای شهری:
Underground Crossing Body in N City
The Underground Crossing Body in N City started out as attempt to create an attractive "underground plaza", bringing people underground on daily basis and making them cross there. The concept itself was, however, totally untenable and the plan was revised by abandoning the "plaza" as the point of departure and focussing on the most appropriate "link" = crossing. In other words, it was an attempt to redefine the plaza as a result of single-minded focus on the "link".
Leaving the road and underground piping intact, a U-shaped slit was excavated, opposite sides of the road being linked by an unbroken, smooth surface. The initial, steep decent is sliced with criss-cross stairs similar to downhill skiing. Here and there flat, round horizontal surfaces protrude on the slope in three-on-three formation, acting as a catalyst for the "crossing body" to evolve into a "plaza".
We tend to give precedence to "things to be linked" rather than "links" precisely because we live in a modern age. It is as if we name organically interwoven totalities by dissecting them. It is at this point that "things to be linked" emerge. Much in the way we dissect the body with this being the esophagus, this the stomach and this the intestines. This leads to an expectatoin of each "thing to be linked" performing given roles (the occurrence of function), and the perception of the whole as a combination of its parts (the occurrence of structure). This is the foundation of science, an approach ostensibly premised on "functionalism". The machine aethetic also originates here. It seems that there is no easy escape for us from this underlying approach, but is it true?
For example, people may well be perceived in terms of their diffrent organs but is it not ultimately possible to think in terms of a single "link", merely the digestive tract? After all, the space between the respective oragans is smooth, an unbroken continuity devoid of clear partitions. In fact, it has recently been found that our immunity structure, which, of course, is also a science, is virtually an indivisible system. Even if divisions exist, they would not be of a layered tree-like nature, but most likely a differential structure which can be broken down into minute units at a stroke. Although there are certain rules in its relations with the surrounding environment, the details are not determined by overall directives.
This ability to separate into tiny units at a bound is a property of fluids. Fluids are not "a compound of A and B". From any aspect, they are simultaneously both A and B. I feel an enormous sympathy with things of this nature, which probably lies behind my interest in "links" and "circulation bodies".
From what direction do you design a bridge? As a combination of a "link" and "a place for people"? No. As a body which is simulataneously a "link" and "a place for people". The "body" in circulation bodies is an attempt to express the complex totality and inherent simultaneity of architecture.