This studio set out to confront the issues of Structure and Form in architecture. It posed an important question which became the main direction of our project. What is considered to be an architectural failure? I was most interested in the possibilities overlooked with our own preoccupation for success.

Structural test studies were done on failure and the design restrictions that come from the assumptions we make in the initial phases of design. What emerged was a realtime relationship between the digital drawing board (parametric code) and our physical model building.

Our theoretical concerns shifted to aesthetic and structural failure. Through analysing what designers consider to be a failure we developed a set of parameters that would form the foundation of our project. The main parameters were a) bilateral symmetry b) the use of efficient structure without efficiency been the driving factor c) no necessity for function in form.

Employing these parameters resulted in a structure that is not only complex, but simple. It is effecient and inefficient, and explores spatial opportunities through a design foundation that would have otherwise never been considered.

Parameters

a) bilateral symmetry

b) consideration of efficient structure without efficiency

c) no necessity for function in form.

The form resulted in a deceptive structure. From the exterior the building appears simple, elegant, symmetrical. Inside he user is exposed to a unforeseen spatial framework. The user is faced with an unusual environment, where elements appear disparate. A freeform structure of concrete, a planar floor placed gently on a deformed terrain.

Affirmation this projects success is in the critique, where the taboo of design failure and designers preconceptions materialized. Architects need to realize that failure is only what we call it, and by using this label we for go many an opportunity. This is why we stuck in the industry of building.

“A person who never made a mistake never tried anything new”...Albert Einstein