During my exploration of Frame 1 I focused on site. I felt that because of the the direct correlation of my thesis with issues of site that the frame should explore the site in some specificity. Depicted below is a catalog of different site conditions. Each collage explores the section of a specific site, and in that section it targets the dialogue between architecture and the landscape (how does the architecture respond to the site specific characteristics inherent in the generalized site?) Each site is also explored in perspective which explores the openness or lack there of depending on the site. Material exploration was also important, and therefore each site has been designated with a specific material that shares a complementary relationship with the site. Although, some materials are more universal and could be interchanged between sites others would be out of place outside of their placed site.
Beach condition: the architecture in this site responds to the water by jutting out over it, and the roof responds in a similar way. It peels up and opens toward the ocean vista.
Tree grove: the architectural response to the site cuts a simple wall into the slope of the site and defines an covered space. It also responds to the rhythm created by the trees.
Grass covered valley: the architecture becomes an object within the pure landscape of the valley. Since it becomes a solid mass due to its response it becomes much more inward facing, and therefore rather than opening up to the site it frames a view out to the site.
Desert flatland: the response to the flatland is one of horizontality. The walls become set back within the overhangs of the strong linear roof, and the low profile roofline continues the horizontality of the site.
Mountain: within the mountains section the architecture cuts a deep cavity into the slope, and projects out over the side to accentuate the verticality of the slope.