The Sea Ranch
Although I don't understand how some pieces are considered art, I do recognise architecture as an art form. I thank Prof Paul Zafaralla for taking my class through an arts appreciation course through the Ilocos Region, which included architecture.
At the SFMOMA, an exhibit about The Sea Ranch, a coastal real-estate project north of San Francisco, welcomes visitors to peek into the environmentalist ideals of the people who conceptualised this project in the 1960s.
The scale models suggest that this seaside village is situated by a cliff. Bay windows in the houses allow people to see the Pacific Ocean while lounging in the living room. The sharp angles and the sparse design remind me of brutalist architecture, which is popular during the 1960s... however, I'm not sure if the Sea Ranch can be considered as such because the houses are made of wood, not concrete.
The houses are shielded from view from thoroughfares by a tree line, providing privacy to the residents.
Inside the house, people get spacious interiors for living and dining areas. The second floor is dedicated for sleeping. For some reason, these features remind me of my stay in Brenderup, Denmark. Maybe it's the wood, the geometry, or the big windows... or the claim of environmentally friendliness of the project concept.
A chart indicates the Sea Ranch's ecoscore. I don't know how to interpret it just yet but it caught my attention because it seems to put the timeline of humans, as interpreted by the artist, as a spiral Fibonacci sequence.
A sketch of the venue shows that the community is close to the San Andreas fault. The location of the houses is not clearly marked though.
As I see it, the Sea Ranch is intended for people who want to build a community based on living so close to nature; it probably has a low occupancy limit, which will allow people to feel like they belong and they know everyone in the neighbourhood. Its remote location makes me think about how practical it is to live in such a place and work in the city... or maybe people who live there choose not to live in the city. The open spaces within buildings and outdoors theoretically foster open communications among residents.
Sadly, I get the impression that the project's goal of creating a community has not been achieved several decades since the groundbreaking. Instead, the developers appear to focus on marketing the project to vacationers. This is quite obvious because there is no allocation for a school or a medical facility within the vicinity (which should have been in place already, if people were actually living there long-term).
At the SFMOMA, an exhibit about The Sea Ranch, a coastal real-estate project north of San Francisco, welcomes visitors to peek into the environmentalist ideals of the people who conceptualised this project in the 1960s.
The scale models suggest that this seaside village is situated by a cliff. Bay windows in the houses allow people to see the Pacific Ocean while lounging in the living room. The sharp angles and the sparse design remind me of brutalist architecture, which is popular during the 1960s... however, I'm not sure if the Sea Ranch can be considered as such because the houses are made of wood, not concrete.
The houses are shielded from view from thoroughfares by a tree line, providing privacy to the residents.
Inside the house, people get spacious interiors for living and dining areas. The second floor is dedicated for sleeping. For some reason, these features remind me of my stay in Brenderup, Denmark. Maybe it's the wood, the geometry, or the big windows... or the claim of environmentally friendliness of the project concept.
A chart indicates the Sea Ranch's ecoscore. I don't know how to interpret it just yet but it caught my attention because it seems to put the timeline of humans, as interpreted by the artist, as a spiral Fibonacci sequence.
A sketch of the venue shows that the community is close to the San Andreas fault. The location of the houses is not clearly marked though.
As I see it, the Sea Ranch is intended for people who want to build a community based on living so close to nature; it probably has a low occupancy limit, which will allow people to feel like they belong and they know everyone in the neighbourhood. Its remote location makes me think about how practical it is to live in such a place and work in the city... or maybe people who live there choose not to live in the city. The open spaces within buildings and outdoors theoretically foster open communications among residents.
Sadly, I get the impression that the project's goal of creating a community has not been achieved several decades since the groundbreaking. Instead, the developers appear to focus on marketing the project to vacationers. This is quite obvious because there is no allocation for a school or a medical facility within the vicinity (which should have been in place already, if people were actually living there long-term).
Comments
Post a Comment
Thank you for dropping by!
Before moving on, please share your thoughts or comments about the post. :)
Thanks again!