I started by considering the given elements, the eight sided form, its weight and materiality, the roof, which seems to be the one element that differs from the initial intent. I moved to the de Menil collection, and appreciated Piano’s utilization of a consistent system to delineate space. Rothko’s paintings maintain the same depth in the gallery as in the chapel. I reflected on Lewis Mumford’s The City in History, where he noted “Both enclosure and centrality were attributes of the sanctuary.” I outlined 5 points by which to base my approach:
integration of previously developed system
support/reorientate (6, 7, 8?) masonry walls
elevate floor, maintain level (attributes of typology)
centrality + enclosure
The main focus will be the use of the system to support the existing walls, and move axially across and through the building, forming the entry and roof elements. I selected a site within the zone proposed Tuesday, at the north end of the bus station, along 4th Ave SW with the road running to the north and west.
Here I decided, disregarding the generally uninformative sketch, that this sanctuary can not attempt to recreate or mirror the original, but respond through intervention, and purposefully create anew.
In section, I want to juxtapose the masonry walls so they are progressively pulled out of their relationship with the ground, seemingly forced out by the intruding structural system. The structural system arcs over 6 walls in a similiar octagonal plan orientation.
The two end walls are removed from the octagon, and sunk into the floor, with the tops serving as seating within the sanctuary. There was also a consideration for them to serve as partial height walls. TBD. The openings then serve as the standard/largest dimension for the previously developed system.