Martyn Hook and Chris White explain the development of RMIT’s architectural design, moving away from being closed off to “a campus integrated with its city”. This re-design has also solved a number of previous functional problems, from disability access to way finding.
Hook contends:
“Architects must be clear of the relationship their architecture has with its context and how that relationship may define the work. When architects become involved in urban design, the language of the ideal is distorted – they must set aside an inherent desire for attention and focus on their contribution to building context.”
This firmly backs up Peter Elliot’s view that the city should be considered an ongoing project, therefore his contribution to RMIT’s architecture must build upon what already exists.
Another excerpt reflects what Elliot said in his lecture about how cues within a space influence what the public do there:
“Elliott sees his key role as “orchestrating space for sociability.” What he means by this is activating a space in an urban landscape without being prescriptive, allowing activity to be determined by the potential of the space. In this situation, the elements under his control – trees, street furniture, paving, shade – become prompts for public engagement, rather than fulfilling definitive roles.”
This article is extremely interesting to read, as it is evident how much planning and though processing has gone into every aspect of RMIT’s design. It is also important to note the article was published in 2008. Reading it now and seeing how much the campus has continued to evolve over the past 7 years further merits Elliot’s work.
