Other than site and materials, I see not much difference between the trailer park and…
…Habitat ’67. I think both are beautiful and valid.
B.E.L.T.
Built Environment in Layman's Terms
Other than site and materials, I see not much difference between the trailer park and…
…Habitat ’67. I think both are beautiful and valid.
That’s a shipping container standing on end that’s holding up the highest trailer. There’s another shipping container underneath the orange striped trailer to the far right.
brilliant, but it does sort of remind me of an actual Dutch movement to create parasitic architecture
http://lifewithoutbuildings.net/2005/08/life-without-books-green-house.html
The theater set is great, the first tornado would probably scatter the trailers everywhere, but still it’s a nice idea. It does remind one of habitat.
It’s a theatre set!
http://www.snopes.com/photos/architecture/redneck.asp
Nevertheless, pretty cool!
where did you find that amazing trailer park? my first thought was it had to be a photoshop concoction.
Now, imagine if we could deliver prefab units at a scale that could finally serve those who could not otherwise afford to own a home, in an urban context, and of a neighborhood character that respects extants patterns. I think Habitat, along with Kurokawa’s tower, represent what’s possible with imagination, but the concept of systems-built homes (or offices, laboratories, classrooms, etc.) shouldn’t be perceived as so outrageous as habitat clearly is, as compared to conservative convention. Habitat could appear in Dwell or on the Treehugger or Inhabitat as new today and appear as fresh as it did in 1967, and that should make Safdie happy.