Talk:Case Study Nürtingen 1: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Heike.kaiser (talk | contribs) m (New page: Dear students: Please replace your presentation slides with single text paragraphs edited in the Wiki. You can add images accordingly. Thank you!) |
(→Comments from Clemson Group 3: new section) |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
Thank you! | Thank you! | ||
== Comments from Clemson Group 3 == | |||
In my opinion, these two project are good examples for future urban landscape -- the reuse and redesigning of abandoned urban space. Designers creat more possibilities by infilling new functions into these areas. As your group said a future landscape should be a base of the local identity. We strongly agree with that. Because of the historical context of these two projects, people who spend their time in these areas would feel the continum of history. History of a site should not be only in written form. It also have to be touched, felt by people. | |||
Revision as of 14:23, 23 November 2010
Dear students:
Please replace your presentation slides with single text paragraphs edited in the Wiki. You can add images accordingly.
Thank you!
Comments from Clemson Group 3
In my opinion, these two project are good examples for future urban landscape -- the reuse and redesigning of abandoned urban space. Designers creat more possibilities by infilling new functions into these areas. As your group said a future landscape should be a base of the local identity. We strongly agree with that. Because of the historical context of these two projects, people who spend their time in these areas would feel the continum of history. History of a site should not be only in written form. It also have to be touched, felt by people.