Guggenheim/Bloch Architects
South Jerusalem
Completed 1994
Monday, December 17, 2007
Trip Report
The two sites we saw (Maoz Aviv and Hamashtela project) are very different in style, in their relation to open space, and in they way they are positioned on their lots. They were built in very different periods, and relate to different prevailing tastes. But they are both currently very expensive and desirable.
The reason for this is first and foremost location- both are in the North Tel Aviv area. Take away Maoz Aviv's location, you will loose the wealthy residents who can afford to spend a fortune on gardening, and what you are left with is the typical 50's "shikun" in Be'er Sheva. Maybe the shikun itself is neutral, overwhelmingly influenced by it's surroundings, and maybe it takes a setting like North Tel Aviv to bring out it's qualities.
On the other hand, the buildings at Hamashtela reminded me of the enclosed, stone coated complexes from the 80's in Gilo, Jerusalem. What makes them desirable and costly, other than their location, of course, are the facilities located inside the buildings. In fact, despite the architect's emphasis on public open space, he designed the buildings so that the residents have very little need or desire to leave them, or even to enter them from a public, street level entrance. The open spaces seem excessive (private courtyards at the heart of each buildings, a fragment of a Tel Aviv boulevard, a large public park) and are unlikely to be used much.
The reason for this is first and foremost location- both are in the North Tel Aviv area. Take away Maoz Aviv's location, you will loose the wealthy residents who can afford to spend a fortune on gardening, and what you are left with is the typical 50's "shikun" in Be'er Sheva. Maybe the shikun itself is neutral, overwhelmingly influenced by it's surroundings, and maybe it takes a setting like North Tel Aviv to bring out it's qualities.
On the other hand, the buildings at Hamashtela reminded me of the enclosed, stone coated complexes from the 80's in Gilo, Jerusalem. What makes them desirable and costly, other than their location, of course, are the facilities located inside the buildings. In fact, despite the architect's emphasis on public open space, he designed the buildings so that the residents have very little need or desire to leave them, or even to enter them from a public, street level entrance. The open spaces seem excessive (private courtyards at the heart of each buildings, a fragment of a Tel Aviv boulevard, a large public park) and are unlikely to be used much.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)