DOI: 10.5593/sgem2017/62/S27.109


I. Moraru
Tuesday 12 September 2017 by Libadmin2017

References: 17th International Multidisciplinary Scientific GeoConference SGEM 2017, www.sgem.org, SGEM2017 Conference Proceedings, ISBN 978-619-7408-13-3 / ISSN 1314-2704, 29 June - 5 July, 2017, Vol. 17, Issue 62, 851-858 pp, DOI: 10.5593/sgem2017/62/S27.109


Contemporary life is characterized by a state of continuous change and that’s why standard solutions are no longer the key to all problems. Like many other fields, architecture seeks new alternatives to overcome the challenges we are facing on daily basis. Sustainability is one of the many issues that concern us, trying to solve some of the problems that globalization generates. On this line, one of the directions is a definition of architecture as landscape: topographical architecture. Topographical architecture has a subtle presence in the landscape, being perceived most of the times as a variation of topography or as a small landform, as a continuation of the natural land, as the result of a collaborative process with the natural context. Borrowing the particularities of the surroundings, this kind of architecture is often seen as a way of preserving the natural landscape. But if this solution was so good, how come the examples are so few? Small buildings prevail, both due to financial considerations, and the preconceptions. Although the reluctance of people to such living spaces is obvious, examples show us that larger interventions are much easier assumed by the users. Through several examples and a brief historical foray, this paper aims to present some possible ways of insertion of such constructions into the context, as well as some of the advantages, but also disadvantages of such an approach in architecture.

Keywords: sustainability, landscape, particularity, materiality