Hong Kong Car Park Proposal / Interface Studio Architects

Jan 2012

By Alison Furuto — Filed under: mini ,Misc ,Retail , China, Hong Kong, Interface Studio Architects

▼

Add this to My Bookmarks:

share by email

share by email

Interface Studio Architects shared with us their proposal for the Hong Kong Car Parc competition, which aims at romanticizing the car as an active urban object while simultaneously implementing sustainable strategies. In addition to including parking spaces in the rotational design, shopping, food and landscaping aspects are also included in the program. More images and architects’ description after the break.

Hong Kong’s relationship to the car is defined by having a small ratio of people to automobiles. In a city of over 7 million, only 461,000 cars are registered to local drivers. This massively dense city contains only 566,618 parking spaces.

We see this as an opportunity. While so many cities are forced to store a massive volume of automobiles in ways that don’t negatively impact the street, Hong Kong can afford to be different. Hong Kong likes to wear its infrastructure on its sleeve. From the Old Airport, to richly layered pedestrian walkways, outdoor escalators, and floating water-borne neighborhoods – the city pulses with circulation, both horizontal and vertical. Unlike more typical new developments which continue to emulate western approaches to hiding cars, our proposal looks to capture new potentials for Hong Kong’s infrastructural personality by integrating the ritual of “the drive” with mixed programs.

The Car Parc is just that. The car is viewed as an active urban object while also adding a new storm water management strategy that creates landscape retreats in the sky and irrigates the athletic field occupying the ground plane. The park is a civic, mixed-use armature of landscape, shopping, food, sports, views, and parking spaces tangled up in a kinetic rotation of animated circulation.

Architects: Interface Studio Architects
Location: Hong Kong, China
Major Funding: Private development
Project Phase: Competition
Year: 2011

: © Interface Studio Architects

: © Interface Studio Architects

: © Interface Studio Architects

: © Interface Studio Architects

: plan

: floor plans

: circulation strategy diagram

: components diagram

: concept diagram

Cite:
Furuto , Alison . "Hong Kong Car Park Proposal / Interface Studio Architects" 25 Jan 2012. ArchDaily. Accessed 23 Feb 2012. <http://www.archdaily.com/201596>

Comments (11)
Tweets (26)
Links to this entry (0)

Tom says:

This is a joke right?
Why ArchDaily ( or Alison Furuto ) publishing competition looser? So I did participated to this competition too so I should expect Archdaily to publish my proposal? Come on! Please Alison select what you are receiving…

# January 25, 2012 at 12:41

Eugene Britton says:

Seriously. While the image is nice – that’s what we’re about right? – do some markets really have this much excess capital that they waste it on something so prohibitively expensive and extravagantly inefficient? Why is it right on the waterfront – this is for parking cars.

# January 26, 2012 at 10:28

pushkin says:

Just another garage-shaped inflated balloon.

# January 25, 2012 at 13:05

Brigitte says:

Pffff not going to bother looking at archDaily anymore…
They didn’t even win the competition!

# January 25, 2012 at 13:27

Bignomore says:

I Think it looks like something bjarke ingels has done.

# January 25, 2012 at 15:53

bhb says:

Well, aside from the fact that we have just seen a similar proposal from a group of Polish architects, I guess leveling some useful comments would be more useful than complaining about the obvious aspects.

1. The circulation diagram is not understandable. I assume there was a lot of work trying to figure out something clear, but it’s not represented that way.

2. The three main views are clearly noted in a diagram, but the loops are perpendicular to those views. It would make more sense to orient the promenades or drives *parallel* to those views. Upon parking, more people can enjoy the panorama.

3. Structure. Seriously, you are trying to sell an idea. People who will pay for this have to believe that this will work, with the result similar to what is being represented. There is more structure shown here than in the Polish proposal, but let’s not kid ourselves into thinking this thing will work.

4. Is Hong Kong really that automobile-oriented as to warrant such an extravagance? It’s worth considering. This was sort of considered in the text, but I don’t think the logical conclusion is to provide more parking spaces. There’s probably a reason (expense, limited space, high population density, etc.) Hong Kong’s transportation system emphasizes other means.

5. Meeting the city at the ground. If there is no reason to go there other than by car, then people without cars won’t really go up. Businesses won’t really thrive there. It’s a very, very specific and wealthy audience this is targeting.

# January 25, 2012 at 20:39

Emile says: