In Phoenix Arizona, on a plot area of 1 acre, mixed-use building of hotel-recreation directed to the surrounding community is proposed. It isassumed that the terrain is flat in an urban setting; its front gives on to a street and the rest of the boundary bordering neighboring plots.
As for regulation, it has been considered the only restriction construction area of 6,000 square feet and height of the two-story building.
The program and plan described here in,respond to the conception of The Nomad Hotel as a semi-public building, which is equipped with complementary services and amenities that give maximum comfort, optimal conditions of space and maximum flexibility. This proposal is considered as an entity capable of benefiting the community and surrounding area from its configuration.
The people will have a menities and facilities such as:
• Area covered and open to multiple uses.
• Enclosed area(loft) with multipurpose space: festivals, exhibitions, etc.
• Open kitchen that can be integrated in to other spaces.
• Area for four Airsteams with its amenities.
• A VIP room.
[b]GENERAL DESIGN CONCEPT:[/b]
It has been assumed that the plot measures are proportionate and ideals. The measurements are 80 x 50 meters. Because the specific location of this plot is not known, we intend to generate its own inner landscape capable of benefiting the proposal regardless of what happens in neighboring plots.
This project understands the proposal as an opportunity to create a space on the scale of the city, whose boundaries dissolve into the urban fabric. Floor slabs serve as extension of the street in conjunction with gardens on the edge of the plot. The buildings are located precisely in the plot to organize the spaces around them. Two proposals were presented. It arises in the first proposal, two buildings independently organizing the use of hotel and community areas. One building that organizes all facilities arises in the second proposal. Both proposals raise clean, simple and refined metal structures. The proposal intensifies the relationship between indoor spaces and the landscape created in the rest of the plot. The idea is to build places of exchange that are flexible and which are constructed from the visual relationships with the outside.
Basically three elements thus defined: 1) open terraces, 2) gardens and 3) open buildings.
[b]1) Open terraces:[/b] There are four types of floor areas:
A. Floor Access: Start in the middle of the plot and allows the entry of people and the temporary movement of buses.
B. Floor Multipurpose: Located to the right of the previous slab. It can be programmed with sports courts, area for tables, gardens or another complementary activity to buildings.
C. Ground square (Square): It is located to the left of the slab of access. In this square you can locate a climbing wall against the edge. In this square may occur temporary outdoor activities.
[/b]As discussed previously, the intent of this proposal is to create an inner landscape with the activities of the buildings and exterior landscaping elements. The green area around the building benefits the spaces of buildings with lighting and ventilation. Additional permitted to occur outdoors.
[b]3) Open Buildings:
Structures allow combinations of uses of the spaces. They also allow the possibility of incorporating external areas to the events happening inside the building.
In the first proposal each building has an area of 3100 square feet, while the second proposal the only building has an area of 5800 square feet. Both proposals have a maximum height of 20 feet to allow a second level.
Aircraft hanger doors were raised in the closure of the four sides of the closed areas with permeable and adjustable elements.
In the first proposal, it is located in the main building the loft for multiple uses and cafe bar. In the second building they are located: Four Airstreams, bathrooms and VIP room.
In the loft of the second proposal is located: multipurpose area, coffee bar and bathrooms. On the upper level loft the VIP room is located.
The decision to integrate applications or else keep them separate is critical to lean on any of the options.
We favor the first proposal.