A comparative analysis of phase 1 and phase 2 developments by christopher ng

A comparative analysis of contextual architecture features of Belum Rainforest Resort’s phase 1 and phase 2 developments.

Asian Architecture [ARC 2213/2234] PROJECT 1: CASE STUDY

A COMPARITIVE ANALYSIS OF CONTEXTUAL ARCHITECTURE FEATURES OF BELUM RAINFOREST RESORT’S PHASE 1 AND PHASE 2 DEVELOPMENTS.

NAME:

CHRISTOPHER DAVID NG MAN KING

STUDENT ID:

0309552

LECTURER:

Mr. KOH JING HAO

SUBMISSION DATE:

12 June 2014

ARC 2213/2234 Asian Architecture

1

A comparative analysis of contextual architecture features of Belum Rainforest Resort’s phase 1 and phase 2 developments.

A COMPARITIVE ANALYSIS OF CONTEXTUAL ARCHITECTURE FEATURES OF BELUM RAINFOREST RESORT’S PHASE 1 AND PHASE 2 DEVELOPMENTS.

Table of Contents

Page

Abstract .......................................................................................................................... 4 1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................ 5 2.0 Overview of Contextual Architecture ..................................................................... 6 2.1 Introduction to Banding Island .................................................................................. 7 2.2 Belum Rainforest resort overview ............................................................................. 8 3.0 Contextual Architecture Features ........................................................................... 10 3.1 The Topography of the Island ................................................................................. 10 3.2 Natural features ...................................................................................................... 12 3.3 Vernacular Architecture .......................................................................................... 13 4.0 Phase 1: Response to Contextual Architecture Features ....................................... 13 4.1 Response to the topography of the land ................................................................. 13 4.2 Response to Natural Features available on site ..................................................... 14 4.3 Material Response to the site ................................................................................. 15 4.4 Design strategies .................................................................................................... 16 4.5 The poetics of Phase 1’s Architecture .................................................................... 17 5.0 Phase 2: Response to Contextual Architecture Features ....................................... 18

ARC 2213/2234 Asian Architecture

2

A comparative analysis of contextual architecture features of Belum Rainforest Resort’s phase 1 and phase 2 developments.

5.1 Response to the topography of the land ................................................................. 18 5.2 Response to Natural Features available on site ..................................................... 19 5.3 Material Response to the site ................................................................................. 20 5.4 Design Strategies ................................................................................................... 22 5.5 The poetics of Phase 2’s Architecture .................................................................... 24 6.0 Comparison: Phase 1 vs. Phase 2. ........................................................................ 26 6.1 Comparing the topographic response .................................................................... 26 6.2 Comparing the response to natural features .......................................................... 26 6.3 Comparing material response ................................................................................ 26 6.4 Comparing poetic response .................................................................................... 27

7.0 Conclusion...………………………………………………………………………………28

8.0 References………………………………………………………………………………..29

ARC 2213/2234 Asian Architecture

3

A comparative analysis of contextual architecture features of Belum Rainforest Resort’s phase 1 and phase 2 developments.

Abstract The purpose of this comparative analysis is to investigate about the importance of contextual architecture, which involves on-site factors and assets. As the primordial rule of architecture is to embrace one’s surrounding instead of rebuilding it, it is important to understand this study process in order to satisfy both the eco-system and architectures in which we are living in.

In order to clarify confusions about the

concerned subject, Belum Rainforest Resort, located on Banding Island in the state of Perak, Malaysia has been chosen as the case study. At first glance, it can be noticed two completely different architecture style present on site. Knowing that two different architects had developed each phase respectively, two different architectural languages can be noticed within the design of each phase. During the course of this research, several important factors affecting the contextual response of each phase are compared to evaluate its degree of responsiveness to the site. Factors such as flora and fauna conservation, topography and architecture style are properly discussed through established research topics. The fact that two different approaches has been undergone through the project, motivates the need to know which of them embrace the site to its optimum, referencing to architectural criteria. Throughout the research process, the fact that each phase carries its own architectural language creates a monotonous experience when it comes to differ the two of them. Phase 1 is translated as Traditional architecture whereas phase 2 is translated as the contemporary form of contextual architecture. Hence, it is concluded that each phase differs from each other in a large number of discrepancies. Thus, the results of this study can beneficiate future developments when it comes to site response and site conservation.

ARC 2213/2234 Asian Architecture

4

A comparative analysis of contextual architecture features of Belum Rainforest Resort’s phase 1 and phase 2 developments.

1.0 Introduction Our current century has made contextual response a debatable topic since the rise of contemporary architecture. New building technologies had been researched and are currently being used nowadays, but this has attracted people, furthermore architects to debate about the fact of being responsive to the site.

Contextual Architecture has always existed since architecture has always been part of our life. This research emphasizes on comparing two case studies located in the same contextual situation, on how distinct those two architectures interpret the local conditions. Belum Rainforest Resort, located on Banding Island, known to be an example on contextual architecture has been showing signs of difference in its design.

One showing sight of cultural appearance and the other demonstration sustainable attributes, are both said to be respectful to the site context.

“…This statement does not engage in the tectonic, programmatic,

systemic or contextual aspects of the art, but involves the presence of architectural meaning and experience.” (Abel, 1986) delivers the fact that it is all of a matter of poetics instead of mechanics.

This paper will investigate on the comparison of site responsiveness between phase 1 and phase 2 developments by responding to the following research questions:

1. What is Contextual Architecture?

2. How does sustainability gets involve into contextual architecture?

3. What are the developments proceeded from phase 1 to phase 2?

4. While Belum Rainforest Resort’s phase 1 and phase 2 are both considered as examples of contextual architecture, how does one differ from the other?

ARC 2213/2234 Asian Architecture

5

A comparative analysis of contextual architecture features of Belum Rainforest Resort’s phase 1 and phase 2 developments.

5. Belum Rainforest Resort’s phases considered as both being examples of contextual architecture, how does both overcome the contextual needs?

2.0 Overview of Contextual Architecture Since the dawn of time, human civilization has been referring to their surrounding in order to adapt to its distinct conditions as a matter of survival. Due to this fact, Architects has been distinguishing themselves among the crowd as right hand men of god who create living for others, with the same intention, adapting habitats to context for people to live. Contextual architecture has not only been considered as an extravagant art but as a must for the human civilization.

Contextual architecture is the architecture of co-existence. None can survive by overwhelming the other, as the Latin term Contexere says “weave together to exist as one”. Infrastructural and Contextual peace is known to be the perfect formula for a healthy architecture.

Contextual Architecture is the architecture, which involves contextual features as well as its context’s emotions in order to make people feel like “home”. For example, during the Neolithic period, human has been making whole use of their surrounding such as caves as habitats instead of building new ones in order to not disturb the whole of existence.

ARC 2213/2234 Asian Architecture

6

A comparative analysis of contextual architecture features of Belum Rainforest Resort’s phase 1 and phase 2 developments.

2.1 Introduction to Banding Island

Figure 1. shows a bird eye view of the overall of Pulau Banding.

ARC 2213/2234 Asian Architecture

7

A comparative analysis of contextual architecture features of Belum Rainforest Resort’s phase 1 and phase 2 developments.

In the late 1960s, the construction of the Temengor Dam was issued in the state of Perak at the location of the current Banding Island in order to produce hydroelectric power and to deprive communist terrorists to infiltrate Malaysia from Southern Thailand. In fact, the Island is man’s doing and today it was one of Southeast Asia’s most beautiful and promoted Rainforest Island.

The Rainforest Resort is existent over 130 million years and the island is of 243 hectares big. At present days, EMKAY has been developing the island in order to promote its beauty and its wellness in terms of Flora and Fauna and also in terms of its peaceful environment.

Their Aim is to create a haven out of this land in order to promote eco-tourism and make out of the island a unique location where unique things happen.

2.2 Belum Rainforest resort overview

Figure 2. shows an overall image of Belum Rainforest Resort Phase 1

ARC 2213/2234 Asian Architecture

8

A comparative analysis of contextual architecture features of Belum Rainforest Resort’s phase 1 and phase 2 developments.

Figure 3. shows an overall image of Belum Rainforest Resort Phase 2

In 2010, EMKAY issued the project BELUM RAINFOREST RESORT, in order to promote eco-tourism in the region of Perak due to the fact that Banding Island is considered to be a haven for people not to miss in their life. With the motto “Gateway to Nature”, one intention was lead only through these words, create an outstanding interactive experience towards man and nature. The project has been issued in two phases and are said to be both ambassadors of Contextual and Sustainable architecture.

It is to be known that the project phases had been developed by two distinct architects at different time period, phase 1 in 2010 and phase 2 in 2012.

ARC 2213/2234 Asian Architecture

9

A comparative analysis of contextual architecture features of Belum Rainforest Resort’s phase 1 and phase 2 developments.

3.0 Contextual Architecture Features

3.1 The Topography of the Island The Topography of the Island, most precisely the one of the site is particularly a mixture of flat and slope lands and is considered suitable for building in terms of architectural response by reference to the building context. The Slope lands are mostly located at the coastal perimeter of the Island, which is directly connected to the Temengor Lake, and the flat land is located at the central platform of the Island. The Rainforest covers majority of the Island. The Resort is located partly within it in order to conserve its natural experience and identity. Phase 1 is located at the central platform of the island where the land is flat whereas Phase 2 is located at the downhill zone of it.

It is also to be said that the topography by relationship to the Resort’s architecture is a combination of topographic levels and densities as for fact that both phases are being bounded as one unit.

ARC 2213/2234 Asian Architecture

10

A comparative analysis of contextual architecture features of Belum Rainforest Resort’s phase 1 and phase 2 developments.

Figure 4. shows the topographic response of phase 1 and its adaptation to the land’s features.

ARC 2213/2234 Asian Architecture

11

A comparative analysis of contextual architecture features of Belum Rainforest Resort’s phase 1 and phase 2 developments.

3.2 Natural features The Island being known for its abundance of greenery and wildlife is subject to a look of available natural features in order to provide a unique and outstanding experience throughout the island. Those natural features are also very beneficial in terms of architecture as it is composed of the Temengor Lake primarily, which subsequently surrounds the island. Natural features such as the Rainforest and the lake is very beneficial when it comes the sustainability of the resort’s architecture as it helps in the functioning process of the resort such as by evaporative cooling and natural shading.

Figure 5. shows the approach of phase 1 in achieving response to Natural features of its surrounding context.

ARC 2213/2234 Asian Architecture

12

A comparative analysis of contextual architecture features of Belum Rainforest Resort’s phase 1 and phase 2 developments.

3.3 Vernacular Architecture It is of normal evidence that every piece of land does comport history around or through it. The sole reason vernacular architecture is being included into this subject matter is because of the cultural identity of the site. Known to be previously a land of the Orang Asli, the rainforest is full of cultural traces and in order to keep a correct response to the context, part of the cultural aspect of the site has to be induced into the architecture in order to keep balance when it comes to indoor-outdoor relationship.

4.0 Phase 1: Response to Contextual Architecture Features 4.1 Response to the topography of the land Phase one is situated on the flat land zone of the island where existing buildings has been refurbished into the resort’s phase. Being built on a flat land and keeping existing structures instead of building new ones for sure allows the maximisation of a good contextual response as for fact that the land is not being destroyed physically. On the other hand, by not destroying the existing structures, balance is kept around the eco-system of phase 1’s microenvironment creating a maximum indoor-outdoor relationship as most of the existing features has been kept in order for the users to

ARC 2213/2234 Asian Architecture

13

A comparative analysis of contextual architecture features of Belum Rainforest Resort’s phase 1 and phase 2 developments.

experience primarily the identity of the site.

Figure 6. shows the topographic response of phase 1.

4.2 Response to Natural Features available on site Responding to Natural Features such as existing water features, green zones and topographic structure of the site is a necessity when it comes to analyse the contextual response of a building. As for phase 1, it can be determined that it is efficiently responding to the site’s natural features as not much destruction is being caused in terms of structural balance. Refurbishing existing buildings not only contributed in the minimization of the building’s carbon footprint as this process is called recycling, but as well as in guarding the natural and contextual balance of the site. Phase 1 shows sight of response to the context’s natural features by implementing artificial water features and small gardens in order to create a bridge in between

ARC 2213/2234 Asian Architecture

14

A comparative analysis of contextual architecture features of Belum Rainforest Resort’s phase 1 and phase 2 developments.

context and architecture. This architectural approached contributed into keeping a continual flow of experience when it comes to indoor-outdoor relationship.

4.3 Material Response to the site The materials employed in building construction, either structural or superficial plays a big role in terms of cultural image. Cultural response is not only in the technical features such as the ecological impact or environmental impact but as well as in the image. The materials used are prominent tools in order to make a structure blends into a landscape in order to achieve harmony. As for phase 1, timber skinning, timber roofing, timber rod cladding and refurbished bricks are being brought into context, once combined, gives birth to an architecture style descendant from vernacular architecture and modern architecture. This improved version of the Orang Asli’s architecture provides at the same time comfort for its users and a harmonic contextual response in between infrastructure and nature.

Figure 7. shows an sample of the variety of recycled materials employed through phase 1’s design.

ARC 2213/2234 Asian Architecture

15

A comparative analysis of contextual architecture features of Belum Rainforest Resort’s phase 1 and phase 2 developments.

4.4 Design strategies In terms of design strategies, phase 1 is achieving its contextual response through the use of basic climatic adaptation alternatives such as shading devices, cross and stack ventilation techniques, evaporative cooling and green zoning. It also does contain some advanced systems such as light shafts and shading devices as well. Majority of the building blocks facades are covered and most of them are see through. At the same time, poetic spaces are being achieved by merging sustainable techniques and architecture creating a clear response between climate and the resort.

Figure 8. shows one of the water features available around phase 1.

ARC 2213/2234 Asian Architecture

16

A comparative analysis of contextual architecture features of Belum Rainforest Resort’s phase 1 and phase 2 developments.

Figure 9. shows the ventilation tunnel also used as corridors in phase 1’s accommodation blocks.

4.5 The poetics of Phase 1’s Architecture Summing up the above features, the poetic response of the architecture is the one that engage all other features. As Kotez and Riaan.W(2003, Contextual Architecture in Light) stated; the response does not only imply the systemic, programmatic and contextual aspect of the context but as well as the presence of architecture presence and meaning. By this statement, it is deduced that the materiality, climatic response and cultural appearance of phase 1 has been setup in order to achieve that unique ability in terms of contextual response. The shading devices are made of timber rods disposed in a rough texture appearance in order to create a cultural appearance and to create a cultural experience once the sunrise happens and the rays projects shadow strips on the timber floor in the corridor creating a unique poetic pattern.

ARC 2213/2234 Asian Architecture

17

A comparative analysis of contextual architecture features of Belum Rainforest Resort’s phase 1 and phase 2 developments.

Figure 10. shows as poetic response the shadow pattern projected through phase 1’s accommodation first floor at 07.00.

5.0 Phase 2: Response to Contextual Architecture Features 5.1 Response to the topography of the land As for phase 2, it is located at the downhill zone of the island. In terms of contextual response, it does fulfil the requirements as for reference, in terms of vernacular architecture, the Orang Asli used to either settle on flat land surrounded by greenery or on slope lands by the lake, river or other water sources. It is to be noted that phase 2 is constituted of two types of buildings of different grade in terms of privacy and comfort. Type 1 is constituted of blocks allocating space of four rooms each and Type 2 is constituted of single units. Type 2’s architecture follows the traditional Kampung style as how it is called in Malaysia. The Kampung house has and elevated platform to the ground and is standing on columns as the downhill land is of

ARC 2213/2234 Asian Architecture

18

A comparative analysis of contextual architecture features of Belum Rainforest Resort’s phase 1 and phase 2 developments.

soft soil. The traditional dwellings of type 2 does show a cultural and traditional response to its context as for Type 1 is made out of concrete and steel. Type 1 is directly in contact to the ground as piling foundation has been executed to its design’s foundation.

Figure 11. shows the difference in topographic response of phase 1 and phase 2.

5.2 Response to Natural Features available on site Phase 2, built out of concrete and steel shows a stunning impression of lightness through its architectural appearance. At the same time, it is weaving as one with the context’s green features and topography. The structure is almost going invisible as the architect of phase 2 during the interview at the resort. As per the

ARC 2213/2234 Asian Architecture

19

A comparative analysis of contextual architecture features of Belum Rainforest Resort’s phase 1 and phase 2 developments.

architect’s intention, attempting to design the structure, as an open and transparent architecture was a success. The feeling of being attached to nature as a user by just appraising the views provided throughout the different roof gardens and views and also walking throughout the scheme is outstandingly showing sight of fusion. The architecture itself through its floating horizontal planes and its light and almost invisible vertical steel columns tends the building to welcome the natural features such as the greenery surrounding it into the infrastructure.

5.3 Material Response to the site As mentioned before phase 2 is divided into two architecture styles both responsive to the site according to their individual material virtues. Type 1 of phase 2 is made out of concrete and steel. It is providing a visual of light architecture due to its exaggerated extrusion of concrete walls and cantilevered roofs. As well as for the steel structures, with its horizontal planes implementing skylights in the path trails roofs provides a leading and outstanding experience in terms of contextual experience and response. As it is said, phase 2 type 1 is based on the lightness of its architecture, with the employment of vertical light steel columns of its path trails creates a visual of floating planes which at the same time respond to the Architect’s intention of making the architecture of the latter merge entirely into its landscape.

Another additional material contributing into the aesthetics of the building and due to the design’s concept of sustainability, rammed earth concrete walls are being used as partition walls in this case. The texture and the gradual change in color tones of the earth, according to the architect, represents the daily change in tides of the lake, which is relevant to the subject matter as it is showing sign of contextual response and alternative experience.

As for phase 2 type 2, the architecture of these units are mostly considered as adaptation of the traditional Malay houses also known as Rumah Malayu. There are 6

ARC 2213/2234 Asian Architecture

20

A comparative analysis of contextual architecture features of Belum Rainforest Resort’s phase 1 and phase 2 developments.

of these units in total and they are all located at the downhill zone of the site, which is also close to the lake, providing lake and forest landscape view. The Suites made out mostly of timber for both structural and superficial and rammed earth facades for aesthetic appearance of its façades facing the Type 1 side. Phase 2 Type 2 is emphasized on its materiality when it comes to contextual response.

Figure 12. shows the light structures designed through the use of steel and its response to the site.

ARC 2213/2234 Asian Architecture

21

A comparative analysis of contextual architecture features of Belum Rainforest Resort’s phase 1 and phase 2 developments.

Figure 13. shows the employment of vertical and horizontal elements as design principles in phase 2.

5.4 Design Strategies Phase 2, in its entity has a distinctive climatic response as for reason of its quality of maximizing openings in its design. At the same time, it emphasizes clearly on a high quality of airflow and lighting. The light metallic structure and the timber structure of both types provided a clear understanding of how the cooling process of the buildings is being achieved. As for type 1, the exaggerated extrusion of walls and cantilevered roofs as much as the floating steel shelters on its path trails provided shading for the building in order to minimize heat gain. In terms of air flow, type 2 shows it clearly by it’s elevated platforms and its high quantity of openings through the buildings’ facades in order to achieve maximum cross ventilation. Not to forget that

ARC 2213/2234 Asian Architecture

22

A comparative analysis of contextual architecture features of Belum Rainforest Resort’s phase 1 and phase 2 developments.

those methods are adaptations of the Orang Asli architecture style and their previous technologies, which had been innovated from generation to generation.

Figure 14. shows the obvious openness and lightness of structure of phase 2.

Figure 15. shows the traditional vernacular style of phase 2’s suites.

ARC 2213/2234 Asian Architecture

23

A comparative analysis of contextual architecture features of Belum Rainforest Resort’s phase 1 and phase 2 developments.

5.5 The poetics of Phase 2’s Architecture Summing up the above sub-chapters, it is relevant to say that the poetics of spaces does concern the design’s appearance as well as its climatic response to the contextual features. As for phase 2, the intention of submerging the entity of the infrastructure into the context’s landscape maximizes for poetic factor. As walking through the building itself and well as standing on its viewing platforms, creates an experience of unchangeable contrast in between context and architecture. Emotional contact as well as physical contact with the surrounding context it achieved as the clustered organisation of phase 2 has been setup in such a way to minimize topographic and contextual reorganisation. The Architecture tends to be forgotten while travelling through it due to its distinctive openness and light structure.

Figure 16. shows the dispersal of the light and almost invisible structure of phase 2 standard accommodation blocks.

ARC 2213/2234 Asian Architecture

24

A comparative analysis of contextual architecture features of Belum Rainforest Resort’s phase 1 and phase 2 developments.

Figure 17. shows one of the path trails available in phase 2.

Figure 18. shows the employment of light in the design intention of phase 2 through the use of

ARC 2213/2234 Asian Architecture

skylights.

25

A comparative analysis of contextual architecture features of Belum Rainforest Resort’s phase 1 and phase 2 developments.

6.0 Comparison: Phase 1 vs. Phase 2.

6.1 Comparing the topographic response Phase 1 and Phase 2 topographic responses are both relevant to the site’s context both in terms of cultural aspect and contextual aspect as both of them are minimizing contextual destruction. They rather weave with the context as for example, back in time, in terms of Vernacular Architecture, two prominent factors were highlighted in order to identify the style, the first one was the clustered organisation being centralized around an iconic being and the other being built on both flat and slope lands. As for phase 1 compared to phase 2, it shows sight of centralization as all the other building blocks are being converged back to the reception unit in terms of circulation rather phase 2 is showing only sight of topographic similarities.

6.2 Comparing the response to natural features In terms of response to natural features, the balance factor in between context and architecture is to be taken highly into consideration. Phase 1 is responding to the need through its microenvironment, which creates a bridge in between context, and architecture as for phase 2 is responding to the natural features by weaving among its surrounding greenery. It has been deduced that phase 2 is responding better than phase 1 in this subject matter as the experience provided in phase 2 is distinctively more interactive and dynamic in terms of its journey through the architecture.

6.3 Comparing material response Phase 1 shows sight of refurbished architecture and phase 2 shows sight of postmodern sustainable architecture due to their respective materials allocated. In this analysis, phase 1 distinguishes itself as being very responsive compared to phase 2.

ARC 2213/2234 Asian Architecture

26

A comparative analysis of contextual architecture features of Belum Rainforest Resort’s phase 1 and phase 2 developments.

The materiality of phase 1 in terms of its texture and appearance suits its surrounding context perfectly. The timber claddings and timber rod partitions of phase 1 reflect an image of its context as well as show a distinctive cultural appearance. As for phase 2, it is clear that due to its minimalist architecture style, concrete and steel are the perfect materials for it’s structure, but the issue here is that it is making the architecture to disappear into its context instead of extending it as phase 1 does. The architecture of phase 2 is emphasizing more on the outdoor factor rather than the indoor factor. Phase 2 shows sight in imbalance, which does not suit the term “contextual architecture”.

6.4 Comparing poetic response A comparative analysis in the poetic experience and appearance of phase 1 and phase 2 has shown that phase 1 was in proper balance with the site compared to phase 2. Due to fact that phase 2 is mostly emphasizing on the outdoor experience as its openness quality demonstrate it, it depends to make the occupants of its spaces to lose focus of the indoor experience which is not the suitable approach when it comes to contextual architecture. Not to say that phase 2 is not responsive to the site, eventually it is creating an amazing coexisting experience between user and context. As for phase 1, the poetic appearance and experience immediately shows distinctive balance in terms of indoor/outdoor experience. Due to the implementation of its micro environment which are the gardens and the water features within the phase, this creates a bridge in between context and architecture. As for its cultural experience, the materiality of the outdoor façades and of its interior creates an outstanding cultural postmodern experience. In phase 1, the smooth flow of experience in between contextual features and architecture is being kept into balance creating an enhancement of feelings through its journey rather than phase 2 is drastically drowning its occupants into greenery and great openness making them to lose focus of its architecture. As the term contextualism means to weave together, it is logical to say that phase 1’s architecture is smoothly and perfectly weaving with its context creating at the same time visual and emotional satisfaction.

ARC 2213/2234 Asian Architecture

27

A comparative analysis of contextual architecture features of Belum Rainforest Resort’s phase 1 and phase 2 developments.

7.0 Conclusion Summing up the totality of the above analysis, it can be determined that phase 1 is more suited to be called an ambassador of contextual architecture compared to phase 2. Phase 1 through its traditional form and usage of traditional aboriginal materials is seen as an extension of its context rather than phase 2 outstands itself by its post-urban form and materiality. Phase 1 is enhancing a complete relationship in between indoor and outdoor by its materials and spatial organization rather than phase 2 is emphasizing more on outdoor relationship by enhancing the available views. Last and for all, phase 1 emphasizes on its traditional architecture to create a cultural experience rather than phase 2 is modernizing and facilitating the journey of its occupants through its context. Phase 1 by its smooth and weaving indoor/outdoor experience responds to all the qualities of being contextually responsive.

ARC 2213/2234 Asian Architecture

28

A comparative analysis of contextual architecture features of Belum Rainforest Resort’s phase 1 and phase 2 developments.

8.0 References Kotez, R. (2003). Contextual architecture of light.

http://www.bandingisland.com/conservation.php. (2014). (EMKAY Group) Retrieved june 12, 2014 from www.bandingisland.com: http://www.bandingisland.com/conservation.php

Abel, C. (1986, November). Regional Transformations. Architectural Review , pp. 3743.

Fathy, H. (1973). Architecture for the Poor: An Experiment in Rural Egypt. Chicago.

C'ARCH. (2014). http://www.c-arch.com.my/index/belum-rainforest-resort. Retrieved june 12, 2014 from www.c-arch.com.my: http://www.c-arch.com.my/index/belumrainforest-resort

F.Benzel, K. (1998). The room in context: design beyond boundaries. Michigan, United States: McGraw-Hill.

Randall Thomas, T. G. (2007). The environments of archiitecture: environmental design in context. United Kingdom: Taylor and Francis.

ARC 2213/2234 Asian Architecture

29