Aero Grove Community Cultural Center

The core principle behind the design was to preserve the existing use of the site rather than disrupt it. I wanted to retain the natural ways in which people had already been using and experiencing the space, allowing their everyday activities to continue as much as possible. The main idea was that when a large building is introduced into a shared public space, it should not dominate its surroundings. Instead, it should take a more humble and respectful approach, responding carefully to the existing site, its users, and the activities that are already part of it.

My main focus was to ensure that the building would not block or interrupt the existing use of the site. While preserving the activities that were already taking place there, I wanted the design to introduce new perspectives and new ways for people to experience and engage with the space. The goal was to encourage people to make fuller use of both the site and the architecture, while allowing them the freedom to use the space in their own ways. Most importantly, the building was intended to support and enrich existing patterns of use rather than interfere with them.

The name “Aero Grove” came from the central spatial and environmental idea of the project. “Grove” refers to the strong presence of greenery throughout the design, including the courtyard, roof gardens, corridors, and connecting spaces, all of which are filled with natural elements. “Air” relates to the floating roof above and the idea of creating an elevated green passage that connects the landscape on the ground with greenery in the sky. Together, the name expresses a vision of a light, open, and immersive natural environment where people can move freely and experience a continuous relationship between architecture and nature.

When I spent time on the site, what struck me most was how naturally and comfortably people were already using it. Everyone seemed to have found their own place within the landscape. Some people were talking, some were playing sports, while others were simply sitting, walking, or spending time in their own way. The space already had its own rhythm and a kind of informal order created by the people who used it every day.That was the moment I realized that introducing a large cultural building into the site required a great deal of humility. I did not want the architecture to displace those existing activities or suddenly make the building the dominant object on the site. Instead, I wanted it to gently embrace the landscape, the people, and the patterns of use that were already there.That idea of restraint became a guiding principle throughout the design. Rather than taking public space away, the architecture was conceived as a framework that could extend it and introduce additional layers of experience. The goal was not to replace what people were already doing, but to create more possibilities around those existing activities—more places to gather, wander, pause, engage with culture, or simply remain outdoors. In that sense, the building was designed not as an object placed on the landscape, but as something that grows out of and participates in the life already present there.

I visited the site at different times of day—morning, afternoon, and into the early evening—because I wanted to understand how its use changed over time. The site sits between a school and the surrounding residential community, so it naturally serves a very diverse group of people.What I observed was an incredibly rich range of everyday activities. Children came to play soccer, students gathered after class to talk and spend time together, teachers stepped outside during breaks or after meals to socialize, and families returned in the evening to walk through the space. Even small, quiet moments—people simply sitting, resting, or spending time with their pets—were part of the life of the site. People of different ages were using the same landscape in very different ways, and these activities had already become a spontaneous and familiar part of their daily routines.That observation had a direct influence on how I organized Aero Grove. I wanted to preserve as much of that freedom and continuity as possible rather than replacing it with a more rigidly programmed environment. At the same time, the project introduces a greater variety of spatial conditions—places for gathering, informal conversation, cultural activities, quiet retreat, movement, and observation—so that people have more ways to use the site without feeling that their existing routines have been interrupted.For me, the goal was not to prescribe how people should occupy the space, but to expand the range of possibilities available to them. The architecture becomes a framework that supports existing patterns of community life while giving new activities room to emerge naturally.

Because the building occupies part of an existing public landscape, I felt strongly that the project should give as much space as possible back to the people who already use the site. That naturally led to the idea of making the roof accessible. Rather than treating it simply as the top of a building, I wanted it to become another layer of public landscape—a place where people could walk, gather, and experience the city from a different, elevated perspective.Once the roof became an inhabitable landscape, I did not want it to remain a flat and purely horizontal surface. I was interested in creating a more fluid topography that could make movement across it feel gradual and exploratory. At the same time, I did not want the roof to read as a thin sheet that had simply been bent into shape. I wanted it to have a sense of mass and depth—to feel almost as though it were growing out of the ground, becoming thicker or thinner as it rises, curves, and transitions across the building. The varying geometry gives the roof both its sculptural character and a stronger sense of physical presence.The main challenge was to preserve that sense of continuity while resolving the structure and enclosure in a clean way. I wanted the structural system to support the changing geometry without visually overwhelming the spaces below or introducing elements that would interrupt the experience of the architecture. The goal was for structure, envelope, and form to work together as one integrated system, so that the complexity required to make the roof possible would remain largely in the background while the spaces themselves continued to feel open, fluid, and effortless.