I must be obsessed with bridges

I came across this bridge on one of the blogs I follow (or try to when I have the time). Ever since becoming interested in urban planning and urban design a few years ago, I've been trying to think of ways to mold that into a thesis project for my final studio in Interior Architecture at UNC-Greensboro. My obsession with pedestrian footbridges this semester has gotten the hamster turning in my head! I believe a bridge is a possible pathway because of the scale and its relationship to people, among other things.


I suppose the potential argument is not what Interior Architecture is but what it is not. Does a pedestrian footbridge fall into Interior Architecture? I feel there has been a push, perhaps by some of my professors, for the inclusion of outdoor environments in Interior Architecture. I believe they have a place there, as does almost every other area of design but when it comes to my thesis project I am not the one who decides what "is or is not." The words "Interior" and "Architecture" have a wide range of meaning. This undoubtedly spells trouble for those who try to narrowly define the phrase "Interior Architecture" unless they choose to use and/or display their power, the equivalent of "eminent domain", of which case they are only discouraging the creativity of the student to further a most unnecessary and unrelated cause or policy.


We know that the pedestrian footbridge falls into the category of outdoor environments, more specifically urban environments or [pathways] that people use to traverse potential obstacles or get to important [nodes, districts, landmarks]. I have a tendency to do this, to fortify my base before venturing out. In gaming they call it "turtling" and I realized its found its way into my personality, ha! It is safe within the walls but thats what this is about....

I want to get outside of the prescribed box.

I do have things to post for the retail case study, I'm just trying to narrow the scope. Enjoy the pictures...