Kohei Kashimoto Design Studio

Sustainable Future? What does the ‘sustainable future’ mean for the village of Ein Hud? When there are two conflicting systems on one land, we can imagine only two conditions as the ‘sustainable future’. One is the perfect harmony and understanding between these two systems. The other is the elimination of either of them. Meaning either the village’s independence from the Israeli governance or the disappearance of Palestinian presence from the village. The difficulty we have here is that we cannot imagine both of these two conditions, at least within a couple of decades. It is difficult for us to imagine the perfect harmony and understanding, because the conflict is so deep both historically and culturally. Even if the political agreement would happen between Israel and Palestine, the conflict will remain among people’s heart. Also it is difficult for us to imagine the elimination of either of them, because the international public opinion wouldn’t allow the Israeli government erases the Palestinian presence from the former ‘unrecognized’ village. Or because the village’s independence would simply mean the enclosure and isolation from the rest of the world. Then how can we design a sustainable future for the village of Ein Hud with the two conflicting systems? Probably making them invisible causes the severer conflict. So why don’t we make them literally visible. Why is the Master Plan necessary? (OR What’s wrong with the Existing Master Plan by Israeli government?)
What is the goal of the existing Master Plan by Israeli Government? Why do they need 240 housing units? Who are going to live in these new housing? Are these for the people living in the village of Ein Hud, whose population are recently growing up? Or are these for Jewish settlers? (For us even these kinds of things are difficult to imagine. ) As a matter of fact, is the master plan really useful, which is designed for one side by the other side of the conflicting two bodies. The Palestinian has their own goal and the Israeli has their own too. Isn’t it already impossible to draw the common final goal? If the master plan is necessary, how should it be? Should it be idealistic? Or should it be realistic? What should the master plan represent? Although there are millions of questions, the most essential problem of the existing master plan is the overlapping the Israeli plan on the existing Palestinian village. Since they are confronting each other, obviously this overlapping will not work at all. So why don’t we put them side by side? Juxtaposition The juxtaposition of these two systems will solve these problems. Fortunately there are enough space for this. It is not unusual to plan a new town just next to an existing village. For the existing village of Ein Hud, this gives free from a direct intervention (or destruction) by the Israeli master plan. At least they can keep the way they live now. This does not cause any actual struggle in terms of physical construction. It is a juxtaposition of the past and future. It is a juxtaposition of the reality and plan. The site for this new development is the area which is southeastern side of the existing village. This area has a good access to the new 6 km road, which is introduced from the road No.4 to the village of Ein Hud. The new development will be the gate as a face of this village. Mediating Crack = Public Architecture In-between these two zones, a new multifunctional community / art / education /
hospitality center is inserted as a ‘zigzag’public architecture. It contains a school, a kindergarten, a city hall, a medical clinic, and other public facilities. The building has a linear zigzag shape, which leads people from the new road to the top of the hill. It looks like a crack. The crack between old and new. But in fact because the function of this center is basically communal, the building mediates these two different zone. Therefore it works as a mediating crack. The alternate developing system Thus we get a linear zigzag center and two zones on both side of the center line. One important fact is that there is the difference of construction age between these two zones. While the northwestern side of the linear center has been constructed during the latter half of the 20th century, the southeastern side (probably) will be constructed within the former half of the 21st century. Then when the southeastern side will be completed, the northeastern side will be almost 100-year old and probably have some functional and special problems of the hardware. It will need to be renewed. So the northeastern side (the existing village) will be rebuilt in the latter half of the 21st century. Then when the northeastern side will be completed, ... In the end we could say that this one linear center and two zones system achieved the alternate developing system, which has the sustainability in itself. Two Zones System on One Land We conclude that the problem of ‘One Land Two Systems’ can be resolved by ‘Two Zones System on One Land’, and this ‘Two Zones System on One Land’ will create a sustainable future for the village of Ein Hud .