Scott Holmes | Looking Out

There is a distinct difference between hiking, backpacking, trekking and camping. Really to go camping all you need to do is pitch a tent, have a fire and tell stories. To go hiking you just need to walk, preferably in nature. Backpacking and trekking are two an entirely different enigmas that require you to take everything you need to survive throw it on your back and head out far away from civilization. The requirements for backpacking and trekking are far more intensive. I for one absolutely love these two activities because they call into question what is actually needed. Architecture is not needed to survive so where does it play in the natural environment. What can architecture offer if not survival. I argue that it can offer the sense of place. The only sense of immediate place you receive while trekking is you location on map tucked between two contour lines. The only thing that makes one spot on a trail different from another is the distance from camp or a landmark. Place holds a different kind of weight in hiking. There are few destinations on your map as a hiker. There are about three a day. Where you camp, where you eat lunch, and where you gather water. What makes those places special is the fact that they change everyday. You're in a constant state of discovery. Your environment never stops changing. I guess my question is how can you take advantage of the changing surrounding of a hiker and implement it into your architecture.