The design thinking for the Fuli Junior High School archery range did not follow a single path; rather, it progressed in tandem with considerations of campus environment, spatial configuration, and structural choices.

First is the judgment at a campus scale. When the archery range was relocated within the campus, we confronted the tension between the new facility and the existing school buildings and athletic field. The campus was originally divided into clear zones: the teaching buildings defined relatively enclosed, static spaces, while the sports field constituted an open, dynamic activity area. The addition of the archery range disrupted this equilibrium. Thus, our first step was not to “add another building,” but to consider how the new canopy could relax the overall campus relationships. As a result, the original concrete building continues to serve as an auxiliary space, providing dormitories, equipment rooms, and offices. The new archery canopy, on the other hand, is conceived as a void structure: it not only facilitates archery training, but also redefines the boundaries of campus activities.

From the beginning, the archery canopy was never planned as a single curved plane; instead, it was fragmented in response to patterns of use. Archery training requires a 70-meter distance and 8 shooting lanes, which generated eight large arcs facing the target house; perpendicular to these, the shooting line, preparation line, practice zone, and coach observation area subdivide into four smaller arcs. Consequently, the elevations present continuous curvatures, while in plan the shapes resolve into diamond and hyperbolic modules. This geometry, derived from the rules of sport, makes the building itself feel more like an “extension of the field” rather than an enclosed structure.

In terms of axis orientation, the new structure does not follow the campus’s original symmetrically aligned layout, but adapts to the offsets between the target house and the previous archery range. The X-axis aligns with the southwest direction of the 70-meter shooting lanes, while the Y-axis follows the column grid of the existing buildings—resulting in an 11-degree divergence between the two. This angular difference allows the roof to visually extend along the major arc towards the targets, while gradually turning parallel to the sports field along the minor arcs, freeing the large canopy from rigid orthogonal order and imparting a more open, dynamic sense of direction.

Material selection was also driven by context: with the site just a hundred meters from the coast, exposure to sea wind and salt means that both steel and concrete struggle to endure within the low-maintenance requirements typical of public buildings. Therefore, we adopted a wood structural system, using glued laminated timber as the primary component, and employing the SE joint method for close integration of columns and beams, forming a replaceable element system. This modular design ensures seismic and wind resistance, while allowing repairs in thirty years to be done via “unit replacement” rather than large-scale reinforcement. Our hope is that, thirty years from now, the facility will still be able to transform in response to new needs, sustaining itself as a thing in itself.

富禮國中射箭場設計的思考並不是單一路徑的，而是隨著校園環境、量體配置、構造選擇彼此推進。

首先是校園層級的判斷。當射箭場重新被安置於校園內部，我們正視它與既有校舍、操場之間的張力。校園本來有明確的動靜態分區：教學大樓構成相對封閉的靜態空間，而操場則是開放的動態活動場域。射箭場的加入打破了這種均衡，因此我們的第一步，不是「加一個館舍」，而是思考如何讓新的棚架介入時，能夠鬆弛整個校園的關係。於是，原有的混凝土建築就持續作為附屬空間，提供宿舍、器材室與辦公室；而新的射箭棚，則被設定為一個虛體——它不僅承載射箭訓練，也重新定義了校園活動的邊界。

射箭棚架從一開始就不是單一弧面覆蓋的邏輯，而是因應使用行為逐步碎化的結果。射箭訓練要求七十公尺的距離與八條射道，因此面向靶屋落下了八道大弧線；而在垂直方向，則由發射線、準備線、練習區與教練觀察區切分出四道小弧線。於是，立面上是連續的弧形，平面上卻轉化為菱形與雙曲面單元。這種由運動規則推導出的幾何，使建築本身更接近「場域的延伸」，而不是一棟封閉的建築。

同時，在軸線的設定上，新建物並未延續校園原本「置中對齊」的規劃，而是依隨著靶屋與舊射箭場的偏移。X軸對準七十公尺長射道的西南向，Y軸則對應既有建物的柱列線，兩者之間相差十一度。這樣的角度差，使屋頂在視覺上既延展於靶屋的大弧線方向，又逐漸轉向與操場平行的小弧線，讓巨大的棚面擺脫僵直的正交秩序，展現出更開放、更自由的方向性。

材料的選擇，是因基地距離海岸僅百米，海風與鹽分意味著鋼構與混凝土在低維護的公共建築體系下都難以長久。因此，我們採用木構系統，並以集成材為主要構件，透過SE工法將柱梁緊密接合，形成可替換的構件系統。這樣的模矩設計，不僅確保耐震與耐風性能，也讓未來三十年後的修繕能以「單元替換」完成，而不需再一次大規模補強。我們期望，三十年後它仍能因應新需求而轉化，延續成另一種樣態，重啟在地再現。