(Current model in the site)
(Model facing North)
(View from circulation into central courtyard)We had our Mid-Review on Thursday and had the chance to present our project twice to two different sets of critics. I really liked the format of the reviews and felt more prepared for the second round. It goes to show how important your presentation is in guiding the following discussion.
A few things which were brought up in our critiques [and our take on the issues]:
1) Our building should step back (to the North) both in plan and section, adjusting to the desired quality of light
[We did lose the stepping on the South facade of the building, and I do think having a complete stepping Part-to-Whole relationship would strengthen our project. We did TRY to step it up in section, having the S be the lowest, then E, W, and N as the highest. However, the difference was apparently too minor to notice. The reason why we did not make it more dramatic came down to the required length of ramps and number of landings...not to mention time. Maybe this sectional difference is something we can revisit and work through.]
2) Connect our ideas full circle
[Both sets of critics, and Karl, seemed to emphasize our cone model, saying that we lost something in between there and now. That was an interesting comment for us; me and Lisa talked a lot about what we thought they meant. What did we lose? When we initially made that model, we were incredibly excited about its possibilities (similar to the critics). However, once Karl made us take plans and sections through it, we hit a wall. The geometry was holding us back and seemed impossible to work with in terms of program and plans. Me and Lisa discussed the differences between that model and our current model, trying to find the gap in our project. It seems that the geometries set up in the cone model were much more interesting because they were much more dramatic: the predictable cone shapes were contrasted with the unpredictable organic connect-curve shapes. Our current model is irregular, but the irregular curves have a predictability to them, such as stacked circulation, which takes away from the irregularity of those curves. If we have enough allotted time, Lisa and I want to revisit our Digital Project model and revamp our design to negotiate between "cone" and "terrace."]
(DP Cone Model)[The critics wanted to know how the building would be dealt with as a whole. Would it make more sense to have the central courtyard covered and the whole school connected in that sense? Would it cut down on circulation? When do our lengthy circulation paths become a problem? But how WOULD you cover our building in a "Foster-esque" way? Would it just become an added expense?
4) Make sure we are not cramming program into the "gaps"
[There were very few areas where Lisa and I felt we were cramming in program. Despite our first critique, we did put a lot of thought into placement. There were a few pieces of program which we actually left out because we did not want to cram them into an inappropriate space; we would rather leave them out until we could make space for them. I also didn't think that the critiques understood that the first floor contained no classrooms but were equally considerate of lighting conditions. This discussion may have been a result of our poor first presentation. However, the second set of critiques also pointed out the need to maximize classroom space when possible and eliminate awkward instances caused by our geometry. I completely agree 100%. Me and Lisa tried to modify our model to reduce the number of awkward spaces and maximize the usability and convenience of a space. We still have a lot of work to do.]
5) Geometry, geometry, geometry
[They said don't let the geometry get in the way of the fluidity. For example there's a moment when a band of classrooms seems to impede the flow of the hallway. We were both aware of this moment and dissatisfied with it but due to time constraints, left it and moved on. I'm glad they brought up this point because it seemed essential to our flowing curvilinear hallways and means that they understood our circulation the same way we did. They also suggested loosening up on the geometry at times - widening the hallway in the busy areas, etc.]
Those were the main critiques of our project and now we are wondering how to move forward. How much time do we have to revisit our design? If we have until the end of the semester, Lisa and I want to go back as far as our DP Cone model and redesign it to fit our current knowledge. However, we may not have enough time to go that far back and may have to make smaller changes to our current model. Hopefully our desk crit tomorrow will give us some feedback and direction.
I'll post our plans, sections, and diagrams soon. Blogger won't upload them right now.
No comments:
Post a Comment