I am skipping the nit-picky comments and the general presentation concerns of the crits.  I will certainly keep these in mind for the final.  As to the meaty points:

Crit: I must be careful of making too much path and not enough place
I think this is a valid concern although something I have gone down the route of addressing already.  The challenge I think will be in not making path where the building wants path, but rather letting the the needs of the program be more determinant of path/place divisions.

Crit:  How does this building change you? (related) What is the moment of reemergence? How are you resensitized once you leave?
This question is huge, and my approach to this was not represented at all in the project.  This is something I must spend time vetting out since the architectural translation of the concept may be a bit weak now.  What I am doing is offering two different experiences to exit the building: you are either on a long, slow, ascent through the section of the the city culminating at the channel and a contemplative view of Boston, or you are up a flight of stairs, through two sets of doors and back on a bustling city street.  More to come on the specific resensitizative qualities of each.

Crit:  Taking the site diagram as a plan may have been a disservice.
I honestly think this is BS.  The diagram balances both the conceptual idea of inverting a city condition as well as the inevitable constraints of an underground building.  Perhaps incorporating a sense of depth to the image would make it clear that this is more than just a site diagram whose geometry I shoe-horned into a building.  A sectional counter part is most likely also necessary to explain the building's parti.

Crit:  This building would be exhausting.  Give the user something they recognize as a means to measure their depth or understand the space.
I think this is valid to a certain degree.  Some organizing element will most certainly make the use of my building easier - I think a circulation element rather than an arbitrary brick wall that goes from top to bottom would be a smart approach.  However, when someone leaves this building they need to see the city anew - I think a person could potentially spend the entire day inside this library and the first orthogonal thing he or she sees is the geometry of Necco St. as they exit and that experience could be rather powerful.  If I give them recognizable bits of the city within the building then this becomes an aberration of the city condition, not an inversion.  The inversion is still the resensitizing mechanism: up to down, light to dark (and dark to light), hidden to revealed, perpendicular to acute and obtuse, marginalized to primary.


Over the next month I will need to do a few things very well.  I must first make the drawings or models which show the user through the entire process of resentization.  I must go through a process of really mapping the light within the spaces and having the interior program elements determine the lighting mechanisms.  I must get specific with my above ground programming and design.  I must continue to refine my building systems.  Each of these topics incorporate all drawings types as well as models.  I think if I address these things I will have developed my building to point of "comprehensiveness" as well as fully presented the architectural reaction to the conceptual thesis.