Combine sketched drawings with rendered images. Add secondary and tertiary structure for harmony. Increase the rhythmic elements within the landscape and building. Where did the wickets go?... Visit the Kahn building. (I did on Saturday) How can the facade and rigid grid read like a piece of sheet music? Bring your models in. Keep working on your wall section. Elaborate on the secondary structure.. How can your curtain wall increase your rhythm?
These were all of the basic critiques that were given to me. I have some good work ahead of me. I've started sketching ideas and will elaborate tonight at class.
Monday, October 22, 2012
My presentation was not nearly as good as it could/should have been both
graphically and verbally. Unfortunately the comments were (mostly) not helpful
in terms of the final push because there wasn't much for them to comment on. Overall, people do not seem to have issues with my project, my concept or my form, but they hate my drawings. So do I; time to change that. Some
very good points were made and this poor showing will help motivate me to make
the final push.
This looks like week 3 work:
Not a very helpful
comment, but I'll be the first to say it is somewhat legitimate. Switching programs from sketchup last semester,
into Microstation, and now into Revit2d definitely set me back time-wise in
terms of what I had to show for my efforts. However, I have learned a lot
about my project through the switch, and I think I am set up to make real
progress in the next couple weeks. Regardless of life issues or software
issues, we all have to overcome the obstacles that are in our way, and I am no exception. While I
disagree that I am at week 3 work, I realize that what was up there sucked and
looked much less developed than what I have shown before. I think that I need
to stop trying to make the computer graphics work for me and use more of my
hand.
Scuba or No Scuba that is the question:
This is probably THE issue that I have been struggling with ever since the final review last semester. I have been tentative about the scuba aspect of the program because explaining it the way that I have been explaining it has felt disingenuous to me. I need to express the scuba program correctly and take ownership of it. It’s a cool idea that will get the kids excited, and I need to stop being afraid of it. Embrace Scuba Steve is my new motto from here on out. It is the crux of the whole project and I have been tentative. This has also made me tentative in my drawings and figuring out the plans to the fullest extent. I was hesitant to even draw the scuba portion and it hurt me.
This is probably THE issue that I have been struggling with ever since the final review last semester. I have been tentative about the scuba aspect of the program because explaining it the way that I have been explaining it has felt disingenuous to me. I need to express the scuba program correctly and take ownership of it. It’s a cool idea that will get the kids excited, and I need to stop being afraid of it. Embrace Scuba Steve is my new motto from here on out. It is the crux of the whole project and I have been tentative. This has also made me tentative in my drawings and figuring out the plans to the fullest extent. I was hesitant to even draw the scuba portion and it hurt me.
Not buying the ramp to the top:
This is another
item that has frequently come up in reviews. I have struggled with making the
series of ramps physically work and actually be an enjoyable experience. I
think that the initial idea of the ramp has been polluted and I am rethinking
this aspect. My intention of the “Ramped” form of the building was to present an
inviting green plaza to the city, and to provide outdoor spaces to enjoy a book
or study. As this project has evolved, I have decided to make the outdoor
spaces more about being able to access the outside from the inside, rather than
the visa versa. I think this also helps strengthen the library program. While
previously I was focused on making the whole roof accessible by wheelchair, I realized
that this is not necessary and probably not desirable for a person in the
wheelchair to begin with. I can’t imagine that a handicapped person would want
to traverse hundreds of feet of vertical ramps when they could access them
through the elevator and then enjoy the space inside and out. The new approach will
give me the freedom to make the green roof the way I want it and not
necessarily be restricted by an accessible sloped ramp. The different levels of
the interior will all connect to the exterior so that on any level, one can choose
to be indoors or out to enjoy their book. This also helps the issue of security
and books being checked in and out.
Watch water rise:
This is one of the strong points of the decision not to float the
building, but rather anchor it beneath the water. I have not shown some of
these important moments in a drawing. This is vital to truthfully explain my
concept for the two buildings.
Thesis Thesis Thesis:
Not sure I made a coherent sentence in my entire review. I need to
strengthen my thesis statement and get it down to three sentences that I can
explain the project and then step away. I think that I have a much better time
explaining a project once the thesis part is out of the way, but by then I have
lost the attention of reviewers if the first few sentences are gibberish. Every
Friday from here till the end, I will rewrite the thesis statement in order to
refine and remind myself. I think that last semester I was more diligent about
this, and the reviews seemed to go more smoothly as a result.
Differentiate water and land components: Stilts?
Not sure I want to
add stilts to the project at this point. I think that my parti is stronger with
the mass in the earth as opposed to above it, but I may do an exercise or two
to see if I can gain anything from it.
DISCLAIMER OF RIGHTS
These statements cannot be used against me in a court of grading in accordance with the Geneva Convention, Article 22984, section 3, paragraph 12.
Sincerely, The Law Firm
Bold=Reviewer thoughts
No Bold=My Responding Thoughts
-Don't buy the program of the building.
I need to explain what the program is more clearly. I think part of the problem is that the reviewers are not very familiar with shared work-spaces and innovation centers, which are new types of programs. I think they get the concept, but have a hard time understanding why people would want to use these spaces. I don't have a hard time with this because I am familiar with these and know that they have become very successful around the world and in Boston. I need to show this, and that this site is an ideal location for another one.
Stone wall concept can be stronger
Tie the structure of the building into the stone wall as it emerges from the water.
Hard to visually walk through the plans
Connect my renderings to the interiors. Complete a series of interior renderings with active people. This will help to explain the plans and also the program.
Pedestrian tunnel is hard for people to understand and visualize
Diagram the procession of people and add a photo.
Confused about the parti diagram (shouldn't it be more like my conversation/innovation/ creation diagram?)
Explore how the formal decisions of the design should support my parti. Perhaps it is time to explore more of a mixing of formal languages. I think this can be done by exploring the materiality of the different parts of the building. Look at the cross pollination of conversation and creation.
Presentation hard to comprehend as a whole (too long, cant see all the work from one place)
I think there were a few problems here. I do think some of the diagrams and drawings and renderings were simply not seen. While I was describing some things, I noticed some reviewers were not even paying attention to what I was saying but instead looking at other drawings, and then asking questions about things I had already explained. Despite my frustration with that, ultimately it is on me to keep their attention. I may produce a digital presentation to focus reviewers attention, and then supplemental, for conversations sake, with drawings and boards.
Don't really understand the buildings interaction with the surrounding area (innovation district)
Not sure what to do here. I thought my whole project was about that, but somehow it was missed.
I think that I am close to having what I want to have in the design. There are some small formal and material decision that may change in my design, but mostly I have to work on the presentation and representation of the building and the concept. I want reviewers to confidently believe that the program is perfect of that locations, so we don't have to discuss that at the final review.I feel strongly that it is the perfect program for the site, and have struggled from the beginning to get reviewers to understand this. My decisions are based in a lot of matrices, research and analysis, which I no longer feel confident that reviewers will be able to understand without me explaining it to them. However, I can not take the time out of my 5 minute presentation to do so, so ultimately I have to explain it in a new simplified way. I have yet to figure out exactly what this way actually is.
No Bold=My Responding Thoughts
-Don't buy the program of the building.
I need to explain what the program is more clearly. I think part of the problem is that the reviewers are not very familiar with shared work-spaces and innovation centers, which are new types of programs. I think they get the concept, but have a hard time understanding why people would want to use these spaces. I don't have a hard time with this because I am familiar with these and know that they have become very successful around the world and in Boston. I need to show this, and that this site is an ideal location for another one.
Stone wall concept can be stronger
Tie the structure of the building into the stone wall as it emerges from the water.
Hard to visually walk through the plans
Connect my renderings to the interiors. Complete a series of interior renderings with active people. This will help to explain the plans and also the program.
Pedestrian tunnel is hard for people to understand and visualize
Diagram the procession of people and add a photo.
Confused about the parti diagram (shouldn't it be more like my conversation/innovation/ creation diagram?)
Explore how the formal decisions of the design should support my parti. Perhaps it is time to explore more of a mixing of formal languages. I think this can be done by exploring the materiality of the different parts of the building. Look at the cross pollination of conversation and creation.
Presentation hard to comprehend as a whole (too long, cant see all the work from one place)
I think there were a few problems here. I do think some of the diagrams and drawings and renderings were simply not seen. While I was describing some things, I noticed some reviewers were not even paying attention to what I was saying but instead looking at other drawings, and then asking questions about things I had already explained. Despite my frustration with that, ultimately it is on me to keep their attention. I may produce a digital presentation to focus reviewers attention, and then supplemental, for conversations sake, with drawings and boards.
Don't really understand the buildings interaction with the surrounding area (innovation district)
Not sure what to do here. I thought my whole project was about that, but somehow it was missed.
I think that I am close to having what I want to have in the design. There are some small formal and material decision that may change in my design, but mostly I have to work on the presentation and representation of the building and the concept. I want reviewers to confidently believe that the program is perfect of that locations, so we don't have to discuss that at the final review.I feel strongly that it is the perfect program for the site, and have struggled from the beginning to get reviewers to understand this. My decisions are based in a lot of matrices, research and analysis, which I no longer feel confident that reviewers will be able to understand without me explaining it to them. However, I can not take the time out of my 5 minute presentation to do so, so ultimately I have to explain it in a new simplified way. I have yet to figure out exactly what this way actually is.
Mid Review
The general impression that I got from the review, is that I need to express in my presentation the story behind my building; the process i went through to develop my building, the bigger idea that brought me to choose this program, and how it connects to the urban context. This information, as I see it, should not only be represented seperetly from the drawings but as part of it. my next steps is to overly this into my presentation and plans and make sure the ideas and intentions come out. I also intend to find a graphical way to represent my form, so it is clearer.
Sunday, October 21, 2012
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.
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.
Midterm Review - Arlen Stawasz
Rising Tides - The Climate Change Research Library
I think I may need a new title for the project. I felt the reviewers feedback was helpful, spot on, and critical for the next phases in the production process in order to fine tune my argument.
The general comments I received were in regards to "what's next". The reviewers focused on some of the missing gaps from my presentation such as:
- "How does the building change over time?"
- "What does the building mean socially or culturally as the city floods?
- "Who still comes to the building after the city has flooded?"
- "What will it be connected to after the city has flooded?"
- "Because it could be by itself, could it have future uses?"
In general, I agree that all of these questions can be addressed in diagrams, model making, and narrative.
My plan is to further develop the narrative, not only literary, but graphically. If I am to produce a series of diagrams that graphically describe the changes of sea level rise over time, then I can build the argument for this evolution. I plan to address the narrative describing the connections to the land, water, and sky on multiple scales in multiple drawings. I also plan to clean up the details of my plans, sections, details and diagrams for a succinct quick and clear presentation.
Mid-Term Hot Wash
Which of the following words were used to describe the Makers' Atheneaum?
"fussy"
"generically specific"
"exact"
"vague"
"clear"
"personal"
"disconnected"
"engaged"
Answer - All of the above, of course.
This presents both the strength and weakness of my design as well as presentation style/format. There is an important distinction from someone "agreeing" versus someone "understanding" what my intentions are and more importantly how I am proposing to satisfy those intentions. If I am able, and of course I am trying, to go through the notes and separate what comments address understanding and what comments address agreement then, and only then, I am able to make best use of the comments. Though, it's rather tricky.
So, I will go through the comments, look at the work myself, find what they were referring to, look back at their comments, and repeat.
That's all for now.
Grand Master B
"fussy"
"generically specific"
"exact"
"vague"
"clear"
"personal"
"disconnected"
"engaged"
Answer - All of the above, of course.
This presents both the strength and weakness of my design as well as presentation style/format. There is an important distinction from someone "agreeing" versus someone "understanding" what my intentions are and more importantly how I am proposing to satisfy those intentions. If I am able, and of course I am trying, to go through the notes and separate what comments address understanding and what comments address agreement then, and only then, I am able to make best use of the comments. Though, it's rather tricky.
So, I will go through the comments, look at the work myself, find what they were referring to, look back at their comments, and repeat.
That's all for now.
Grand Master B
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)