This project contained work by both Amanda Rigoni and Natalie Hetu.
Photo Credit to: Diller Scofidio + Renfro Official Website
Personal Critique:
Amanda and Natalie’s project concept is called “the connection,” but I think this label needs to be more specified. The idea is that there are 2 paths, one on the ground and one above; the ground plaza, and the sky path. The ground plaza contains the market, subway, and gallery, while the sky path holds apartments, daycare, parking, and offices, all more private. The paths travel diagonally across the site, creating an X, and where they cross is a public space containing the gallery, theatre, and studio spaces.
Admit-ably, their concept was rather unclear, in that it wasn’t as much a concept as it was a formal move that defined the block. I think this makes it hard to make smaller decisions as you progress in your design, so Amanda, you should consider going back and defining a clear reason for why this formal move should happen, so it can fuel the rest of your project. Possibly backtrack and find a question that your project is the answer to so that your design decisions become the solution.
Your visual representations of your project were a contributor to this confusion – Because there was not a main feeling or direction you were going for with your concept, the drawings and model became hard to relate to each other. Once you have that concept nailed down, you should be trying to express it in every single drawing, so that the main idea can be seen in every one. The model also, should be a lot clearer, simply because this project has so many elements and it is hard for critics to process all the details you are going over as a whole.
One of the critics said to beware of where the public can and can’t go. I agree with this in a lot of ways – whether you’re trying to bring people in from all over or produce a community based block, public circulation is one of the most important things to consider anywhere, especially when designing in a city. There needs to be a clear path of circulation that the public knows they’re allowed to be in/on. Your project thus far confuses this a bit, because all of it seems private to me. I’m not sure exactly how your picturing the market, subway, and gallery entrances, but I think they should interact a lot with the public circulation path and the ground plane, since you are defining that plane as a purely public one.
I think you guys have an interesting project in terms of your ordering of it – you have clearly imposed a hierarchy on where each element should go. This could be a major factor in reworking your concept, as you have clearly thought through why things should be where they are. I’d say stress that hierarchy more – make it more obvious in the design and in the graphics. It’s a very interesting hierarchical system; you guys have made the theatre is the focus point, and the most important element in the site. To me this means it needs to have a really awesome architectural element that draws people to it, and makes it worthy of all that attention. I think you have started to do this by making it a floating theatre. And I think this idea of ‘floating’ fits well with the other elements, as you have organized them by the levels that they should be on. Maybe this theatre is miraculously floating over nothing, which makes it very special, while everything else is confined to its own specified layer.
The theater, being your main element, should be what gets the most public attention and public traffic. At this point, its centrally located gallery space that is meant for public traversing is a bit hard to get to. You have to enter it through the side and through another building. If this is your big public space, it should have a substantial entrance that is very penetrating, that makes people want to move in and out. Also, since it is a theatre up above, a question arises about how important it is for the theater to have a great view of the bridges and downtown Manhattan. Personally, I think you can design it so that the view is not ignored while the theatre is still controlled. Dancing above the city seems like a whimsical kind of feeling, and I think keeping that in your project is going to give that building a really nice relationship to the rest of the city.
Look at the new building being made in Boston, the ICA, by Diller Scofidio + Renfro. It encompasses both of these ideas you are working with, an enticing public entrance below and a floating theater above. It really does this well and keeps with that whimsical feeling I think you guys should continue with.
As a presenting side note – Amanda you need to speak up more and defend your project! You guys have thought about it and I know you have reasons for your design decisions, and when you don’t defend them it makes it seem like all of your choices are arbitrary! I know this can be really hard to do during a crit, and I struggle with this a lot myself, but I’m trying to work on it because I have noticed in others and my own crits that when you turn a critique into a discussion rather than just a reprimand you get much better feedback and solutions 🙂
Critique of the Critique:
Amanda’s critics were Reggie, Christine, and Nat. Reggie wanted to see more cohesion between the drawings, as their inconsistencies made it hard to see your concept through them. Nat thought that you had a lot of fascinating moments, like the floating theater, but the idea of ‘connection’ was not enough of a concept to fuel the rest of your project. He suggested if you edit the formal strategy, and simplify it, then you can add complexity through details. But the complexity of the theater stands out and is important to your project as a whole.
The section was very well received – it showed how the public space has the potential to be a really exciting place. The lower spaces with hovering spaces above are really interesting. You need to activate the space for it to work however, and make it more interactive for the public who will be using it.
It was also suggested that maybe the x isn’t as clear and straightforward as you are showing it to be. Maybe it is shifted, maybe it has a different diagrammatic form, so that it is more site specific or more tailored to the needs of the immediate users in the community.
