One of the first things I noticed about the presentation was the incredibly strong conceptual gesture present in Andrew’s project. This is started by taking a form created by continuing the nearby streets into an intersection of the three. This intersection of three streets in then removed from a cubic form. This concept is displayed strongly both in the form of the building and associated drawings on the board. The extensions of the streets form pathways that divide the three buildings and a central courtyard. One commentary received about this, and something I noticed for the first time during the critique, is that the actual location where the intersection is not in the location of the building. The actual intersection that is providing the form of the building is a few streets over and is difficult to identify at first. While I think it is still possible to use this intersection to define the form, if you do, it’s absolutely important to indicate the exact location of the intersection and which roads lead into it.

The next part of the critique was addressing the duality that exists within the building. This is spurred on the by regular cubic exterior form paired with the angular and highly irregular interior form created by the above-mentioned cutouts/courtyard. This is doubled by having a regular grid of spaces around the outsides of the building, leaving interior spaces also very irregular. This has resulted in a dichotomy between spaces that are completely rigid and traditional in contrast with the angular and dynamic spaces formed from the central courtyard that currently seem somewhat like a leftover set of parts. I think to truly utilize the spaces as a result of the central courtyard, he has two options. The first option would be to keep the intensive difference of the spaces and make a reason for it: e.g. rectangular spaces are for things traditionally found in a house and angular spaces for programmatic elements only present in a firehouse (or vise versa). The second option would to have the rooms represent a middle ground and acknowledge and address both the rectilinear and angular and provide a mix of the two in their form.

Another element brought up by the guest critic was the materialistic duality between the spaces. Currently both faces are treated with the same finish. One person commented that the outside should be strong and imposing to keep in line with the rigid form of the perimeter. Conversely, the interior should be glazed to show contrast as well as allow views of the central courtyard to truly take advantage of it. This would also further push the concept of the two different ‘worlds’ between the exterior and interior.

One part of the discussion that came up related directly to the first note about the location of the intersection. This time it focused on the placement of the building on the site. The critics stated that the project seemed relatively site-less. This is shown in a few ways. First, as stated before, the intersection that in informing the massing of the building does not occur on the site but rather a few blocks over. Second, the building is not oriented to either side street or straight north and south, but some other orientation. Third, the exit from the apparatus bay is directly onto the busiest street around our site (and would necessarily block traffic). Fourth, the master planning hasn’t fully integrated the building into the park and future site of the proposed museum in the park. The problem of the intersection’s source can be solved graphically. The problem of orientation has two potential solutions; either orient it to one of the nearby elements, or create a reason why it must be oriented in another, currently arbitrary, direction. The apparatus bay problem can be solved by either recessing it back and adding a driveway out from the bays or relocating the building within the site to focus towards the other nearby street. Finally, I truly believe the master planning is just a result of the stage of the project we are in and will simply develop more fully over time.

The next focus of critique during the discussion was the central courtyard space. In addition to being in the core of the building, having three public access ways leading directly into it, and occupying a fair portion of the buildings massing, there is also a steeply sloped roof leading and pointing from the outside of the building pointing directly into the courtyard. All of these elements combining in one central space has enormous potential to alter the feel of the entire building. Unfortunately, the space is currently just an open paved plaza. This buildup of the qualifications of this space to become impactful is ultimately let down by this usage. There are many options that could improve this space; plantings/gardens, area for activities, a memorial, and my more. This may be something that was intended to be developed later, but with it being such a pivotal component of the project, necessitates immediate development.

From the point of view of the NCARB standards, this was a good presentation for the stage of design we are at. One of the most successful elements was structure, something that is difficult for irregular buildings but was dealt wit very well and clearly conveyed in the presentation. Design thinking and technical skills also showed through and resulted in a clearly understandable presentation. A couple components of the presentation that could use more development include; Site design, use of precedents, and environmental considerations. The first two of those may go hand in hand. By looking at similar projects, there may the solutions to come of the problems facing this building. In turn, there may also be separate precedents to help deal with the courtyard, building, and master plan that can all be integrated. The environmental aspect of this is something that may need more time to develop. This is something that should be integral to the design, if it is chosen to be incorporated at all, and may have impact on other parts of the building design and even site planning depending on the degree of sustainability efforts.

Overall, I believe this project to be in good shape for this level of critique. While there are some aspects that require further development, there doesn’t seem to be any major flaws or anything that would even require significant backtracking to rework. There are a few notable problems (master planning, accessibility, and legibility of ideas/drawings) that will need to be worked out in the future for design development, but overall this just is representative of the phase of the design process we are currently at.