Peer Evaluation of Stephanie Rakiec’s The Hinge

The Hinge

From an initial glance, the boards are clear and descriptive. As one moves closer to further examine the drawings provided it is apparent that the proposed building has a prominence on the main street of the site. As explained in the project statement, Stephanie is addressing the past industrial heritage of Brooklyn as well as looking to the new of Manhattan by situating her building as a hinge between the two. She has placed her community-involved program facing the streets of Brooklyn while her more private residential program is ‘twisted’ to face the view of Manhattan over the East River. By twisting her program to address the various views of the site, Steph has strengthened her design intention of creating a hinge.

As Steph walked the jurors and those in attendance through the building, there was an emphasis on a core circulation scheme that various program stemmed off of. As one moved through the building the privacy of the spaces increased. On the ground level facing the main street, Franklin Street, the apparatus bay, which can park six fire trucks, is sandwiched between two other programs. On the right along Quay Street, a secondary street, the various storage components of the program are located. By placing these spaces far away from the community, Stephanie is protecting visitors from potentially hazardous materials. To the left of the apparatus bay, Steph has located the main lobby and crisis rooms for the public. Using the apparatus space as a separation between private and public programs is very effective and provides adequate separation between hazardous material and the welfare of the general public. As one moves up the central circulation space they enter into the living area of the firefighters. This space is twisted away from the main street to frame a view across the river towards Manhattan. The jurors critiquing the project said this gesture of twisting the living quarters off of the top of the apparatus bay was unnecessary. Although it does frame a nice view of Manhattan, I agree with the jurors that this twisting of the building is unnecessary. By placing the living space directly on top of the space below, the awkward spaces that we formed on top of the apparatus bay are avoided and the view of Manhattan is still in tact. If Steph were to keep the twisting of the space, I would suggest further programming that space as was hinted at during the review. I would suggest adding an outdoor recreation space or patio space so that the fire fighters do not have to walk downstairs to workout. It will also give them a sense of escape from the public’s eye since the fitness room is currently located on the bottom floor near the public lobby. Also if the twist were to move forward, Steph needs to decide on the angle of the twisting as suggested by the jurors. The current angle seems unrelated to the site and therefore, produces an awkward space both below on the park and the workspace.

As one moves to the top level of the building, one walks into a very spacious recreation room. I had similar layout in a design last year where I had the workspace on the bottom level, the living space in the middle, and the recreation space on top. Although this is a nice scheme, I think it would be better to have the living space at the very top. By doing so the people sleeping do not have residual noise leaking through the floor from those hanging out upstairs. This suggestion may pose the problem that by moving the living quarters up another floor it will be increase the response time. However, with the flexile chute proposed I do not see this as a significant increase in response time.

Apart from the building, there were several comments made about the design of the site. One of the critics repeatedly said that Steph has made an urban pocket that connects back to the main urban fabric of the city. They appreciated the intention to maintain this urban fabric and the continuity of density but also the notion that the use of the space is left open to the user. However, the jurors also suggested that a “pocket of landscape” should also be considered. Because Steph is continuing the secondary street, West Street, through the site so that the apparatus bay is accessible from both Quay and Franklin Street, she should consider looking back the site history and the history of roads. It was mentioned that West Street had originally run through the site and by looking back on previous site plans it may be useful in devising a strategy that relates back this past since there is an intention to continue the urban fabric of the city. Another suggestion made by one of jurors was to push the entire building to corner edge condition. Right now Steph is not fully addressing this prominent corner that most have seen as gateway for the site to engage and welcome the community in. By pushing the building to the corner it creates more of a dominant presence in the community. If Steph were not to move the building to the corner because as it stands the interior spaces located on that corner are where hazardous materials kept, I would suggest placing employee parking or a well-developed green space that leads people to the park on the backside of the site. As for the area on the backside of the Monitor Museum, it definitely needs more development. Steph had mentioned there is a proposed beach that she intends to build off of. Although I enjoy the idea of a beach in the city especially since the site includes a maritime museum, I think if a beach were to be included in the site there would also need to be an area for water treatment. Usually when people see beaches they want to jump in the water so there would need to be an area with treated water safe enough for people to enjoy. As a whole the entire site needs to be designed more because there is no real transition from green space to asphalt to beach.

Critics Comments:

Overall Steph had a very informative and helpful critique. The comments made generated suggestions that I think will be useful in going forward. In terms of the Order of Worth, the critics spoke mostly about the Civic and Industrial orders. In terms of the Industrial Order, the appreciated the efforts for sustainability specifically the saw tooth roof that uses solar panels to capture the sun’s energy to heat the apparatus bay. They did mention to explore this idea further and possibly implement it in others of the project. In terms of the Civic Order, they spoke mostly about the site development of the site and how it relates to the community. They offered suggestions of creating plaza spaces as well reexamining the proposed master plan of the site. They also mentioned creating a hierarchy within the spaces and how the central core of circulation connects these spaces.

 

Leave a Reply