Ali’s design for the Brooklyn Fire Station has an emphasis on horizontality that stems from its ground plane geometries. The design was created by extending the surrounding urban street grids through the natural site on the waterfront. This grid forms the geometries of the buildings on site. The current design of the firehouse is strong in plan but needs resolution in section. The design suggests a volume filled by stacking program however, by designing in section, this project has potential to develop dynamic spaces. Ali has created strong geometries that need to be further emphasized in this stage of design.

SUCCESS OF PROJECT

The overall design for the firehouse engages the urban context with its proximity to the street and linear geometry. However, the site design does not offer an apparent relationship between the buildings on the site. In order to fully take advantage of the natural environment, I would suggest development of the land with circulation or a park feature to connect the buildings. The circulation path between your buildings and the current void that acts as an entrance are not effective – you could just go around the building! I would reevaluate the monitor museum’s position and orientation toward the firehouse to address this issue.

In terms of the firehouse, the two parts of the main building lack relationship in height. One major element of feedback was the need for design in section. The current program seems to have been designed well in plan without considering dynamics of the spaces. It seems to be stuffed within and above the apparatus. One suggestion is that the building could taper down instead of maintaining the same height throughout. Some spaces could have a full height while others inhabit one level or the other. The program would benefit by allowing natural light into the apparatus. I thought one of the most interesting features were the interior courtyard spaces within the firefighter’s residential areas. By providing natural light and an outdoor recreation space, the design addresses the industrial and domestic orders. By working in section, you can continue to adjust the program for more dynamic space in the building.

The design in plan is organized efficiently but seems to be losing some of the conceptual geometries. I think it is a strong gesture to separate the visitor station from fire station with your lobby. One suggestion by the reviewers is to draw the way the trucks will drive through – this might reinforce the earlier conceptual language you had. By engaging the geometries with the ground plane you will make your project stronger.

The structural system within the space is not apparent. The critics asked if the structure was intended to create an open span throughout the apparatus. Although you suggested the column structure allows for potential large open space, the organization of rooms within the apparatus does not take advantage of this space. Allow for the structure and the interior spaces to compliment each other.

A strong element of this presentation is use of precedent. The program within a firehouse offers a unique challenge of the balance of separation. The precedent you have of a mostly glass fire house offers an excellent analysis of light as well as public and private division. It provides an effective way to show off firetrucks while maintaining safety and security.

 

CRITIQUE OF CRITIQUE

At schematic design, the critique focused on the Inspired and Fame orders. One of the major factors of evaluation is the experience of the user in the site. The critics question how the design will serve as inspiration and how the public will view the structure. They offered general aesthetic suggestions before functional. The critics suggested the plan of the building was working but lacked sectional design, addressing the Industrial order, the efficiency of the program within. They addressed the Project element of design by offering advice to work in section and model.

Another major focus of the critique was questioning the graphics. It is at this stage where design is between an abstraction and realistic. They questioned whether your perspectives are meant to be realistic and your plans included structure.

There was no discussion on whether the design addressed apparent codes and regulations with fire stairs, ignoring the Civic order of legalities. It is our responsibility to address this order as one of the most important even though it was not a point of discussion. At this stage there was little attention drawn to the building envelope systems or building service systems. In the education setting, it appears as if the Market order is completely ignored.

 

SUGGESTIONS

A fundamental aspect that this project lacks is a clear grasp of concept. My first reaction is that the overall visual communication of ideas is not cohesive. Giving your project a title and better utilizing a graphic theme might help you clarify your intentions. A diagram of how you generated the form of the building would also clarify the concept for the audience.

Consider the perspective that the user will experience at all moments. In terms of the design, I would also suggest horizontal and vertical variation. Include structure in plans and sections so that you can see how these systems work together. The streamlined facade and flat roofs do not engage those who experience the site from the street. The orientation of the firehouse exposes most of its surface area to a view of the monitor museum and the New York City skyline. Look at the view out of the firehouse to ensure the museum does not block the view. The Monitor museum has potential to address the view of Manhattan. One suggestion is to place the museum on water’s edge and include the steps as part of landscape rather than inside the building.

Be clear with your intention of the perspectives being realistic or conceptual by the graphic language. They are currently not from a human perspective. It would also be helpful to show where perspectives are coming from in your drawings – with a key on the site plan that indicates the view.
One element of evaluation I think should be included to judge success is the process. I have seen your dedication to solving structural issues through your models, but this is not apparent at a review. At this stage, we are often hesitant to display the work in progress, the issues that have not been resolved. However, the designer would benefit the most from critique of these unresolved issues. I would suggest that you do not discredit your own work by saying something is bad! Overall, I think you have a clear grasp of the use of the spaces with potential for dynamic design.