For Design Development, I reviewed Andrew Chesakis’ project, entitled Split. I have organized this post into the following categories: brief project description, board presentation, models, verbal presentation, critique (Orders of Worth), and overall thoughts on the project.
Project Description: Split is a project that has very deep roots in the site. Extending three popular and high use streets touching the site creates three axis that divide and organize the site. The axis cut the site, creating forms for three buildings and an interior courtyard. Each building has a specific programmatic purpose: Educational center, living, and working. The courtyard is intended to be the heart of the project, meant to be a public space used by the community.
Board Presentation: Chesakis’ boards were wonderfully communicative and clear. His diagrams are very easy to read and help illustrate exactly how his building moved from conceptual sketch to model form to the refined building and site that now exists. In fact, the entire layout of the board assisted in this endeavor. The board reads very as well as one presentation, aided by the black theme that ties all the pieces together, bringing a beautiful uniformity to the board. However, the renders that Andrew chooses, while well done, may not be the best views of the building to feature. The courtyard render is great because it showcases the ‘cuts’ the axis create AND the structure of the different sections. However, the ‘apparatus bay’ view makes the building look dull and ordinary. Thankfully, Split is anything but that! Choosing a new view that will show the dynamic cuts will bring excitement to the board. Regardless, the Split boards were some of the most successful seen that day, in my opinion.
Models: It was clear to see the attention given to the models. They were all beautifully crafted and super communicative. The concept models really bring Chesakis’ ideas to life. It was almost as if Chesakis was sketching with wood and string. Displaying the model pictures on the board helped insure the critics would not miss the models, an important part of the presentation. The building and site models were also made with extreme care and detail, especially the 1/16th building model. These models were not just some pieces of chipboard thrown together in a last minute frenzy to fufill a requirement, but instead were small pieces of art within themselves, showing Chesakis’ commitment to his project deeply. I hope to someday achieve this level of craftsmanship with my own models.
Verbal Presentation: Andrew’s presentation was on point. He spoke clearly and was very easy to understand. He did not appear nervous or apprehensive in anyway (A feat I wish I could accomplish). His pace was good and volume was well heard to the back of the room. The presentation did seem a little long, but was by no means outrageous. The fluid presentation set a good environment for the critics to begin a dialogue about Split.
Critique: Both Andrew and I shared the same jury the day of our presentations, and I can say they were not an easy crowd (My personal favorite comment of Andrew’s critique being “why even have walls?”). Many of the comments presented to Chesakis were of the Industrial nature on the order of worth, for example:
Why is the structure not parallel to the walls?
The structure should be more efficient.
Why are there different program and structure grids?
Rooms and structure should align.
How much light is entering through the exterior?
All water will drain to center… How do you combat that?
These critiques are essential and important to all projects. However, I find these sort of critiques better suited for desk critiques or the typical day to day conversation between student and professor. While I will take all constructive criticism people are willing to share, I think I speak for the majority of my classmates when I say I prefer critique on the concept of our buildings. What I would think Chesakis would have benefitted more from would be commentary that discussed and explored his concept – the ‘project’ column on the Order of Worth. Chesakis did receive a few of these observations:
Clarify the 3rd axis or only have 2.
Is the courtyard actually as welcoming and open as you envision it?
Emphasize the center.
At the end of the day, the critiques I agreed with most revolved around the courtyard at the heart of the project. This is obviously a special place and is meant to be inviting to the community around the site. However, the tall exterior walls, few entrances, and narrow pathways to access the courtyard may discourage the public from actually using the space. The suggestion by the critic to program the space to entice public interaction will definitely strengthen the project.
Overall Thoughts: I think Chesakis’ project is very well done. His representation methods, both physical models and board drawings, are very refined. The concept is so simple, yet creates a beautiful product that is extremely satisfying in plan. I think the key to figuring out Split will be bringing this satisfaction to the experience a user will have. I also think resolving the courtyard space is crucial.
Here are a few questions I hope Andrew can answer for the final deadline:
– What can be added/altered on the exterior to help create a building that is not only enticing in plan, but from street view as well?
-How can the site plan strengthen your concept, or even the courtyard?
-Does a small forest obscuring the beautiful view of New York City benefit the site?
-Is the Moniter Museum benefiting from being an exact clone of the fire station?
I am looking forward to see how Andrew is able to continue improving Split for the final review. The concept of the project is great and the representation methods are already extremely successful. Now, it is only a matter of ironing on the little details to take Split to the next level.