Preservation of public usage of the site is a driving feature within David’s design. This concept is something that inspired both form and program throughout his project. The site is at the corner of two streets, resulting in an irregular corner. Dave began his formal organization by extruding along the axis (street) that travels from the east river towards Greenpoint. When the form arrives at the intersection at the corner of the site, it doubles over itself and travels back down the second axis (street) that travels roughly north to south. This ribbon-like folding is the primary formal gesture and shapes the building entirely. The buildings ends are defined by two streets that intersect with the axes of the building. The truncation of the building at these two streets creates an open passageway of view from both cross streets towards the inlet and the east river respectively. The ribbon-like movement is also following this preservation of public space and views. The east-west component of the building is along street level and facing the nearby residential spaces as well as some commercial areas. This side of the building is two stories and keeps with the scale of the buildings it borders. The north-south side (the folder portion of the ‘ribbon’) is elevated to a third level, leaving a two story clear underneath to function as community space. This also allows views from a nearby cross street to be framed towards the east river. This continual theme of the building as an anchor of public space is continued programmatically. At the intersection to the north east of the site, there is a major setback of the building to the point of creating a public plaza for use as a more urban open space on the site. This is connected directly to the park by a pass through the fire station. Programmatically, the portion of the building running east-west is comprised of the administration and apparatus portions where as the north-south volume is elevated and residential.

The critics appreciated the formal gesture of wrapping this project around the primary intersection that borders the site, but questioned some other aspects. One instance of this was the streets that shaped the ends of the building. While the east-west portion of the building is stopped at a historic street allowing for the continued view to the inlet, the other side does not follow this rule. The north-south portion of the building passed by two intersections before ultimate choosing one to end at; something the critics viewed as arbitrary and of another language from the rules of the other side. While there is spatial need for the continuation beyond the first cross street, this seems like a decision that is not coherent with the other side.

Another key issues brought up at the review was the usage of the roughly 60’ x 120’ space under the elevated north-south element. While it is completely open and could serve as a public space and access to the park, its not an enjoyable space as is. The roof above the space is solid and has no skylights, leading to a dark and undesirable space. Another critic voiced concern about possibly creating a wind tunnel coming from the east river and being channeled by the east-wet path. This is all topped off by the issue of this space currently not being programmed. The critic’s conclusion was that while it had a high potential to operate as a wonderful public space, it wasn’t at this point just yet.

Another point of talking during the review was the continuity of the concept throughout the project. The concept is centered around the ribbon like form that twists over itself to shape spaces. The critics believe that the ribbon motion of the building would not be apparent to users or onlookers of the project. Some of their suggestions about changing this was to either create a smaller element on the façade that wraps around the twisting or have a material connection that flows from the top of the east-west axis to the bottom of the north-south axis. This visual connection will strengthen the concept and continue to shape the form. Another item discussed during the crit was possibly switching elements orientations as the form folds on itself. This is a concept that may take the form of: window height, lights from ceiling vs. wall based locations, HVAC switching from ceiling hosted to floor hosted, and many other opportunities throughout the project. Conversely with the former discussion about façade, this would create an interior continuity for the intimate users of this space.

Dave’s presentation possibly tended slightly too much towards a walkthrough of the project. The description of the concept may have been a little too short and lead to some redundancy in the conversations following about what the concept truly was.

Overall, I think this critique represented a project in progress. Dave had taken quite a few steps back into the conceptual and formal design realms just before this crit. While this resulted in a product that may not be fully thought out yet, his new concept of a ribbon-like flow is incredibly strong (and definitely stronger than previous concepts) and is something that can inform decisions throughout the entire project. Currently there needs to be more work put into finalizing the concept in reference to form and program, and then it can applied to more technical elements. Some of these NAAB requirement including site, structure, precedents, and ADA will be integrated once there is a cohesive set of logic for the project, and can ultimately provide a productive dialogue between form and these requirements that will enrich both parts.

At this level of development, the critics focused the discussions mostly on the aesthetic orders of worth, as the more technical components were not fully developed yet. Inspired, Fame, and Civic are the orders that come first to mind with the project. Its scale, relation to the site, and ultimately formal logic gesture towards these orders. There is definitely possibility to transition towards other orders as the project progresses into the next, more technical components.

One of my first suggestions would be to program and spatially differentiate the space under the north-sough portion of the program. I believe that by adding openings in the building above to let light in and possibly raising or lowing the area underneath to differentiate it from the rest of the park will create an entirely different space. To deal with the problem of continuity of form and making the ribbon like motion apparent, I think the critics stated it best by having both a façade element that traces the trajectory as well as internal elements switching orientations as previously mentioned. Finally, I think the north-south portion should be truncated at the first cross street and then seek to relocate the extra program elsewhere to have a continuous formal logic. Overall I think the next step for this project is to first resolve these problems and then delve into finalizing structure and ADA considerations.

Photo: Milstein Hall by OMA, featuring a wonderful inhabitable space under an overhang (in this case a large cantilevered space.)