The Project: The central theme of Lindsay’s project is balance. Perhaps the hardest part of the current project is designing a project that is able to balance the very different aspects of the program, the natural landscape of the park compared to the urban landscape of Brooklyn and the high-stress work  environment next to the relaxing residential space. Lindsay attempts to create this balance and harmony within her project by incorporating biophilic design with various outdoor retreats into her space to create a relaxing space for the firemen. Natural daylighting is provided with large curtain walls and skylights.  Through the use of a grid, Lindsay creates a union between indoor and outdoor spaces with various open and semi-open gardens.

The Critics: Ute Poerschke, Sandra Staub, and Malcolm Woolen           Being Lindsay’s current studio professor, Malcolm had very little to say, but from my personal experience in class, Malcolm looks at projects from the industrial order with heavy emphasis on code compliance and efficiency. However, it was interesting to hear Malcolm ask his colleagues to speak more to the inspired order in referring to the design of Lindsay’s facade and consistency of columns.

Ute’s critique of the project came from a more inspired order with some references to the industrial order in terms of structure. Ute spoke very highly of the project’s organization in that the grid does a good job of weaving volumes and surfaces. Ute’s main focus was then on using this grid as a solution to other areas of concern in Lindsay’s project, such as structure and façade design. Currently, Lindsay has her columns designed as an afterthought as structural “I” beams enclosed in concrete. However, Ute suggests using structure to better emphasize her concept by creating thinner columns with more directionality to enhance the weaving pattern. Another area of concern is the design of the façade in respect to the lack of a main entrance. Ute felt that the circulation and composition of spaces between the museum, fire station, and courtyards were very successful, but there was little done to emphasize the main entrance to give it proper attention.

Sandra’s critiques appeared to be coming from an inspired and domestic order, with a more conservative view on the creation of new green spaces. Sandra felt very strongly (despite Malcolm’s claims of biophilia) that the creation of internal gardens within a building beside a park was extremely redundant, if they’re featuring the same plants. Sandra suggested opening up the interior central garden and connecting it directly to the outdoors to serve as a bridge between the natural and built. If Lindsay plans to leave the interior garden, this should become a winter garden with an entirely different collection of plants and greenery.

Peer Critique: Lindsay displays very strong design thinking skills with in her project. Through the creation of her grid, Lindsay is able to solve most design issues within her project by using the grid as a guideline and series of rules to follow. Lindsay is extremely thorough in implementing her grid and the presence of the square into all aspects her design, so that even her façade is based on 3 to 1 ration of the square. The grid also provides an excellent ordering tool for the hierarchy of the project that allowed Lindsay to create a very elegant series of built spaces and exterior courtyards.  Her project’s concept is very clear through her work in that her building speaks both to the urban grid of Brooklyn and the natural landscaping of the park.

The overall organization of Lindsay’s projects and programmatic layout are also very well planned, so that adequate circulation space is provided. In order to prove the efficiency of the design for emergency response time, a diagram of the firefighter’s path to the apparatus bay would be extremely beneficial. The building also lacks a sense of destination or arrival, there is no real main entrance. While Lindsay mentioned the idea of providing an entrance on each side, I believe that one side should be emphasized to create a sense of arrival and decrease the confusion of users and guests to the fire station.

Lindsay’s boards were very light and delicate with drawings that seemed to match the elegance of the project she described and designed. Her drawings can be clearly and carefully read due to proper use of line weights and poche. Her plans and sections both did an excellent job of showing the structure and scale of her project. Throughout her plans,the size of the grid varies with out little explanation, which does lead to discrepancy over how strictly the grid defines the interior spaces. In addition, a perspective would also be helpful to getting a better understanding the three dimensional qualities of the space. The site plan could also use a little more detailing in that it is hard to tell the difference between various rectangles, are they paved? Are they grass? Are these ramps or gathering spaces? Are they all at the same level or differing levels?

Precedents from Dan Kiley and David Chipperfield are clearly seen in Lindsay’s project. These projects have clearly helped to define her overall aesthetic and site planning goals.

In observing Lindsay’s presentation and hearing the feedback of the reviewers, I have several ideas that may help her moving forward towards her final project. In terms of the presence of columns and how they define her façade, I feel that the columns should be uniform around, even if the east and west elevations don’t have the same bay width. A sense of greater uniformity and consistency will be created by doing so. In terms of a main entrance, I feel that the east façade and the layout of the exterior courtyards lends itself to becoming a main entrance for the project and has the greatest potential of attracting people from the street. The south entry is integral to the relationship with the park; however, this entrance could be seen as more of a private entrance for the firefighters to use to access the park. If Lindsay should chose to open up the central garden to the park, she is then able to create an entrance on both sides of the central garden into her fire station. Finally the maintenance elevation allows a unique opportunity for a more adventurous façade, perhaps a green wall that wraps the landscape up from the park and brings it up on to the roof of the fire station. This would serve to enhance the presence of biophilia within the project and create more of seamless blend from interior to exterior spaces.

Image: James Marvin Phelps, Balanced Rock

Success in architecture is more than a beautiful building, but a building that can also makes sense contextually in the site as well. The struggle of the Bushwick Inlet Site is creating a project that responds to both the urban grid and the fluidity of the park. John’s project places itself within the geometries of the site by extending 15th Street back through the site as it historically once was. This extension creates a triangle of site between 15th Street, Quay Street, and Franklin Street. By placing the fire station on this triangular site and aligning his apparatus bays with 15th street, the optimal drive through apparatus bay is able to be created. Remaining on the apparatus bay level are more public areas of program and fire safety specific programmatic elements. On the upper floor with a view looking down into the apparatus bay, the residential spaces of the firefighters have been placed. The  Monitor Museum is placed beside the fire station on 15th street and Franklin Street with a public outdoor plaza completing the triangle. The geometries of John’s project in context with surrounding streets create a very interesting and contextual proposal.

Peer Critique

In reviewing John’s project based on the NAAB criteria, he had a very successful project. His project shows excellent design thinking and reasoning skills that are shown with great clarity in his drawings. His board becomes a very graphic element with bold colors that help to accentuate his main ideas. His models are beautifully crafted at two different scales to allow for a more detailed view of interior spaces, while also allowing the viewer to get an idea of the context of the project. His presentation was concise, but included all main points in order to give the juror’s sufficient background information to successfully review the project. John uses precedents for his bold move of the glass roof, but I feel that these precedents could be revisited. Further research into the precedent would allow John to give more consideration to the rational behind his glass roof. The hierarchy, circulation, and organization of the project are very thoughtfully considered. John’s use of historic maps allowed him to create a bold move in his project by re-extending 15th Street through the site. This extension also served a successful guideline for John in making the rest of his design decisions. The hierarchy in the layout of John’s project is also extremely successful with most consideration and importance given to the fire house on the main floor. The project reflects John’s view that the apparatus bay is the most important aspect of this project, however I think John does need to step back and re-evaluate the layout of his residential area. The circulation of the project is also well thought out, but it wouldn’t hurt to re-evaluate the current design to see if the response rate can be decreased in order to achieve maximum efficiency.

Critique of the Critique

The most actively involved critic during John’s review was Juan, who evaluated the project mostly on the inspired and industrial levels. John had an extremely successful, in that Juan went so far to call his project “remarkable.” Juan said that this remarkable simplicity, was a double-edged sword as less is more, or less could be bore. However, all critics agreed that the simplicity and the extension of the street, allowed John to create a new city block that responds extremely well to the surroundings. The multiplication of the corners on the neighborhood side makes great sense, however, it pointed out that the corners of the park side should not be identical as they are not responding to the same conditions. The structural integrity of the apparatus bay was also heavily critiqued as the columns are not consistently placed throughout the project. There is also a multidirectionality about the space, but John is choosing to emphasize only one direction, so that this requires greater emphasis. The glass roof of the apparatus bay that allows view in was seen by Juan as a great conceptual move as it creates a large island that attentively responds to the geometry of the site and fire station. However, the bedrooms looking upon this may not be ideal, as glass will become dirty extremely quickly, and the better view is across the inlet to the city skyline. Another critique of the project was the large height of the education and exhibition spaces that prevents better potential views for the upper floor bedrooms. In the critics eyes, there was a great need for further development in the surrounding site. The spaces between buildings are not large enough to welcome guests into the park. A sense of urbanism needs to be created between the buildings to welcome guests and offer an opportunity to “landscape the city.” Responding to the city and surrounding site, also needs to be addressed to the long façade on 15th Street. This is an opportunity for the directionality of the street and building to create a landscaping operation for the surrounding park as well.

At the schematic design level, it is not surprising the reviewers of the project were making comments based on the inspired order. It is still early enough in the project that larger design changes can be made without setting back the student to an extreme degree. The industrial order comments are also reasonable as this is the first time students are working with circulation, fire safety, and structural consideration in a studio project. The critics were all very excited by this project and offered a wide scope of comments for John to consider. The comments were polite, thoughtful, and unbiased, so that it was easy for John to respectfully answer their questions and address their concerns. I found it most interesting the the critics were so intrigued by this proposal that they continued to review the project after John walked away and the next board was being pinned up.

Suggestions for the Project

I would recommend you continue the columns throughout the length of the apparatus bay, but increase the width between columns and potentially consider adding additional support from trusses as well.

I would also recommend increasing the space between the Monitor Museum and Fire Station to create more pull into the park. Perhaps by revisiting the shape of the museum, you can create a larger plaza to the front of the project that assists in bringing more visitors into the park. You can always decrease the footprint of the museum by increasing the number of stories.

I also would be very wary of the back wall along 15th Street, since that is what is closest to park. Find an interesting way to make the landscape and architecture interact. This facade could be potentially all glass to allow park goers to see the Fire Station at work.

Bushwick Inlet Park Photo by John Shinogle