Over all Ian’s, project and presentation were coherent as a whole and showcased his design well. By making the speech more coherent and matching it with the flow of the board, the project will improve greatly. The boards themselves were laid out well with the exception that the perspective were not placed on the board but pinned up on the side, making them seem like an after thought. Another item that would make the board a bit more clear is to place labels for all items on the boards including the precedents.
Ian described his design idea as linking the old industrial past of the city to the next towers as well as existing buildings. By using left over industrial parts and structure, parts of the history are reinterpreted as well as repurposed. He also mentioned how the monitor museum is thoughtfully placed at the corner of the site to help draw in the public and catch their eye. The site work was described much less than the building, but a few ideas were mentions. One being that he is trying to reduce soil disturbance by creating a raise walkway and by using grade displacement to help maintain storm water along with the reintroduction of indigenous plants and species.
Over all the presentation was thoughtful but could have used a bit more planning. One way in which he could have planned is my planning his speech before the day of the presentation. In addition to doing this, planning the speech and the board at one time would make both of them more coherent and make writing and giving the speech easier. One major point about the presentation is that he walked us through his program and through the building rather than telling a story or giving reason for some of the major design decisions. Some of the design decisions were not explained and therefore seemed a bit arbitrary. One point that would have been extremely helpful is to explain the reasoning behind the pushing and pulling of the four separate masses that make up the complex. I think that the movement of the four objects makes a creative statement but needs sound reasoning to back it up. Another additional item that would have enhanced the project is a key concept image on the board. There was not a main image or drawing that described the building in the best manner possible.
Upon further inspection of the board, I found that the design statement was very helpful. Although it had several grammatical errors, the design statement helped to reiterate the concept. I know that Ian has the ability to explain his idea clearly and I think the spoken version of the design statement would have been extremely helpful. With that addition made to the presentation, I think the critics would have had more time to thoughtfully critique the project rather than trying to understanding the core values of the project as a whole.
Some of the jury had similar remarks as mine. One of these was what the reasoning behind the push and pull of the buildings was. Is there a relation of part vs. whole and how to they all function together and separately. This comment seems to be very helpful, in that is expands on possible reasons/explanations for the movement on the buildings. This pushing and pulling also lends itself to the division of programmatic spaces which can be informed by these movements as well as the narrative. A comment related to this overall idea of movement is the spaces that are created between the buildings once the moves have been made. Several of the shifts create courtyards that could be programmed to match with the program enclosed in the building. These spaces can also be used to show what spaces are public and private through the use of the grade displacement walls that are planned in other areas of the site.
One the comments made during the critique that was a bit confusing was that about separation and overlap of the individual buildings. To me there seemed to be a clear path that ran through all the buildings, although you may want to reconsider running it through the private residences. The juror said that you would not want five separate buildings, but I seem to problem in creating separate buildings as long as the landscape helps to connect the spaces and there is a clear path. On the idea of creating a clean path, I think that raise walkway that is on some parts of the inlet could be brought in to lead people to the buildings. This works with the idea of creating some of those public spaces and could help tie the site together as a whole as well as creating a dialogue between the land and the buildings.
Another comments from the reviewers that struck me as very important is why there are a few angled walls. Where does the angle come from? I have angled walls in my own project that are derived from the surrounding streets that lead to the site. Try to incorporate some of the history by maybe using a historic grid that used to be on the site to derive the angled walls. Another comment that was important and I agree with is what the final move is. Once a reasoning is made for all the other moves this may fall into place but there is a progression through the buildings that ends with an open space that allows an amazing view. Use the view and space to create another public interest point.
I think by making a stronger design statement and concept clear the jurors would have been able to give more helpful comments. Over all the presentation and review went well but could have been enhances with more concrete ideas. The models was also helpful to the reviewers as they used it to illustrate some of their ideas. Working on the board layout and presentation overall will also improve the critique and the comments.
