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

Respecting an urban proposition she suggests in her related works and theories, Becca has explored a redesign of existing infrastructure rather than a demolition and new construction. “There is no need for new buildings,” you might catch her saying. With the rise of a collective eco-conscious, and the increasingly evident necessity for sustainable thinking, Becca’s ecological strategy is more “a requirement than a choice.”

What was the quintessence of an under-cared industrial wasteland, the Greenpoint Bus Wash has been transformed into a multi-use, community oriented space, capable of becoming a node for a developing community, over an urban residue on a far street-side.

Further integration with the surrounding community was a forefront intention of the new design, with a redesign of the existing park space, whose circulation and pathways carry through the design of the structure to create an interwoven continuity of spaces. The jointure of several of the park paths, just to the east of the building’s centroid, creates a dramatic point of public access and becomes an anchor for the organization of public spaces. Lobby and other public-oriented space are compartmentalized about the dramatic intersection of pathways. Flanked to either side, the monitor museum and multi-use public space, ideally seen as a farmer’s market, stretch out toward the waterfront, while the Apparatus bay hurdles the streetscape. Thus, the poetry of the East River scenery complements the poetry of community and history, while the first responders are nudged against the community street-system, becoming most-accessible to its extents in the event of emergency.

What was taken into reconsideration by the critique was the arrangement of a second storey, private spaces for the live-in firefighters, whose personal quarters were arrayed into a seemingly efficient system of “locker spaces” at the interior of the building’s footprint, but could not receive adequate light, nor had any relationship with the outside. They were quickly called out to be psychologically uncomfortable. A suggestion and future ambition would be to relocate such rooms along the structure’s edge, the opposite condition of the existing central, interior concentration.

Structure was certainly a hallmark of the proposal, with additive trusses and pillars lining the exterior of the old building, creating both the aesthetics of an industrial colonnade and yet an impression of weightlessness. The roof and almost all structure would become dependent on suspension from a line of trusses, rendering all interior structure much more simplified. The opportunity allowed Becca to redesign more interesting roof structures, and act more independently of the pre-existing column grid, which in this iteration becomes more of a tool of spatial definition than of structural essentiality. The new structural system, alone, produced one of the most identifiable design schemes among the entirety of the studio.

So if interior conditions are new, and the structural system is new, what of the old structure is maintained in the new design? The shell? Or has the shell become more a symbolic element with minimized bearing on the totality of the new design? This idea, through different aspects and considerations was the forefront of the critique’s comments and concerns throughout the remainder of the session. Becca’s representations were more than adequate in explaining spatial configuration and design strategy, however, was not indicative of relationship between ‘old-and-new’ that seemed to be such an important aspect of the entire project. Critique Lisa Iulo recommended a more diagrammatic approach to plans and sections that clearly identified pre-existing structure from new structure, through different means of poche and hatching, better allowing for the dialogue to be displayed. Becca’s collages and graphic representations of her design’s aesthetic potential were also suggested to be reworked to better emphasize the dichotomy she has explored.

Through design, this dichotomy was suggested to receive better emphasis by rethinking the surrounding conditions, such as the streetscape, understood to be the intermediary between old and the new, hosting structures of all ages. Understanding how to better shape and confront the streetscape by better crafting its facades might be an opportunity to take advantage of.

Despite all the evident potential, and what seemed to be understood by the critiques as an attempt to respect and reuse existing conditions, the strongest comment in the entire critique was that Becca’s design approach was simply too modest. “It could be more assertive,” asserted Lisa Iulo. Without giving much explanation, the audience was left to mostly interpret and define modesty for themselves. Perhaps the modesty came from the organization of spaces? There was certainly a minimalistic approach in allocating compartmentalized spaces, with what seemed to me an evident interest in maximizing, the open, public spaces. Perhaps the formal relationship of such interior spaces were too literal, too orthogonal to the master shape of the pre-existing structure.

It certainly should have not been a critique on the building’s footprint, as such would be necessary to uphold the attention of adaptive reuse. Perhaps Lisa foresaw a potential addition, or a contrasting element for juxtaposition that would be capable of erecting this conversation of aesthetic duality, though it was evident such would not be Becca’s intention, as clearly she intends to make the most out of the existing footprint, only executing a slight modification to regularize one of the footprint’s corners that featured a skewed and formally awkward corner. In regularizing the shape, there is a clear intention of de-emphasis, and a clear emphasis on the interior reorganization. Despite the evidence, perhaps the idea was misunderstood by the critique. Even through the regularity of the floor plan, responsive to the existing condition, the sections and new structure certainly offered aesthetic interest, certainly captivating enough to passer-byers on the street. No neighboring building featured a colonnade of trusses and piers that so evidently helped to define interior space, and no other neighboring structure could feature such openness and relationship with the green environment around.

The best way for Becca to move forward, and perhaps ‘radicalize’ her proposal’ would be in needed reorganization of the second floor, thinking of how to welcome light and maximize the efficiency and psychological ease of such spaces, all working under a condition of structural independence she granted herself with her monumental truss system.

Introduction of project:

As is known, our site has a unique corner condition, allowing people to decide to address it our not. Here, Ali’s proposed fire station design, occupies the corner and she situates her main entrance along Franklin Street, the busier of the two streets. She has also decided to stack the required program and to make her building less dense with this stacked program she has made the design decision to create interior courtyards, allowing for natural light to pass into interior rooms.

NAAB Criteria Critique:

Overall, Ali’s project meets most of the NAAB Studio Criteria in a somewhat adequate way, but there is definitely room for improvement in the areas discussed below.

Ali discussed in her presentation that she has several precedents, which do show up on her board, but the names escaped her at the time of presenting and they weren’t labeled. But, with these precedents Ali seems to have analyzed them closely, especially the one that she stated drove her project the most since she used this idea of the interior courtyards from the section she saw of this precedent. However, she should look back at her precedents a little more closely, which Peter Aeschbacher, one her guest critiques, suggested to do, and I agree with him. In that precedent which helped to shape Ali’s design decision to incorporate interior courtyard spaces, there are spaces shown in the precedent’s section that have double height courtyard spaces and there is no wasted space. Right now in Ali’s current design there seems to be spaces that aren’t working cohesively together in section or in plan as well.

Another critique that was made was that Ali’s site is underdeveloped. Here it seems that Ali has not met the NAAB criteria for site planning just yet, but I believe she can develop the site by working with these interior courtyard spaces as well. Maybe she can think about trying to bring about this idea of tying the inside spaces back to something that is happening on the exterior? I noticed on her site plan that she has something design near the edge of our site along the east river shore that she didn’t really talk about. I’m curious as to what that possible could be from the precedent picture near it, it seems as though it’s a concrete forum like space, which could work there but my question to Ali would be why is it in that location and what does she see exactly happening there? Here site layout is similar to mine in that, volumetrically we both have our fire stations occupying the corner and our monitor museums located a little further back in the site. She has also lined trees between the Monitor Museum and the fire station along Quay street, which I don’t think is the best idea since I believe it makes the site closed off for pedestrians to come wonder about. However, because of the volumetric layout of her site, she has created these different pockets in her site that can each be programmed with something different maybe? These are design decisions that Ali still has to answer.

I would say Ali’s plan works for the most part. There are some issues she needs to resolve which the critics had pointed out, which is to double check that her apparatus area does indeed work with the turning radius needed for a fire truck. Ali also mentioned that her apparatus bay is able to be driven though, but that isn’t isn’t clearly as there is that odd angle moment that makes it seem as though it isn’t a drive through area. Also, a good point brought up by the reviewers was why are her living spaces pointed toward the streets? The living space situation isn’t as important to work out at this point, in my opinion though as making sure her apparatus bay works. So if I were Ali I would focus on the apparatus bay more as that is the most crucial aspect of our program to get right.

Overall the way Ali communicated her design and what she is trying to do with her building was effective. I think her verbal presentation was more effective than her boards and what she said gave different platforms for the reviewers to go off from to help her strengthen her design in the next couple weeks.

Critique of the Critique:

I think both Peter and Juan were on the same page regarding Ali’s project. The main thing Ali should do before correcting anything mentioned above is to develop the architectural parti of her project. Juan and Peter think there isn’t one at the moment, but there is enough information and pieces developed in Ali’s project that there can be a parti developed. Ali should sit and think about what she ‘s trying to convey with her building. As mentioned she has all the parts including geometries, volumes, planes, etc. but they don’t intersect with one another cohesively yet. There are these “unexpected” instances that need to worked out as Peter put it; and the structure and elements that Ali currently have need to work together to formulate a story as Juan critiqued.

I believe that Juan and Peter were helpful. Although they seemed a little harsh with their choice of words, I think overall Ali got good feedback from them and hopefully can use some of it to further her project for the final review. Again, the way she presented her ideas verbally are what gave Peter and Juan platforms to build off of and points that will strengthen Ali’s project.

Orders of Worth Critique:

I believe the main area Juan and Peter focused on was the domestic area of the higher common principle in the orders od worth matrix. Ali needs to establish these guidelines for herself, which will be established through an architectural parti. With these guidelines she will then be able to have a sense of hierarchy within her building and all the pieces she has already will be able to hopefully come together into a more cohesive design rather a disjunctive one.

Conclusion:

Ali had an ok review overall. She has plenty of comments that the reviewers mentioned that she can work off of from the coming weeks. Ultimately, even if Ali doesn’t get to fixing all the “issues” and only fixes a few, she’ll have a good design for final review.

Photo Credit:

de Young Memorial Museum: San Francisco
Architects: Herzog & de Meuron