Bridget approached this project by creating a long pathway through the site running from the busy streets of the East to the waterfront on the West. She has also created a path from North to South for pedestrian traffic flowing through the park. Her main design idea is to bring the employees of the fire company and the community together through a main central plaza while also framing views within the site and focusing on the view of Manhattan across the East River. She has also created a system using solids and voids to “create a dialogue between the public and private spaces” within the site. This system also provides various views within the site ending with a picturesque view of Manhattan at the end of the pathway leading to the park.
The main plaza Bridget has decided to anchor her project with is flanked on both sides by her two main structures. The structure on the North side of the site houses the apparatus bay facing Quay Street and the building on the south side houses the education center. The plaza running through the center of the space provides views into both buildings so that the community can watch the firefighters in action while also making their way to the Monitor Museum and park at the end of the pathway. While travelling on this path through the site, the viewer also has a framed view of Manhattan that opens up at the end of the path. Bridget approached the site with the concept of using solids and voids to define the spaces and create a dynamic interaction between the community of Greenpoint and the private community of the firefighters. She accomplishes this goal by creating a central “void” or inviting plaza, that brings the public in off the main, busy road of Franklin Street. Upon entering the site from the East on Franklin Street, one is guided through the ‘void’ in the site along a path that provides views into both of the “solids”, the apparatus bay on the right and the education center on the left. This space is inviting because the roofs of the structures are sloped upward creating an openness that does not make a visitor feel crowded. The use of translucent materials on the ground floor of the buildings also creates an openness for visitors and allows them to engage with the space. However, I think this space falls short in its attempt to provide more interaction between the public and the firefighters. While the space is inviting and the material palette chosen allow the public to view into the spaces, there really is nothing stopping people from simply just walking through straight to museum or park. The jurors had also mentioned that there are no places of pause within the site that prompt people to stop and look into the various spaces. In order to prompt people to stop and actually engage with the space I would suggest placing benches or providing an area located off of the main path for people to gather and watch or speak with the firefighters. By creating moments of pause within the site, the spaces become more dynamic and the goal to create an interaction between the community and the firefighters will be strengthened.
A major source of discussion between the jurors was the roofs of the buildings. Both buildings had sloped green roofs for sustainability as well as to give the illusion that they were a continuation of the landscape. While the jurors appreciated the nod to sustainability, they did not understand why the roofs were “flying” in some instances and boxed in in other places. The jurors explained a choice needed to be made as to whether the roofs will be “flying” or boxed. I would suggest maintaining the “flying” roof. Although I understand why the parts of the roof were boxed in, I think the overhangs will strengthen the project and help to reinforce the idea that the buildings are part of the landscape and blend in with the natural environment of the park. By choosing this scheme, the outdoor terrace on the second floor housing the residences above the apparatus bay will need to be reconsidered. I would consider maintaining a roof across the entire terrace with cutouts to allow light or maybe adding overhangs on the first floor to maintain continuity between the first and second floors.
The last thing the jurors commented on were the choice in materials as well as the details of the landscape. The main comment about the materials was that the choice in weathered wood seemed out of place for the context of the project. The weathered wood gave the impression of a rural site and the jurors that it was strange. They suggested making it look less rustic by implementing a rain screen system or using it as a shading system depending on its location on the exterior. They said to consider the context of the project and choose materials based on the message wanting to be conveyed. The other comment about the materials was to base the materials based on the function of the space meaning specific materials could suggest different functions within the building. In terms of the wood on the exterior I agree that it looks out of place but I think that is one of the reasons why I enjoyed it. I like the rustic looking wood because it provides a nice break from the vast amounts of glass curtains and steel framing plaguing the surrounding area. However, I would take the jurors suggestion and really consider the message the building wants to make and choose materials accordingly. If using wood cladding is important to the concept then I would consider a paneled rain screen system or a wood cladding system much like the Belmont Street Lofts in Portland, Oregon.
In terms of site design the jurors asked why the West side facing Manhattan did not have a clear boundary but the East Side facing Brooklyn. They also commented on the texture of the pavement and placement of pools stating that the pools do not need to be diagonal but should reinforce the axis within the site. The comment of adding places of pause was also mentioned in the greater context of the site and that the small intervention made along the path with pools and pavement patterns should be implemented throughout the site in a greater context. It was even suggested to design a “one-sided street.”
Overall I think the project has a very strong foundation and with a few minor changes could be even better. The critics agreed that the project has a strong concept and is convincing but the decisions made within the project need to reflect the concept better. In other words how does the entire project relate to itself and the concept proposed at the beginning. Just a minor side note, the organization of the second board for presentation needs to be reconsidered! It is a bit difficult to understand but I do like the “path” dividing the drawings.
Critics Comments:
Overall Bridget had a very informative and insightful critique. The suggestions made the jurors definitely provided some interesting things to think about and gave Bridget some ideas on how to reconsider certain elements within her design. In terms of Orders of Worth the jurors touched upon several categories. The critics focused on three things: the roof, materiality, and site design. The roof comments mainly focused on the Industrial Order of Worth. They appreciated the efforts in sustainability but thought that it could be improved. Their comments about materiality stemmed from the Inspired Order and the Market Order. The comments about the site were directed at the Domestic, Inspired, and Market Orders.
Featured Image: Port Wood Timber
