A clear central axis, open for circulation and flanked by program on either side, Jomar intends to create an evident visual channel directing the eye of those who approach– from the industrially soggy streets of Greenpoint, to the skylit and magnificent cityscape of Manhattan.
The entire organization is organized by this central axis, which reaches people from the rough intersection of Franklin and Quay streets and draws them outward toward the emerging East River Esplanade, hosting a view of Manhattan, ‘New York’s jewel’, as Jomar’s architecture seems to give credit.
Drawings that are clear and effective, Jomar’s intentions are communicated very straight-forwardly, and thus so too are the fallacies in his thinking process and the moments missing from his design.
———–
The prevalence of such central axis led Jomar to easily imagine a simple symmetry that governs the organization of his project. Along this axis, the program is categorized and organizationally collected into three principle components: storage spaces, the apparatus bay, and recreation/public spaces.
Introducing entrants from the Greenpoint streetscape, storage spaces are located at the crux of Franklin and Quay, the streets confining the lot of the project. The slender and smaller area of this first program feeds into the larger, and noticeably dominant, as is in most of our projects, apparatus bay, which opens up to provide adequate space for the docking of five fire trucks and the space needed for workers to operate in and around them. Opening further, and becoming closest to Manhattan, are the firemen’s recreation spaces and public gathering spaces. Jomar idealizes an enlightening of these spaces by granting them optical access to the Manhattan skyline, which he philosophizes through his architecture to be the “end all-be all” of the project’s context.
The gradual increase in the sizes of his spaces, tightly fastened along this strict central axis, and compounded by certain specifics to the form along its perimeter, recalls a form that Jomar most likely does not intend to be recalled. Despite his genuine and evident intentions to produce a formally increasing visual channel, the jury and audience could not help but snippet to the floor plans evidently reminiscent of a stumpy phallus.
His silent ridicule due to a mistaken evocation of phallus exemplifies a central point that the reviewers continued to elaborate. As a fallacy in Jomar’s design logic, symmetry is the go-to strategy in the organization of space. The steadfast visual axis has been mistakenly overpowered to hold all program, in equal spatial proportion, on either side. Rather, as the reviewers went on to imply, a steadfast central axis could exist, but all other program should be thought of in a looser relationship, capable of diversion and deviance from what is otherwise the almighty urethra-esque architectural channel. Successful, and certainly modern, design makes essential the liberation from strict symmetry, the type that has dictatorially governed the design of structure from Athens all the way until early 20th century Paris and New York. It has been stressed in previous critique sessions that symmetry is responsive to aesthetic, and minimally responsive to the specific considerations and circumstances of the programs it intends to host. The interest of quality space is ultimately thwarted by the application of strict symmetry in any design. It is this concept that the reviewers sought to communicate, a new type of strategic thinking that might deliver Jomar a more eccentric and better-quality space, as well as security from teenage-like ridicule.
Furthermore, Jomar was criticized on the delivery of his central axis. Although it is evident that the axis would channel those from one end of the building to another, culminating in awesome view of the inspiring skyscape of Manhattan, the effect was thwarted by the fact that visitor parking and main entrance were located at the far end fo the building, effectively eliminating the promenade-like circulation that would breed the anticipation of the New York skyline view. Effectively, the move is null, on account of the inconsistent diagram of circulation. The axis is in effect symbolic and spiritual, but certainly being authoritative in the master organization of the building.
In addition, the orientation of discussed axis bears minimal design. Yes, the corridor certainly culminates toward Manhattan. But, where in Manhattan is this view? The angle of his axis points the visitors eye toward Union Square and Greenwhich Village. Is this focalizing intentional? Should the visual channel rather produce a landmark such as the Empire State Building or One World Trade? Should it even culminate in a landmark, or perhaps an area relevant to the philosophical intention of Jomar’s design? It is an opportunity yet to be seized.
Continuing, the reviewers questioned the existence of just one perspectival corridor. Guest critic Nathan Belcher recalled the works of renowned female architect Zaha Hadid and her interest in spaces offering unique perspective corridors. In her examples, not only does one visual channel exist, but as many as can adequately define space. “Visual perspective should be a part of every moment of your project,” emphasizes critic Christine Gorby. Jomar may not have to answer the question of what view is most important if he allows himself to create an architecture of man, intersecting, visual channels, and design-capitalizing on their moments of junction.
The current iteration of Jomar’s design for fire station 212 felt like a seed to a much greater, stronger piece of architecture in the eyes of the reviewers. It was continuously emphasized how much potential the project truly had, as long as the designer would relieve himself from certain fears and apprehensions that seemed to be holding him back– most notably, the attachment to symmetrical design.
Despite the raised flags regarding the strength of design, Jomar certainly demonstrated a capacity to visually communicate. With the exception of lineweights and the graphic design of fonts and layouts, Jomar displays an exceptional use of software-based design and produces exceptionally clear representations of his architecture. Walls are readable, spaces are pointed out, circulation was evident without the need for a supporting diagram, as well as the entirety of his architectural intent. Reviewers entirely based their criticisms off the clarity of his plans and sections.