Laura and Rebecca’s intention is to create a transportation hub that encompasses multiple forms of transportation for the young demographic in Dumbo, citing that this is something that the site is lacking. The pedestrians are brought into the site through Jay and Bridge Street onto a meandering pathway that wraps around the buildings on the site. The desire of the meandering pathway is to create moments of pause for the pedestrians to engage with the buildings.

Through this idea the electric car parking garage is placed on the corner of Bridge and Jay Street, the entrance of the site. Though the intention of this movement is to put the innovative technology on display it appeared to cause disagreement amongst the jurors. On technical terms, Scott stated that the parking garage was inefficient in that it was more circulation rather than parking. Mehrdad felt that the parking garage took up prime real estate on the site. However with that being said the intention of their project was to bring attention to transportation on the site. By making the parking garage more of a public, stationary place for people to stay their project can achieve this attention to transportation. While the wires and signs bring attention to the actual building it does not bring the attention to the innovative technology that their project is introducing. 

Throughout the review a common question rose about what the intention or overall argument was for the design of the site. Mehrdad and Scott both felt that the primary design intent was lacking and that the slices (vertical and horizontal) were not clearly read by the design. After viewing their project multiple times it was easy for me to read the slices once again but I can imagine it wouldn’t appear so obviously to an outsider who is viewing the project for the first time. The term slices seemed to throw the jurors off and it was most likely the terminology that caused any confusion. It appeared to me that they created more of a grid in the project when the slicing in the market appeared. The organization of the market created it’s own separate grid from the rest of the site.

The slices created a meandering pathway for pedestrian usage. However, it was argued that the slices create the most indirect pathway by not using diagonals.

Scott also had confusion about what made a building private and what made it public. The transparency of the buildings allowed the pedestrians to determine what is in the building and whether or not it is for commercial use. The lowered market allowed the pedestrians to be able to view into the bar above. This entices customers to come into the market and to the bar because of this level of eye contact, which I felt succeeded very well. The use of signage is a good tactic for pedestrians to navigate throughout the pathway created.

Going along with the pathway Christine noticed that the sidewalks all appeared to have the same material and character. Playing with the material and size of the pathway assists in marking areas that are more public and others that are more private. Using large pathways lends itself to the public as an open gesture and invitation. Narrow pathways leading to the residential buildings and more private areas of the site develop a change in atmosphere for the pedestrians.

The majority of the comments on Laura and Rebecca’s project came from the industrial and inspired world. The comments reflected the efficiency and performance of the buildings and pathway layout. Mehrdad felt that the “indirect” pathway (the non-diagonal) is not efficient and realistic for the site. I disagree with this statement since part of the idea behind their project is to create moments of pause throughout their meandering pathway. Christine commented that the apartment buildings had views that lead out to a building on the west side, which did not allow for an aesthetically pleasing view. She was unable to identify which program belong in which building and stated that the sections appeared too pancake-like. Typical apartment buildings have pancake-like floors, however their project can create dynamic spaces with atriums and communal spaces.

Comments on the project such as the intention behind the movements came from the inspired world. The jurors did not have a clear idea of what the intention was for the project and why the movements throughout the site were made. The slicing of the site needs to be made clearer if that is a strong rule that their project follows. It was not until after the slices were mentioned that the jurors noticed this movement. I think that this movement is really strong but needs more clarification if it is the reason for the division between buildings. Mehrdad questioned multiple times what the driving force was in the project. He stated that the programs needed a more permanent spot or reasoning for why a particular building is in one location rather than another. The intention of the design is to provide a transportation hub for the multiple forms of the transportation that are around the site.

Laura and Rebecca’s project has strong movements and points throughout. I think that the idea of slicing the site is strong but does not appear extremely blunt in their design. The pathway throughout the site is much more apparent and could be a stronger driving force in the project. The jurors argued that the project lacked a strong driving force or a primary design intent. I think that creating a transportation hub for the multiple forms of transportation is an interesting way to bring the public onto the site. However I do not think that the parking garage needs to be so prominent or showcased. The multiple modes of transportation will come to the site to use the garage without needing it to be prominently shown. I think that the project’s movements toward gathering people onto the site are strong in the transportation sense. Allowing for moments of pause on the site allows the pedestrians to stay and discover the site.