Photo by Bart Blatstein of Piazza at Schmidts, Philadelphia, PA

EVALUATION

Mike and Torin’s project revolves around the incorporation of two primary design ideas: “temporality”, as in non-permanent fixtures, and “kinetics”, as in movable elements, all to establish a hub for the arts and food scene of Dumbo, Brooklyn. The design looks at the existing industrial aesthetic of Dumbo as well as the heavy indie culture present in the area and incorporates these ubiquitous themes into their proposal.

Temporality, being one of their primary motivating design ideas, Mike and Torin decided to employ food trucks, movable art installations, and two variations of dynamic building pod units which can be assembled into endless arrangements including ice rinks, theaters, etc.

To further emphasize temporality, the team took steps towards making the lower level(s) of their building have different degrees of permeability which increases based on the buildings’ position on the site. Permeability eases access into the central courtyard where temporality, in the form of building pods, art installations, and food trucks, takes place.

The team’s second motivating idea, kinetics, overlaps extensively with the first. Because of the transient nature of their central courtyard, where endless activities and conditions are possible, the aforementioned building pods, art installations, and food trucks are encouraged to be shifted and manipulated depending on the events taking place. Yet another way kinetics are emphasized in the proposal is through an array of hydraulic elevators present in the courtyard, which much like the building pods, adjust to different heights to achieve forms in accordance with the events taking place (think auditorium seating, art exhibition platforms etc.).

It’s clear that Mike and Torin’s project is highly sensitive to the interests of the youthful, indie residents of Dumbo, Brooklyn. The biggest strength of Mike and Torin’s project can also be considered its greatest weakness. The endless opportunities available in this highly customizable scheme is worthy of recognition and the initiative this team took in developing creative temporal strategies (building pods etc.) should be applauded. However, the inherent open-ended nature of this scheme, makes it difficult to critique. Do the building pods and hydraulic platforms work? The lack of development of these two critical elements, though they show immense promise, are difficult to justify because the level of detail is not there yet.

This project raises thoughtful questions about the importance and the necessity of a hub in Dumbo and reacts accordingly. The motivating ideas are legitimate and the scheme is responding to a worthy concern which is both laudable but not too ambitious. The execution, as is the case for many students, is lacking in some critical parts of the scheme, but is also successful in other areas. The general organization of the proposal, having the majority of program (though permeable on the ground level) organized around the perimeter is a strong move because it allows for a variety of events to take place in the center. Additionally, setbacks like the one at Jay Street allows for ease of entrance at critical entry points. The logic behind this organization is well defined and allows for efficient circulation.

However, the amount of bold moves occurring in this scheme is too extensive. Though temporality/kinetics within the realms of art/food are worthy motivating ideas, the execution is simply spread too thinly. For example, the building pods, lower level permeability, and hydraulic grid are all moves that (attempt to) stress these two themes. Instead of developing all these moves to express the same idea, my suggestion is to choose the strongest idea (perhaps the building pods), develop that further, and scrap the other two. In turn, have the building pods recur throughout the entire site so that it becomes more ingrained into the scheme.

The drawings are another issue. The master plan at first glance blends in too much with the context and muddles the clarity of its organization. The plans, though detailed, lack enough context and contours to relate back to the master plan, making the scheme even more confusing. The performance spaces may work but it’s almost impossible to tell without being able to visualize it on the site; again very difficult to critique without proper context. The same goes for the sections. Though slightly more defined in terms of topography, it still lacks enough detail to relate it back to the master plan. From these isolated drawings, it seems like the performance spaces could work (with some tweaking), but they must be provided with context. Fortunately, these are easily fixable problems (add context) that I know only arose due to deadline restrictions, and not because they were not considered at all.

CRITIQUE OF CRITIQUE

The jury, was comprised of guest Juan Ruescas, and professors Rebecca Henn and Sandra Staub. Ruescas tended to comment more on the actual architectural moves than the teams’ drawings, commenting on the width of the housing (30 feet) as far too narrow for example. Furthermore, Ruescas critiqued the organization of the master plan, believing that the widening of Jay Street, though a noble idea, is not executed properly. Ruescas believes that this move should stress the sites intended parti organization (a progression of high permeability to low permeability following the Jay Street to Bridge Street axis).

Rebecca Henn and Sandra Staub tended to comment on the clarity of the drawings/model. Henn focused on the site model and plans believing the model to be too small to effectively represent the spaces and the lack of context in the plans that convey a design solution. The orientation of the housing mass is also not resolved according to Henn who suggests a thick residence tower oriented differently. Lastly Ruescas, encourages the team to focus on the quality of their architectural moves, rather than quantity, which as I mentioned before, I agree with. In terms of how the comments relate to the Orders of Worth matrix, most critiques fall under the “Project” world because of the designs’ focus on activity as the higher common principle and its investment in adaptability.