I decided to back up a step after Enno's comments on the Wednesday posting, and really tried to address some of the critics comments with my original parti. The major issue was a bland, horizontal facade that was not engaging. Beginning with my original massing I began to study how to better activate the street level plaza that my building created, and be mindful of some of the comments as well as my theme of metamorphosis. One of the original ideas of this building transforming was that the pavilion out front could be an appendage or a mini "birth" from the main building and I think this concept works quite nicely with some of the imagery I am trying to portray. I studied how this "birthing" might occur, as well as working on activating the facade - this is illustrated in the massing study evolution below. So, I present the revised street level plan with the following items address:
Stairs should be rotated: The main site stairs have been angled congruent to the movement through the site that I have established and organizes the geometry.
Activate facade: I believe I have better accomplished this in the plan study, and certainly it will carry through to the elevations
Push building toward street: I feel I have grown the main building as much as the site massing allows, and still maintain two distinct plazas on each level. I think the technology pavilion is now more integral with the street and pedestrians, that hopefully this has been addressed.
Work on space in front of pavilion: I have started to address this in the plaza design, I hope to do another site scaping study of the lower plaza further.
Engage pedestrians: I think I have set up some fairly strong movement through the site, and the building, to hopefully create a more fluid and active space.
I certainly welcome any comments that anyone could give.
Friday, February 1, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Eric,
This a great improvement!
The lowest diagram showing the transformation of the bar really helpful and a revised version of it should go in the final presentation.
Some comments on details not work yet:
- cutting the small pavillion in four tiny rooms makes for a very rigid and unflexible layout. Imagind being in this big city trapped in a room the size of a bus shelter! Suggestion: leave the bridge where it is and move the pavillion out of the alignment with the stair. This way you gain a consistent footprint and you ease circulation on the ground. Add an external stair up to the second level.
- to animate the facade you do not need to wriggle it around! This creates geometrically and scale wisea very akward facade! Keep is simple and straight: what keeps it from being neutral and boring is what happens inside! Imaging a very minimal glass facade, but through it you can see whats inside: stairs, walls, double height spaces, which all can be accentuated by color and light. This way you create a richness and depth without torturing the facade.
- you need to carry the idea of the rotated stair to the upper level and incorporate it the geometry and over all layout
- one minor comment: the urban trees do not need to align up like soldiers: try to create groupings that break lose from the geometries set up by the street and the building: this could be a more lyrical element in the design
Good progress Eric!
Enno
Eric,
I really like your drawings they are great, they communicate beautifully your ideas of movement through the site as well as the programatic elements. It definetly engages the pedestrians much more than previously. Nice!
I think your concept of metamorphosis will be even stronger if you began to show it in the form of the building or the way one moves through the building. Right now this design is so precise and so organized.
Unless you are talking about metamorphing into perfect geometry's. If that is the case then it is very successful!
I love the trees that is an innovative idea. I agree with ennos comment on having those cool trees arranged in a more organic or random position.
Very graphic, nice work Eric.
Post a Comment