How does the work address your original thesis inquiry? how has your work this term helped you grow as a designer?
The work I presented at Mid review addresses my original thesis in that it shows a strong intent to implement public transit in a means that is cognizant of structuring future development of the Gateway regional center, sensitive to Urban ecologies (eco-distrct), and lastly creates a framework for my thesis building (a community structure) to be inserted/developed into.
Although during this term I spent the majority of my time figuring out things at an urban level I feel very confident about being able to transcend these ideas into a building scale.
In attending the University of Oregon I have grown fond of the urban design component to architectural design and strongly believe that the clearer your intentions are at the Urban level the clearer you building design/response can be. I guess what I am trying to say is that the stronger your urban plan/concept the stronger your building will be. I have felt in the past that my projects have lacked a strong urban concept and have kept my building from singing or performing to the best of their abilities. Anyone can design a building, but taking the time to think about the context your building is becoming a part of or will be creating is where the real design dilemmas occur. This quarter has given me the opportunity to approach this context without any biases and given me the chance to develop a regional center that is capable of functioning to the best of my abilities. I am now able to enter the next quarter knowing full well that the site-ing of my building has be decided based on several trial and errors and will lend itself to fulfilling my vision of the new gateway transit/regional center.
What were the most meaningful review comments and how will they shape how you will move forward?
My reviewers recognized the solution of a street connecting the different mode of transit being a worthy solution and were able to clearly follow my rationale through all of the different levels of investigation.
In my first review comments suggested that my project begin to take into account the area between the existing LRT alignment and the freeway. Some kind of gesture needs to happen there.
Other comments included that my project is really about designing the street that is the link between the modes and selecting a building that fronts it for my further architectural exploration.
Ben Vaughn wanted to see the buses begin to cue up along the green street and sees it becoming similar to a transit mall.
My second review went a little different. Susan started off by commenting that these types of solutions have been failures in the past and suggested I look at precedent to find out where they have failed as a way to suggest how mine will have a better chance of being successful. (people have a hard time looking past my mdf massing as a diagram)
Bill suggested that my pavilion could be something repeated throughout gateway and should explore different scales of application. He was also skeptical of the TEDx program and thinks this would just be an expensive and wasteful project.
In the End I have discovered that my project is very much about this linear connection between the different modes of transit. I dont think I need the urban plaza anymore. My building should just affront the street and further promote a clear axis from one mode to the other. Second I think my project shouldn't be a venue for tedx anymore. It needs to be something that is in the spirit of spreading ideas but not necessarily the actual ted program.
No comments:
Post a Comment