Semester Wrap-Up

I haven't posted in a while, the pressures of the end of the semester took their toll.

From the last post, I had decided to focus more on the advice given by the first set of reviewers. The park evolved into a folly park that used a layering system of obstacles, utilizing the concept of denial to create intrigue.

Leaving the safety wall in place as is, and puncturing it with holes that allow people to either climb over the wall or crawl under it, make up the first obstacle. This forces those who choose to enter to make a conscious decision about entering the park.

Once inside, the system of stacked lumber members, bent rebar, dirt piles, pipes, etc., still remain. The various areas of the park were changed to be more vague in terms of use, so that people would determine for themselves how to interact with the park's elements.

After exploring the park, people would notice from a couple of clues (rebar "net" covering a tunnel, and pipes blocking a tunnel entrance) that there was something else going on. There are three entrances throughout the park that allow one to enter into an underground tunnel system. Once here, one can explore the "catacombs" of the site, and find that an underground waterfall exists, however, it is blocked off by the pipes and members from above which pierce the ground and restrict you from entering the space like bars of a jail cell. From here, one can also see that there exists another two tunnels separate from the main tunnel level, which appear to allow access to the waterfall. Exploring the site further reveals that the never ending caisson hole has a helix of stacked members allowing one to climb down at their own risk to more tunnels. However, these tunnels are also blocked off from the waterfall, only further away from the tunnel's end.

A folly park above, and a mysterious catacomb puzzle underneath, the dual nature of the park tests curiosities and imaginations, but only if one is willing. A clear counterpoint
to nearby McCarren Park, a typical community park with walking paths and baseball diamonds. People can explore the site and maneuver through obstacles as if they are achieving something, only to find a carrot held out in front of their nose. There is always something they cannot quite reach, cannot quite enjoy, and ultimately, cannot alter in any way. In many ways, this is analogous to the current situation of Williamsburg in regards to its many stalled construction sites. Therefore, the park can exist as a park on one hand, and a large scale memento of what once was. Instead of typical museums and memorials which re-enact a situation through photographs, artifacts, and large paragraphs of text, this park forces one to experience a similar situation. Despite a number of small successes (overcoming the obstacles put in place) nothing will truly ever be done. The end goal will never be reached, and is clearly out of the hands of the common man.

Unfortunately, the last paragraph was not developed until just now, as I wrote this blog post. It would have been helpful to include it in what was an otherwise frustrating end to the semester. I was unable to complete a large portion of the work I set out to do, and to add to that, presented my project poorly on the day of my final review. The reviewers' comments were mostly related to the underdeveloped dialogue of the project, which I attempted to begin in the previous paragraph. Furthermore, I feel the lack of a cohesive delivery on my part, may have led to a number of comments which were contrary to the advice given to me earlier in the semester.

All in all, I can't help but a feel a slight sense of disappointment in terms of my own project, but I am excited to see my fellow studiomates' projects in the symposium. I wish the best of luck to Chelsea, CJ, and John, not only in this next week of additional work, but also in the final voting for awards.

Post 3/4 Review (x2)

Since mid-review, I have been working on making the elements of the park more vague in their use, and have been mildly successful. Instead of creating common elements such as swings and benches in ways that are typical, I have begun to restrict myself to construction materials alone, and how they might be used in terms of playground equipment.
However, even though the elements do not look like common playground elements, their use was not vague at all. For instance, the rock climbing cliffs had holds made of pipe, rebar, concrete, and rocks, however, it was clearly a rock climbing wall and nothing else.
I was lucky enough to have my project reviewed twice by two different groups of critics, and strangely enough, despite giving similar presentations each time, the feedback was completely different.
In review one, the critics emphasized that I push the fact that the park was unsafe, and add that to the idea of adding intrigue through exploration. Thresholds and layers of enticement were discussed as well.
During the second review I was told up front to drop anything having to do with safety issues, and create a euphoric space. In addition, the reviewers told me to work more with model making as a means of both working and representing the project. Another critique of the work was that I should spend more time dealing with the fact that people's reactions and interactions with the park's elements cannot be predetermined. Developing a method of working which involves making, assessing, and remaking may be beneficial.
Hopefully my desk crit today will help me sift through all the information I have received.

Post Mid-Review Thoughts

The mid review has passed, and the entire studio is left with some good ideas for progression. In my case, the major criticism was the fact that the elements of the park were too precise in their use, and that I should not rely on commonly known objects or elements when designing the park. Their is more interest in discovering or inventing the use for a particular niche of the park, as opposed to already knowing what it is for. Therefore, I plan to create less benches and swings, and more elements such as the "ice tower" which do not have one dominant use.

Furthermore, I was pushed to explore materials outside of rebar, and include the other gamut of construction materials (rocks, pipes, concrete). The water will remain, and begin to express itself
individually. Instead of the water requiring the vegetation or the rebar in order to present itself, the water may create fountains, waterfalls, or other features that exist simply as water, and not as water for plants, or ice.



The jurors appreciated the seasonal study, and that I was considering what the park may be used for, or how it may be adapted in the future. However, it was suggested that I consider other ways in which the park may evolve or change given duration or situation. For instance, what are the differences between the park during daytime and the park at night? What demographic would be going to the park, and when? Can the design decisions begin to cater to specific groups of individuals?

In moving forward, I will definitely look into making the park more "folly-like." One precedent which immediately came to mind during my review was the Final Wooden House by Sou Fujimoto. Fujimoto presents along with this project his concept of the difference between a nest (Corbusier's Maison Domino) and a cave (Fujimoto's Final Wooden House). To him, a nest is fully designed, built to cater to one's specific needs, where a cave is the opposite. A cave is a found space, which one explores and realizes how it may be used beneficially. In the case of the nest, the space adapts to the user, whereas with the cave, the user must adapt to the space. The cave therefore is much richer, and can exist as a functioning space for years to come. The nest, although immediately successful, may become obsolete with age. Corbusier's Maison Domino is a nest, because every element is clearly expressed and designed accordingly. The three floors are separated and held up by the structural gridded columnar system. To move between floors, there is a specific zone for stairs. None of these elements blur together, and the function of each is precise and unique to itself. In the cave, no single element can be labeled as serving one purpose, nor can one purpose be given to a specific element. Therefore, the cave requires that the user interact with it, as opposed to take it for granted. This is precisely how a park should operate.

Post New York

After visiting Williamsburg, the site bounded by Driggs, Bedford, North 11th, and North 12th stood out to me. What struck me as most fascinating about this particular stalled site was its early state of construction when it did stall. The site gives a sense of potential that the others couldn't quite match, sparking imaginations of what might or might not be.

Adjacent to the site at hand, is McCarren Park, which has baseball diamonds, a dog walking park, a swimming pool, a track, football field, tennis courts, and a court for what looks like kickball as well as other hardscape sports. I envision whatever I do with my chosen site (at this point no choices regarding program have been made) to be something which continues the community/park theme of the surrounding area. However I would like the program to bring something to the community that the surrounding parks do not offer.

As for now, I am continuing the exploration of space making possibilities on the site, especially looking into various ways the exposed rebar could be used, manipulated, extended, cut, etc. I am also thinking about the layers of infrastructure developed as the project progresses. There is the broad level (the city's waterworks, electricity lines, and gas lines, etc.), the middle level (the infrastructure of the existing conditions, i.e. what the current state of the site has to offer in terms of parasites or installations), and lastly the level of infrastructure which derives itself from my project. My thought is that as the project evolves, it will develop its own internal infrastructure. Thus, later, if something were to become an installation on top of my "installation" (for the lack of a better word right now) it would have to address the conditions presented to it.

I am also considering implementing time into the project. If the third layer of infrastructure as described above gives me some traction, then the next logical step would be to address what would happen to the site after my project were constructed? What could be added onto my project? How much do I manipulate the project's infrastructure to indirectly affect what is placed onto it? Perhaps more interesting, how do the projects placed onto the site begin to erode, break down, or be deconstructed as time progresses, making way for new projects? Does the site become a place which houses a never ending "exquisite corpse" which is never viewed in its entirety?

NYC Trip - Before

We leave today for what should be an exciting trip. I have never been to New York, and look forward to seeing the city. As of right now though, I am actually more excited to see our site of interest, Williamsburg, and all of its stalled construction sites, than I am about seeing all the skyscrapers. I am eager to start exploring the potential sites for the project, and see what they have to offer, what challenges they bring, where they might take the project, etc.

StudioBlock Final Review

The first phase of the semester is over, and it yielded some interesting projects. The concept of the project was for each student in the studio to build a small "block" to connect to each other, creating a larger "studioblock." Each block was designed to allow marbles to interact inside it. Some chose to transport and move marbles between each other, while others chose to ignore their "neighbors" and focus internally. Although the intention of the project was to create a larger block which could be held, flipped, rotated, shaken, etc., we never achieved physical connections strong enough.

Raising questions about connectivity and continuity, both physically and conceptually, the project was a great warm-up for the rest of the semester. The broader topic amongst all the studios is architecture and infrastructure, and my studio specifically is looking at stalled construction sites. For the studioblock project, everyone had to deal with the tension of meeting their neighbor's requests, while simultaneously keeping their own intentions at the forefront. As the semester progresses, this will become more and more prevalent. How, when, and where to tap into the infrastructure present (both physical connections and conceptual ones, such as program or original architect's intentions) versus ignoring the site and creating a project about itself. No doubt different students will approach the project from opposite ends of this continuum, and in the end, will probably yield the same results as the studioblock project - half the class taking one approach, the other half another.

My block in particular lived on the "non-communicative" side of the studioblock, and focused on misleading the viewer. From the beginning, my intentions were to create numerous paths implying motion, but to secretly block off the path so that marbles could not actually pass. In addition, the eight marbles that were to be originally placed in my block, were designed to never leave as well. Therefore, as the viewer manipulated the studioblock, it would appear visually that the marbles should pass through, and it would sound as if they were moving, however they would be doing nothing of the sort.

After being given the twist of considering how our blocks would interact with ice as opposed to marbles, I decided that the ice could be the indicator of where the secret internal compartments were, based on how the ice melted and soaked into the chipboard.

Although the marbles themselves did not actually interact with my neighbors aside from possibly entering for a moment and then exiting, the physical connections with my neighbors did invoke some communication and compromise. For connecting to CJ, I built a piece to act as a funnel, capturing the marbles exiting his "floodgate." Small basswood sticks projected out of his block, and were inserted into small holes poked into my funnel. On the opposite side, James and I developed a small clip, to be inserted into a slit on my tunnel, as well as the side wall of his project. As it turns out, in the final rendition, the tunnel from my center section fit so well into the appropriate hole in James' block that we did not need the clip to hold us together. In theory, the clip system fit well with the nature of James' project, which involved many moving parts as well as a hinged locking mechanism with another neighbor.

The most conceptually difficult connection was the connection with Chris. His project involved many tubes, and not many rectangular pieces, while mine involved almost solely rectangular pieces. In one rendition prior to the final, we chose to "bridge the gap" via adding a circular tube onto my project and a rectangular loop onto his, allowing us to connect. However, the sharp contrast between this additional part and the vocabulary of the rest of our project proved to be troublesome. The solution to the problem was to introduce a third piece. This third piece contained the logic of Chris' project at one end, and the logic of my project at the opposite end, yet was used to create the physical connection we were looking for. In this way, the piece can be added to connect our two projects, or removed entirely so that each of our projects could be read separately.