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?