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.