post by fernando astiazaran
Overall, I believe my review went rather well. It was not overwhelmingly positive, but I received good feedback that’ll help further my design. Regarding presentation, I wish I verbally dispersed the content of my mission statement more throughout, since I spent quite some time on it. I also believe I should have included some renderings or sketches to depict the experiential aspect of the building. This evidence would have supported the design decisions that were deemed questionable by the jurors.
I was inspired by the Bagsvaaerd Church in Denmark by Jorn Utzon, and I attempted to incorporate the light well from that church into my design. I spent too much time trying to make that work, when I should have spent more time thinking about how the ‘contributors’ live/work and how those two programs interact. This is what I’ll spend more time on over the next few days.
Umut commented there is a lot more I can do with the linear courtyard and mentioned the Emerson College Film School in Hollywood by Morphosis, accentuating how it frames a view of the Hollywood sign. Michael asserted that the language of my section drawings don’t communicate very well, which I agree with. He also mentioned the concept of a three-part building, emphasizing the facade facing the park, the urban edge on third street, and the building directly adjacent to the project. Taking these site influences into consideration is crucial.
Time to move forward.