The main critique I received was that my building form is expressing the opposite of what I’m trying to express.
That is an alarming statement to confront but one that I see very clearly in my project now. To correctly understand and cater to all the different programs I’m addressing, I partitioned them off very neatly with definitive boundaries and discreet structural languages. The “hybridization” happens in very specific areas where two areas overlap in a controlled way, not at all in the spirit of mixing and innovating of which I am a proponent. I’ve created an interesting Tupperware in which to house my program but the next step is to turn my building from a “thesis container” to a building whose form reflects my thesis.
Other suggestions/critiques they made: I need to define what is being made here, which might give me a little clarity of what the hybridization space should look like. I’m somewhat hesitant to give these made artifacts a hard definition, simply because I don’t want to restrict the unexpected creations that come from an open-ended definition.
They also suggested that maybe my hybridization doesn’t have to be something that needs a specific space, and that I could hybridize with the surrounding community and the city. I’m not sure if that means scrapping the premise of bringing people in from around the world, but it was a suggestion that made me a little nervous. They liked my transverse section in that it treated my biosphere like a secret gem inside a structure box. That’s could be an interesting way of structuring the rest of my building. I’ve been looking at it very additively, so maybe seeing it as a subtractive project could be helpful.
The Good Things: They said that I argued my premise well and that I presented it in a way that made a lot of practical sense. I worked hard to explain the context. I wanted to make sure that my idea related back to San Francisco and still had roots in the culture. They also said that my project had a lot of potential to grow from the strong foundation of research that I’ve done so far.
Moving forward: My two goals are to rethink my approach to hybridization and to unify my building typologies. In terms of understanding hybridization, the critics suggested that zooming in on my “hybridization” space and exploring what that could really look like, what really happens in there. Then, I can let that knowledge spread out through the rest of my building.
To unify my building, exploring a structural typology could help me give a cohesive language to my building. My mentor, Ben, also suggested that I could gain “coherence by composition.” It could continue to retain my discreet typologies, but compose them in a more graceful way, treating them like our interpolated void project from freshman year. He suggested looking at Enrique Moralles’s work, who takes all these seemingly contradictory typologies and combines them in a cohesive way.
01_ Midreview Models