Jessica- Good overall and development PA: Contrast to openings in façade. Plans show lots of glass and façade needs more glass in massing. MD: Integrate hardscape/landscape very well done, parking and building entrance too close. CR: Punched windows or a perforated rainscreen to take the needs of the apartments
Rudolph- Good development but requires a bit of simplification – work to do fewer things well. Crude sections, very diagrammatic. CR: Scale of site = huge, designing episodes, jean novelle reference is important. Grasshopper screen and multiple façade materials. PA: lots of materials – organizing principles needed. Need to edit. MD: reminds of 1980s OMD design. Lots of ideas, take cores to ground which could be used as support.
Joseph- PA: large scale composition=good. Scale issue at openings/overpasses. Needs much work on spaces – various underpasses. CR: well composed project, but underdeveloped. Columbia street =sun, units, facing envelope design. BIG like designed – leaving façade to the end after massing.
Rachel- no frames, CR: good beginning, but need to take it to the next level. Outdoor space seems important, units and curtain wall breaks. New level needs resolution, repetition. PA: use strength to create connections, zigzag of units to follow zigzag design.
Patrick- no frames, very underdeveloped, little progress since midterm. PA- skylights not working as shown. Elevations do not show/relate to plans. Balconies are just tacked on. CR: project seems economical, but too simple. Sometimes simple=complicated. Needs more – extra piece that brings it to that level. Housing studio, there should not be a full site developed for offices….
Ariel- CR:Engagement with public at multiple levels. Create a large shared space=great! Large decks=smaller groups. Improvement on façade – look at 565 Broome Street. Ambitious student. PA: strange windows – quick. Take a look at Russian Constructivism=form. Encourage you to assemble – look at pieces to come together and let it read stronger.
Sara-no frames, technical issues.PA: normally does not prefer curves, but these curves are very graceful and soft. Before you leave this project, you need to create a large diagram overlapping the circles where these curves come from. Analytical studies. CR:enjoyed the physical model- realistic punched windows brings to mind an everyday element to your design, along with the whimsical structures on roof – interesting forms, juxtaposed with curves.
Faizan-CR:Great project, subtle scale – feels like London, Switzerland. Very successful with integration of landscape. Past form of housing=community. What kind of city are you developing? Beautiful plaza and scale of fabric. Buildings to edges – Peter Markley and Louis Kahn. Materials seem economical =meatl panels – colored. PA: historic fabric trying to use metal panels – using red =bricks be careful. Play with heights in section. A bit flat.
Jason-PA:form=function=façade- hard to see as you can walk through it. Glass is green with the blue reflections from sky. Form is hard to read when it is transparent. This project will change when rendered with materials and rendering. It may look much larger and massive when rendered. CR:bunch of individual spaces within the building. The Hick/Congress view shows the excitement of your project – compliments your curves of the building and site. Pick views wisely.
Michelle- PA: balconies – why solid on one side? Should always show your project to a non-architect. Building envelope need better represented. CR: “Conplexity+Contradiction” double functioning elements. Privacy and character, systematically = balconies.
Emmanuel- missing some drawings/underdeveloped. PA: Façade is very underdeveloped – the gray area needs punched windows. CR: the plans are very strong – take one of these plans and really organize the façade and materials in Revit to the same level as plans.
CR-Prof Chris Riley PA- Prof Phillip Anzalone MD- Prof Michael Duddy CB- Prof Chris Beck
- A good start but not enough site development beyond the stepped plaza
- Good apartment layouts but did not develop the long outside corridor connecting the buildings.
- Buildings need greater detail and massing and building have not developed over the past few weeks of the semester.
- Site plan lacks detail & development.
- layouts work but the neck between the two buildings was never developed.
- For the one part of the building with the cores close together I would move the left hand core down towards Columbia street and locate it in the inner corner.
- Good development over time – would still like to see the development of the square vertical buildings at the corners as a separate architectural element.
- A good start on building development but little or no real side development.
- Apartment layouts work very well – the effort to resolve the curves and balconies is noted.
- Would like to see more façade development – at present it is just a result of the floor plans.
- Site development is still in a preliminary form.
- Love the green cube site plan.
- It would be good if at least one of the final renderings showed the ground level site conditions instead of only show precedent studies. The site is quite developed, but the images shown do not feature it well enough. Once nice detailed rendering.
- The massing and façade with punched windows and balconies make a nice pattern and works well with the site plan texture.
- Need to address the top of the building and develop terraced apartments.
- For egress remove the travel distance to the elevator – not part of egress.
- Interesting buildings but it does it work as housing?
- Remove the second curve inside the buildings and develop the outer curve as a single loaded interior corridor – possibly with duplex apartments full floor on alternate levels.
- Only 1 building plan layout – no color – corridor too large.
- The project was never well developed.
- The buildings and the site have not developed much in the last few weeks and the site development needs better integrated with the buildings.
- Do more work to understand the inspiration of the Brooklyn Bridge.
- Buildings and site development have not developed much in the past few weeks.
- Design development is still preliminary.
- Buildings need to be better developed.
- Inner courtyard apartments do not work. – in particular at the tight inner corners.
- Consider a single loaded inner courtyard or think more in 3d and lower the water side of the building as in the Building Via 57 precedent.