Post-First Review

Micro Study: I’ve settled on the idea for a micro study having something to do with mutable division of spaces, inside and out. A frame with customizable panels and multiple spatial organization options, a series of “pods” that can be moved to change the size and location of spaces (inspired by Shigeru Ban’s Naked House), a rolltop desk like option where walls can be instantly “constructed” and “deconstructed” (also inspired partially by Shigeru Ban’s work), or some combination of those options.

Macro Study: I have approximately one and a half blocks, which move through / under Burnside bridge, to use as my site. After doing a sun study, I am taking the “collage of parts” idea that is at the core of my project and using it to come up with the site design. Since the existing building (and therefore the major spaces where I will be designing the program) are sited in mostly shade, I’m proposing a sort of eco battery to be sited on the most northern part of the site where most of the sun falls. My site design is about pieces speaking to each other across the bridge, a collage of parts that come together to create a larger picture.

Comments from the Review: I should start to think about nature as the built environment, if indeed part of my idea is to create “Portland density” (where density is manifested through greenery, not necessarily construction), which involves studies through sections. I could start to take a look at historical maps, those showing the built and environmental history of the area. Perhaps these will give me some ideas to connect pieces of history to the present in terms of site design specifically. One juror mentioned the marshland that was at my site historically, and proposed the possibility of marshland informing the manner in which my program may “sink” into the site. My design will act as a gateway and billboard to those on the Burnside bridge, the public. From there, I should start to think about the manner in which the design meets the ground (as it affects the users of the building, not the public at large). I should start to think about how and why the two sections of the site and the pieces which live there interact. What is the most appropriate level of connection, and how do I achieve it? Suenn suggested thinking about ways of powering the building that involved the larger cityscape (for instance, is it possible to design a way for the cars that cross the bridge to power the building?) The final comment was to let the nature of interaction I’m looking for in my program help inform the solution to the various site issues (for example, the “disconnect” between sides of the bridge).

Below are two sketches I presented at the review. One speaks to the character of the site and the nature of the interaction across the bridge, and the other speaks to the character of the program and the nature of the interaction across different program elements.