In the time since leaving my previous scheme, I have been working on a design that responds better to the function and program of the project (a school), while still staying true to my thesis question (challenging the relationship between indoors and out).
The “three-fingered” plan is based on the idea that a school of 400 kids will be broken up into small learning communities (SLC’s, for you acronym lovers). Each of these communities have a variety of learning spaces used by the students and an interdisciplinary team of teachers. Amenities that are uneconomical to have in each SLC or that lend themselves to cross-SLC interaction (such as the library, music studio, certain science labs, kitchens, auditoriums, etc) will be central shared space for all students to use. As this idea developed, I began to consider using the metaphor of ecological succession (the framework for site design) to organize the SLC’s.
[click to view full images]
My reviewers at this week’s midterm all stoutly supported my thesis and program ideas and intentions and urged me to push them further in my design. One of the biggest points was the need to connect what happens in the main building with learning opportunities and spatial experiences across the site, whether through physical connections or architectural gestures. In doing so, the building becomes more a part of the landscape, and individual experience of the space becomes more fluid.
Another point, which is perhaps predicates the first, is that my design is too rigid. It is pretty fiercely symmetrical, despite site and other forces that would rather it be otherwise. Each SLC doesn’t need to be the same; rather, they would benefit from more diverse treatment and design. I can afford to be more playful, and push the envelope (andthe building envelope) further.
Frankly, this feedback was inspiring and motivating. and I spent a good three hours at my studio desk after the review hashing out new ideas. So look forward to the next incarnation, I think it’s going to be a good one.
Leave a Reply