Part one of two done. Overall I got some good critical feedback from both sets of reviews last Thursday. I feel my concept (or delivery of intentions) was a little more clear this time and better received. At least in regards to building choice and form. The case still needs to be stronger for Milwaukee, and there are some clear reasons in the works. Most of these strengthen or clarify the original intent: Vertical farming in Milwaukee, specifically the reuse of abandoned industrial cores is a great stage for other cities in the Rustbelt with similar derelict buildings. That and the cultural awareness of agriculture in the Midwest makes a strong case for a new model of farming taking place where food is actually grown.
Other comments included a stronger reworking of the existing building. The program and it’s relationship with the greenhouse portion may not be as strong is it could be. This will be an emphasis next term. Also perhaps including a stronger reason for the public to be in this building other than buying produce. I think there is a great opportunity for some sort of educ
More diagrams too, especially ones that are able to convince peers of the viability of vertical farming. These include diagrams as simple as showing numbers and space differentials, to showing the lack of natural edges around the Milwaukee River (there are none nearby), thus the need for a green space.
Overall I feel good where my project is, and aware of the improvements that need to be made next term.
Links to final boards (jpgs have been somewhat sized down):
Board 1
Board 2
Board 3
Board 4
I loooooove this. Love. But what happens if you wished to build it on the non-grass surface? e.g. cement?