Part II Review Abi Ashley Carlos

February 12, 2021 · by · in

Reviewer comments:

  • One of our goals is to promote connection and engagement, but what is going to bring people into our building if amenities such as cafes or social lounges are not part of the program? Need to find a way to create an engaging experience with the community
  • The massing of the building needs to derive out of / be a reflection of the analysis that was done. Massing needs to show how analysis informed it, and the relationship between analysis and program decisions needs to be clear, and logical.
  • Re-think how our goal is worded. ‘Comfortable spaces’ are hard to define and mean different things for everyone, try to be more specific and utilize words like ‘useful spaces’ and ‘inviting’ spaces.
  • The methods that we are using to scale our qualities need to be re-visited, specifically noise, and social projection. For noise, there needs to be further research about how noise works and how we’ll respond to it. For social projection, the existing scale is not particularly useful or accurate because ‘comfortable’ spaces is subjective. While one person may score well-lit open spaces with views throughout as a 5, another might feel overwhelmed and score the space as a 1 because they prefer a quiet retreat.
  • Main pathway alongside Allen: do we enclose it or keep it open-air? If enclosed, when the building is locked one can no longer walk through it, completely closing off that axis and forcing a person to walk around.
  • Friendly hall: make sure that we are planning the building mass (and program) intentionally around Friendly hall so that the space between Friendly and the addition does not feel like “leftover” space.
  • Urban analysis; some qualities “just won’t happen” in every space in the building/environment. Something to take into consideration when designing the program relationships.
  • The main entrance should be more clear, intentional, and relate to massing.