L.E.S Critique

The feedback was good, it offered a constructive critique of the presented work and it highlighted further the gaps which I need to work on to create an overall coherent project, developing the strategy for sites 2 and 3, which Im working on, and creating a dialogue between all the three sites and well as the pilgrimage route itself ( not forgetting the stairs).

Site 2 – Is preserving the void – perhaps a  lost paradise ( ref. to Adams house in Paradise), also I was reading on the grid and creating a dialogue between the circle and the orthogonal grid of Manhattan, it reminded me that a couple of times a year the sun rises and set between cross-island streets ( becoming a ‘Manhattanhenge’) due to the grid being rotated 29 degrees on its North/ South axis – as I was thinking where the stairs within the curves would lead to or reveal… or allow for a view of something? Such as the Jantar Mantar stairs for reading the cosmos… Im thinking on its overall function and what it provides… Not sure where it will go!

I’m revisiting Delirious New York, as I haven’t read all the chapters; looking at reinforcing my thesis and build a stronger conclusion and positioning within the proposal.

I would like to focus on the design of these constructs over this next week, and create the links between each, as well as a clear definition of what each is preserving (Jessica questioned what I was preserving on site 2 and 3 (it needs working on it)). Include the stairs design into them, so that I can continue to develop these during the coming weeks.

Manijeh mentioned some provocative imagery that I used referencing value of air in NYC? I was thinking to create a set of those for each site, so that way introducing the strategy and idea behind each ( or provides a reference for what Im preserving i.e air rights/views – voids – facade).

Screen Shot 2016-03-18 at 13.22.12

Im also trying to create a template for the actual formatting and size of my folded maps/ postcards leaflets that will contain the proposal’s information and drawings. (not sure how everything will be combined -discuss Tuesday).

Currently thought is … working on a 600x600mm that will fold into 150x150mm squared. Im still trying out sizes so Ill have a better idea on Tuesday. But this grid gives flexibility to have different sizes, but ultimately they can all folded to the same 150×150.

Also, thinking on the actual box/ container that will house these/including my ‘case files’ from sem.1 – discuss on tuesday too!

Some very crude images here, Ill be visiting the Falkiners for more paper samples too, as Im not happy with the crease and thickness of the other samples I got.




One thought on “L.E.S Critique

  1. I really like the idea of Manhattanhenge – I can vividly picture it in my mind and its a nice connection between the Adam’s Paradise reference and the curved stairs of your anamorphic construct. I think you could also do some really nice technical drawings to explain the phenomenon of the grid meeting the circle and the 29 degree shift along the NS axis. It would be great to see a version of how you will incorporate this on Tuesday!
    I think what you are preserving in sites 2 and 3 is clear and present in the project but because the ‘what’ gets more intangible or uncollectible as you progress between the sites, its harder to grasp. So compared to the facade in site 1, the void or the air space is harder to understand as something you are actively collecting and exhibiting. I think those quick images to quickly capture people’s imagination are a nice idea like the ones you did for the air space are great but at the moment they then don’t relate directly to the proposal. Perhaps there’s a way of making them relate more closely?
    It also might help to spell out what you are preserving more clearly at the start of presenting each site, maybe by defining what it is that is being preserved and how you understand it in the context of the LES? Almost like a chapter opener in a book? If you think of your drawings as a postcard, the front could be the image of what is being preserved with your intervention in place and the back could be the definition, and when you unfold it you understand the strategy of how you have intervened and preserved the uncollectible?
    Regarding the format, I like the postcard size since it gives you a sense of nostalgia and collecting which is useful to appropriate in a project that is about uncollectibles and also both a cautionary tale as well as revealing the potential for regeneration. I think the square doesn’t have as many associations with it and perhaps is too neutral for the project. Experiment a bit more with the postcard size and how it can unfold to reveal larger drawings?
    It really helped that you pushed to have all three sites present for the cross-crits at various stages of development and as a result you got feedback on all three to push them forward. I think what’s important to remember as you move forward is to integrate the stairs in each of the interventions on site. They still feel a little too supplementary when they should be built into the arches, curves or frames of each site so that walking up or down them constructs the architectural and preservationist experience of the site. Hope that helps and looking forward to seeing how they develop for Tuesday!

Leave a Reply