were rather detailed and space specific. For example, I had a few comments
regarding the size of the ceiling at the main product floor (second level)
and what could be done so that it didn't seem so cumbersome. There were also
comments regarding certain vertical planes and how they could be made more
visually appealing. These were all valuable comments and will be crucial in
my further development of the design.
The most significant of the comments were a bit broader in scope and will
require deeper investigation to begin solving. They were, in no particular
order;
1.) The building presently feels as if it is two structures, one stacked
on top of the other. My main product floor, whose roof also serves as the
bottom level of the terraced garden, provides a visual break between the
lower two levels and the upper 3 as presently designed. This could be
validated, considering that the uses of the top 3 are significantly
different than the bottom 2, but I don't know if I want that break to be so
drastic. I originally foresaw the bottom levels (main floor, mezzanine
level, and level 2) as product and gathering spaces, whereas the top 3 were
to be destination points for field trips, computer labs, cyber café, and
teleconferencing type spaces. Some type of visual separation was intended
and acceptable, but I do not want it to be so overpowering that it
undermines the unity of the building. This will require additional
investigation.
2.) The placement of this building on Copley Square is an excellent
opportunity to engage the square that is not being fully realized by the
present design. There is the beginning of a relationship between the two,
but they are not nearly as connected as they could be. How can this be
rectified?
3.) A driving force behind the concept and the design is the "Green-ness"
of the building. The blurring of the transition between the interior and
exterior is a start, but there is so much more to being a green building
than just having plants and water inside. I will definitely need to further
study the arrangement of the spaces and anticipate the daylighting
characteristics of the building. Am I getting the right kind of sun where I
want it when I need it? Conversely, am I getting the wrong kind of sun where
I don't want it, when I don't need it? It isn't enough just to have it
looking green, it has to BE green for this concept to be realized.
Additionally, there was discussion as to where the break should take place
between the interior and exterior. Should the water feature/seating plaza,
which now spans both the interior and exterior, be fully enclosed in some
type of glass "nana-wall" which can be opened when the weather permits? This
would allow for year round use of the space.
It was also suggested that I may want to look at the buildings relationship
with the alley to its rear. The design presently is completely closed off to
the alley and, at this point, I can't really see any reason to change that.
The alley is not very desirable and I don't choose to engage it. Rather, I
am interested in encouraging the relationship with Copley square to the
front of the building. The alley serves as a decent opportunity to handle
services, i.e. shipping, receiving, waste disposal, etc. without making it a
focal point.
In closing, the comments were all very helpful, from the minute details that
some addressed to the more big picture issues. I will undoubtedly be doing
my best to address them as I move forward with the design.
No comments:
Post a Comment