Day 29: Aftermath

On our last official studio day, Paolo had already left, so things were pretty informal. We had some general conversation, talked a bit about the review and wished each other well for the summer. As is usually the case, the studio was in a pretty bad state. The aftermath of any studio always has a similar feeling. The intensity of the last days leaves the space in ruins and the days after the space seems quite desolate. Nevertheless, this quarter it seemed a great experience for all. I can certainly say this for myself and for Paolo, Claudia and Gijs, that we had a great time with the project--which seemed to be a great success. Now on to the publication of the student work!

Day 28: Final review

We made a decision to hold the review as a one-on-one review for each student. At any one time there were 6 to 8 critics talking to the students. I was more or less occupied with making sure each student had enough feedback. By the end of the review each had spoken to at least 4 different critics. While some had done similar reviews, it was probably a bit more intense than previously because of the space--we were in Arch 250. All of the 11 projects were pinned up side-by-side in that linear space. The critics that attended the review were Wyn Bielaska, Josh Brevoort, Maria Do, Amit Ittyerah and Sam Kraft along with faculty members Alex Anderson, Peter Cohan, Rob Corser, Nicole Huber and our Chair Dave Miller. It was a great afternoon and we are very grateful to the input that the projects received. At the end of the review we had a general conversation for around 45 minutes. It was a great day!  

Day 27: Final drawings

In studio we spoke to those that needed some input on their final drawings. In a number of cases we gave some graphic advice, but mostly we were there for moral support and general guidance. The projects all seem to have reached a good level in their development and our goal these last days has been to make sure that the effort made is communicated in an effective way. There are also, always, some final design decisions that need to be made very carefully as they often have a major impact. The difficult thing is that as a critic we are often just looking at computer screens in an effort to give that final guidance. 

Day 26: Representation

In studio we spoke to the students about their final presentation boards. The emphasis was not on the technical aspect of the drawings so much as the task of representing their ideas through drawing. While many students have produced the necessary drawings, they had not thought as much about the representing task (as in re-presenting). The project is at an important point where most of the design considerations have been formalized, and the last step is in explaining their projects, almost as a competition entry to a jury. With the formal of the final review being informal rather than formal, this is a necessary task. 

Day 25: Paolo returns to Seattle

Paolo returned to Seattle late Monday evening, so today was his first day in studio. For some reason we had not taken a group photo, so we went ahead and did one before getting underway. For the studio day itself, it was a good time for him to catch up with the student projects--which have progressed a lot since he left in mid-April. The conservations ranged widely, but encompassed some detailed issues of structure as well as more general approaches to communicating the projects effectively in drawing. A number of projects will need to carefully consider illustrative diagrams and drawings while others need to develop some final details that have arisen in their designs.  

Day 24: Marion Street as an urban space

The core of the design task for the students remains defining Marion street as an urban space. The projects have now reached a point where they have developed the street space in a complete way. This has involved some fairly detailed ideas about materials and surfaces of the bridge as well as of the ground level. Many students have show a great amount of interest in the use of landscape elements, including considerations of the project as a kind of natural landscape. In addition, considerations of tactility of materials, the experience at night, and even sound have given shape to many of these projects. 

Day 23: Defining the waterfront and ferry terminal

One of the major areas of concentration of the projects has been the area nearby the ferry terminal. Although the terminal design is only schematically defined it is important that each project tackle how their new bridge meets the terminal. In addition, the waterfront design is only defined in the planning documents of the City of Seattle, so students do not have the luxury of direct experience of that waterfront condition. As a result the way that the projects meet the waterfront condition has been challenging, though the recent work shows how many of them have started to respond by finding a way to enhance the waterfront condition.