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. 

Day 22: Finalizing master plans

Following Gijs' departure, the focus of the studio for many of the students is the continuing refinement and development of their master plan for the site. The project has been a continual balancing act between the development of the overall urban approach to the site, including the treatment of Marion Street and the response to the waterfront plan, and the refinement of the walkway—particularly its structure and and related spaces and functions. What appeared to be a simple project has ended up being quite challenging for all. With the master plan, the problem has been to deal with the at-grade condition. The situation at the terminal has been particularly difficult, and in many cases has required a revision to the proposed terminal's design. 

Day 21: Project development 2

This was Gijs' last day in studio and the students effort to refine their project at the level of the master plan continued. In a number of cases some rather useful models were made that tried to sort out the form of the project at an overall scale. Others worked through digital means to try to solve the problem of the form of the project and its relationship to the site. This effort will continue as we move into the final 3 weeks of the quarter, but there is some satisfaction that the projects are reaching a point of clarity at a time where the students will be able to fully represent the range of their concerns and selectively develop some areas in detail. As instructors we have noted that some projects have this capacity for detail and some do not. Rather than a criticism it is an observation that some projects rely more on detail and others provide a more general response. It was hard for Gijs to leave at this point, as it was also for Claudia, but the students have gotten some great input from them and we are all grateful for their participation in the studio.  

Day 20: Project development

We went around the studio, speaking with each student, and in each case trying to clarify the master plan of the project and at the same time define its essential qualities—in form, in materials and in structure. The sectional drawings that we derived for each scheme was a great help in allowing the students to focus on the unique qualities of each scheme. We encouraged the students to re-engage with their overall plan as a way to refine the project and bring it to a point of clarity. For most that involved a combination of working in drawing--many doing this with hand drawing--and doing some small-scaled study models of components. With most of the projects their main qualities have emerged and it is a matter of balancing the overall form with structural and material considerations. Although it is a studio themed about structure (and infrastructure), due to the scale and complexity of the project and its urban situation we have chosen to not impose the most detailed technical considerations. Instead, it is a balancing act in a middle ground where design considerations meet technique. 

Day 19: Eleven Projects

On Monday of week 7, immediately following the mid-review, Gijs and I had a general discussion with the students about the review. One of the things we mentioned, was that in reviewing their work we found it interesting that each of their sections across Marion Street were distinctive--and characteristic of their projects in an almost symbolic way. Gijs had done a drawing when we discussed the projects, which he formalized and we sent to the students to show this. This drawing was a reminder to us and to the students that in designing a pedestrian bridge, each of their projects took a unique approach to the urban space of Marion Street. We also mentioned that we will be providing them with a fixed format for their drawings, as the intention will be to make the final review like an exhibition and then assemble the projects in a publication--with details to follow. In that context, those emblematic sections along Marion Street can be an identifying marker for each project.  

Day 18: Mid-review

We had our mid-review today with four invited critics, Wyn Bielaska from Chihuly Studios, Lisa Chun from Zero-Plus Architects, Brian Court from the Miller|Hull Partnership and Tyler Sprague from the UW Architecture Department. It was a lively afternoon of discussion covering a wide range of issues; from the response to the urban context to detailed considerations of form and structure. At the end of the review the critics expressed their enthusiasm for the projects and were impressed with the variety of approaches to what seems like a simple task of designing a replacement for the Marion Street pedestrian bridge. This was also the last day that Claudia Pagani was in the studio as she will return to Rome and communicate the progress of the students to Paolo Desideri. 

Day 17: From Site to Detail

A number of the students have continued to work on their detailed model as they try to balance that effort with the general approach to the site. Claudia, Gijs and I went around to each of the students to provide some final input before the mid-review on Friday. With a number of the projects the detailed model clearly provoked some new ideas in the broader design of the site. It is evident with this project that even as you develop some aspects in greater detail, they cannot fail to influence the larger scale considerations of the site. In discussing the review with the students, we emphasized the importance of addressing the urban condition of Marion Street and the waterfront condition by the ferry terminal through their perspective drawings. We hope that each student will have a full range of scales of thinking at the review so that they can get the most comprehensive (and detailed) input possible. 

Day 16: Model Workshop

On the first day that Gijs Pyckevet was in the studio, the students were asked to build a detailed model--mostly at 1/4" scale--of a portion of their project to look at the most detailed issues of structure and material. Through this 4 hour exercise, Gijs was introduced to all of the student projects while also providing input on their ideas of structure and material. For a number of students the exercise was quite useful to clarify the ideas of the project in such a way that it gave input to their general urban proposal. Of course, in any architectural project the relationship between the detail and the larger scale of the site and the broader conception of the project is crucial. In this week leading up to the mid-review it allowed all students to consider what, at this time, is their most detailed moment.  

Day 15: From Site to Detail

In our desk critiques on May Day, we began to increasingly discuss the detailed implications of the projects. Though some students are still clarifying their urban intervention, most are looking at their project in terms of structure and detail. With a number of projects that issue of structure has become a major force in their conception of the project, where issues of support and suspension have taken on an iconic character. In particular there has been a lot of attention on the transition between the urban space of Marion Street--which has a particular scale and character--and the space of the waterfront--which relates much more to the piers, the proposed waterfront design and even the ferries. That transition has been challenging for many as they seek a certain coherence in their projects while responding to these different site conditions.  

Day 14: Claudia presents Roma Tre projects

At the beginning of studio, Claudia Pagani presented some thesis projects from students taught by Paolo Desideri at Roma Tre. The two thesis projects that were shown were part of a larger master plan that was aimed at connecting many of the dispersed archeological sites around the ancient fora in Rome while also dealing with the new urban conditions and infrastructure of roads and subways. The first was a project that dealt with the area around the Colosseum, and it responded to the existing subway station as well as to the need to redefine the traffic pattern in that area. It also connected to the many archeological sites in that area that are presently not connected by taking advantage of the fact that they can be linked below the current street level. A second project dealt with the Foro Boario which was similarly dealing with traffic while making below grade connections. The third engaged the Ponte Rotto through a set of new pedestrian links across the Tiber and to the banks on both sides of the river. This project had some quite interesting details that dealt with structural issues while managing the complex series of levels that needed to be connected. Following the presentation, we both saw the student projects in a series of desk critiques. 

Day 13: Week 5 Review

Today Claudia Pagani joined the studio and after a brief introduction to her background we reviewed the projects in groups of 2 or 3 projects. A lot of work took place over the weekend as the projects gained definition through some detailed sections and drawings. The individual character of many of the projects was also evident and the comments tried to focus on those qualities in moving the projects forward. A number of the drawings really showed the promise of the students ideas, whether that be a detailed ground plan, a perspective or a section. We encouraged the students to continue to refine their projects, though the area of focus varied considerably from one to the next. It was a great introduction to the work of the studio for Claudia and a nice chance for the students to get her input.  

Day 12: Buildings and Food

On our fourth Friday of the quarter, the students are focused on the development of their projects for the review on Monday with Claudia Pagani from ABDR Architetti Associati. She will be in Seattle participating in the studio for two weeks. While the projects continue to develop in greater detail, with a closer focus on the issue of structure and form, the urban space is, in a number of cases, seeing much closer attention to match this focus. Today was also the open studio day this quarter, where students wander between the studios--each of which provides food for their guests while they look at the work. We did our best to combine Italian themed food with a variety of other international foods. 

Day 11: From Site to Form, Part 2

The students have continued to work on the digital site model and the sketches and drawings are beginning to show greater precision. At the same time it is important that the projects maintain their focus on the urban space of Marion Street. A number of the projects are working with sketches to simultaneously develop their urban and structural approach to the site. The urban approach in many of the projects is to try to incorporate and relate to as many of the buildings as possible along the street. An even more difficult challenge has been addressing the proposed Colman Dock Ferry terminal. 

Day 10: From Site to Form

On Monday I caught up with the students and the progress they made in leading up to the review last Friday. We had a general discussion about the progress of the student work, which up to this point has focused on the urban strategy. The students began work on a more detailed digital model, taking into account all of the details of the site context. The site was divided up into sections so that each student has a responsibility. The stress was on moving to a more precise definition of the site condition, which will allow the students to consider increasing detail in the consideration of material and structure. 

Day 09: Urban Strategy Review

On the last day of Paolo's initial visit there was a review of the progress of the student work with Tyler Sprague. There was a spirited discussion of the project, where students were advised to move from the scheme to the morphology of the structure. It was clear that the idea of the morphology of the projects was related to the translation of the scheme into a form. This translation should take place in an indirect way, taking into account the suggestions that the site can provide. Paolo encouraged the students to creatively interpret the form of the structure in this way to avoid an exploration of form as an autonomous principle. The projects presented show the wide range of interests on the part of the students.  

Day 08: Desk critiques

The focus of the student work continues to be on the urban scale in order to clarify the broad intention of intervening in the site. In addition we are talking about the structural and formal idea that relates to this site intervention. The emphasis in the desk critiques has been to continually reference the development of the project to the site conditions. The work continues through models and sketches, though the emphasis is on more precise drawings at a larger scale, particularly in section. Through working carefully in the site at increasing levels of detail, the hope is that the projects gain a specificity that pertains to this specific site. On the issue of structure, the discussion has been around responsive rather than standardized forms of structure. 

Day 07: Urban Intentions, Part 2

The review of projects continued to be related to the urban intentions, with the argument that at the broadest scale the project was an urban project even if there would eventually be some development of structural and material aspects. One question that he asked of a number of students was to consider the different segments of the site as responding to different necessities. While the connection over top of the Alaskan Way would link the ferry passengers to the site and the city, this did not necessitate bridging all the way to 1st Avenue. In a number of cases as well, students were being asked to respond with greater specificity to the context. At the same time, some of the projects began to work with a more specific idea of their form relative to this urban condition.

Day 06: Urban intentions

Following a visit to the site, Paolo emphasized the importance of the urban conditions to the consideration of the project. Rather than merely solving a technical project of providing a pedestrian pathway from the ferry, he stressed the importance of considering the urban conditions of the site. It is for this reason that the work of Boris Podrecca was suggested to the students. In many of his projects the concern is with the urban space and with ways of working with surface and materials to create a strong sense of continuity. A number of the projects have embraced this challenge and are working toward even including some of the existing buildings in their attempt to create a strong idea of urban space linked to the problem of the pedestrian bridge. 

Day 05: First review with Paolo Desideri

Paolo arrived from Rome, after an unplanned overnight stay in Calgary, in mid-Morning on Wednesday. This was our first review, which gave a chance for him to see what was going on with the studio. We reviewed the projects in three groups, with the students being asked to identify the problems that they were trying to solve through their projects rather than specifying the concepts they were pursuing in their design. The review provided Paolo with an initial introduction to the students, the project and the site. Through asking the students to focus on the necessity of their response, they were being asked to clarify their goals in a direct way. There was a wide range of responses, with many of the students working in physical models.  

Day 04: Colman Dock Ferry Terminal

As the projects are advancing in their design, particular attention is being given to the connection between the new bridge structure and the proposed new Ferry Terminal at Colman Dock. As the drawing below shows, the Seattle Waterfront Plan includes a number of systems of circulation, from cars and pedestrians to a dedicated bike track that will run continuously along the waterfront. Although bikes will not be coming off the upper deck of the ferries, the inclusion of bike stations and the potential for bike parking for people riding to the terminal and going without bikes on the ferry creates the potential for bike access to the bridge structure. A number of the projects have thus begun to look at this intersection as crucial node within the functioning of the bridge, ferry terminal and waterfront. 

From Seattle Design Commission Report, October 2014. 

Day 03: Marion Street Bridge and Waterfront Plan

The initial design responses of students are beginning to take shape in response to the design of the waterfront plan as well as to the program for the new Marion Street pedestrian bridge. We printed out a large copy of the design proposal for the Seattle Waterfront (see below), and posted it in studio as a reference to the broader context that all projects must take into account.  

Seattle Waterfront Concept Plan from waterfrontseattle.org  

Day 02: Site discussion and preliminary ideas

In our first day working in the studio we took a little bit of time to discuss some of the issues of the site. We spent a good amount of time talking about the flow of bicycles and pedestrians, noting that since the bicycles ride along with the automobiles on the lower deck of the ferries, they would not necessarily use the raised pathway. It was noted, however, that some may want to ride their own bikes or use bike sharing at the terminal and thus bikes may have a more direct impact on the shared pathway. In addition to considering issues related to circulation and movement of pedestrians, bicycles and cars, a number of questions were raised about the problem of creating a vital public space that can be active through supporting functions that draw people to the site beyond ferry passengers. A number of students have begun initial diagrams and studies of the project and site models are underway as well. Here is an image of our studio space, which is in the north-west corner of the building. 

Day 01: Site visit and trip to Bainbridge

After a brief introduction to the studio and the project, we headed downtown to our site--which is on Marion Street between First Avenue and Alaskan Way. After missing out on the 3:00 pm ferry, we took a few minutes to check out the existing Marion Street Pedestrian Bridge (the redesign of which is our studio problem). We then caught the 3:50 ferry to Bainbridge Island, returning to Seattle on the 4:35 ferry back to Colman Dock Ferry Terminal. The weather was amazing, and gave us a chance to view Seattle from afar while thinking about the daily trek back and forth for many who live on Bainbridge Island and beyond and work in Seattle. We returned to Seattle just at the beginning of the evening rush hour heading back to the Island and this gave a decent sense of just how busy this pedestrian bridge can be at peak travel times. It was a great way to start the project and we will begin Wednesday studio looking at some initial design ideas while talking more generally about the larger framework of the new Seattle Waterfront Plan. 

urban (INFRA)structure studio