Thank you, Ryan I am sorry that I couldn't attend your presentation. Especially, because, after viewing your presentation, I am not quite sure if I understand your design intention.
First, I am little surprised to see that your final submission is quite far from what you have had in your desk crits - but that is not a problem on its own. Your idea of addressing the orphan spaces in the city have been very intriguing to me from the start. Now, whether orphan spaces are result of the use of mobile technologies - I am not so convinced. Orphan spaces have always existed as a byproduct or leftover of the bad urban design, don’t you agree? . However, if the issue that you want to address is the decline of human interaction with the public space...? Well, maybe we should start with examining how was that interaction happening BEFORE we had mobile phones - if you can remember that :) And what does the "human interaction with public space" really means? Public space, if it is well designed and has certain amenities, would always attract people to come and stay for some time, either eating lunch, sitting on a bench, meeting a friend, having a break, watching people passing by, having a cigarette, reading a book, etc. And they still do that. I don't really see how the use of mobile technologies affected that. On contrary, mobile technologies are freeing us from being attached to designated buildings (office, home, university, coffee-shop) and are allowing us to actually do all of these things WHILE enjoying nice public spaces.
Or maybe there is something here that I am missing...
Looking at your strategies: I am not sure I understand what do you mean by the second one.
But moving on to your design: just based on the visual impressions of the structure presented in your slides, I am not convinced that what you proposing really responds to your position. In your design, I don't see the transition from public to private; on contrary, I see this fortress-looking structure, that does not entice passerbys to stop and enter. Even the acrylic rods are so densely placed, that I am not sure if a person can physically pass through, let alone pause, sit and enjoy/interact with public space (in your original presentation that I reviewed, the slide 3 was missing, so I didn't quite get it what those rods are). Finally, we get into the building, which is just a room with conventional furniture and unclear purpose. What will make me come in there and sit, when there is a nice park just across the street, where I can much better interact with public space by enjoying the scenery, absorbing sun rays, smell the grass and other plants, listen to birds chirping, while still answering my e-mails and/or reading a book (actual or e-book). Similarly to what I wrote to Jason: isn't this ultimately an oxymoron? Mobile technologies freed us from fixed spaces; is there a real need for forcing a new relationship with built structures?
Thank you, Ryan
ReplyDeleteI am sorry that I couldn't attend your presentation. Especially, because, after viewing your presentation, I am not quite sure if I understand your design intention.
First, I am little surprised to see that your final submission is quite far from what you have had in your desk crits - but that is not a problem on its own. Your idea of addressing the orphan spaces in the city have been very intriguing to me from the start. Now, whether orphan spaces are result of the use of mobile technologies - I am not so convinced.
Orphan spaces have always existed as a byproduct or leftover of the bad urban design, don’t you agree?
.
However, if the issue that you want to address is the decline of human interaction with the public space...? Well, maybe we should start with examining how was that interaction happening BEFORE we had mobile phones - if you can remember that :)
And what does the "human interaction with public space" really means?
Public space, if it is well designed and has certain amenities, would always attract people to come and stay for some time, either eating lunch, sitting on a bench, meeting a friend, having a break, watching people passing by, having a cigarette, reading a book, etc. And they still do that. I don't really see how the use of mobile technologies affected that. On contrary, mobile technologies are freeing us from being attached to designated buildings (office, home, university, coffee-shop) and are allowing us to actually do all of these things WHILE enjoying nice public spaces.
Or maybe there is something here that I am missing...
Looking at your strategies: I am not sure I understand what do you mean by the second one.
But moving on to your design: just based on the visual impressions of the structure presented in your slides, I am not convinced that what you proposing really responds to your position. In your design, I don't see the transition from public to private; on contrary, I see this fortress-looking structure, that does not entice passerbys to stop and enter. Even the acrylic rods are so densely placed, that I am not sure if a person can physically pass through, let alone pause, sit and enjoy/interact with public space (in your original presentation that I reviewed, the slide 3 was missing, so I didn't quite get it what those rods are).
Finally, we get into the building, which is just a room with conventional furniture and unclear purpose. What will make me come in there and sit, when there is a nice park just across the street, where I can much better interact with public space by enjoying the scenery, absorbing sun rays, smell the grass and other plants, listen to birds chirping, while still answering my e-mails and/or reading a book (actual or e-book).
Similarly to what I wrote to Jason: isn't this ultimately an oxymoron? Mobile technologies freed us from fixed spaces; is there a real need for forcing a new relationship with built structures?