This last Friday we spent in critique at the Graham foundation in the northern historic residential district of Chicago. Through the help of Thomas Norman Rajkovich and Allyson Vincent we had constructive critiques of our projects. Even though we spent a long day presenting and exploring options within the eight different projects within our studio, it is always challenging to come out with an entirely positive outlook pertaining to the in-depth look at your project by professionals.
T’s F’s and P’s of the Church:
Triumphs: Overall great urban plan and the relationship between the train station and church. And that the building work well to create a sense of community.
Failures: Through the critique one element about my project that was made clear was the need for a concise and adequate program. This has been something I have been struggling to gain a cohesive understanding of my project as a whole with it due to the fact that I was not able to work for a specific client. Through this understanding there were things that were lacking in the project pertaining to egress and facilities. Another thing that was talked about was the siting of the building. The casting a professional eye on the project thought that it would be more ideal to push the building back on the site and elongate the nave, this elongation creates a better entry sequence into the church as well as provides for the specific programmatic needs of the project.
Progress: This week I plan to, while entering my project on the computer to continue work in AutoCAD and Revit, work on further understanding the critiques and come up with some solutions for some of the projects that they saw. First I plan to do more research on trying to either look at existing churches, new or old, to create a more adequate program to fit the needs of the church. Secondly I plan to elongate the nave and create a better sense of egress into the building; this elongation will most likely cause drastic changes to the west elevation of the church. Through this elongation I will push the building toward the rear setback and box out around the apse of the church to provide a room for the priest preparation as well as a sacristy which will be the location that the sacraments will be prepared. Through moving the church back on the site and the elongation of the nave I hope there will still be some room for a small plaza in front of the church itself that relates to the northern grand plaza and the train station.
T’s F’s and P’s of the train station:
(Due to the size of the drawings for the train station I will have to scan them another time and get them up here. )
Triumphs: The overall form of the train station was a sensible arrangement and overall siting was good with the way that it was organized to the larger public plaza.
Failures: one of the biggest things that were talked about was the continuing engagement to the structure of the building and how that reads through the programmatic spaces within and around the building. Those critiquing advised to work on the clarity of the three separate structural systems: the trabeated system of the great hall, the wall based system of the flanking wings and the trabeated iron or steel system of the train shed.
Progress: Through the clarification of structure it will help me enable the clarity of the program through the elements which I already have in place. I have looked at several precedents on how to resolve the integration of metal with masonry which I plan to document later. Over all the trainstation needs simpler adjustments than does the church.
Through Spring break I plan to work out some of these kinks in the problems that I am having and keep pushing hard toward the final. As always comments, questions, and critiques are always appreciated.