- focusing on interlinking spaces
- common spaces intersect with digital consumption (study spaces) and digital production (workshop) spaces
- physical intersections produce social interactions - knowledge transfer, centred around vertical circulation
- what else can the architecture do to facilitate social interconnectivity and exchange of ideas?
- seems to be a lot of open-ended spaces... need to further refine spaces - with program? material? detail? gaming concepts?
- i think the building is still a bit too big... gross 37000sf.. maybe my scale is still off..
- compared to: KPMB library at bathurst/front is only 16000sf
- visual and physical intersection of spaces
- starting to look into materiality
You are correct - the building is still very much a large proposal.
ReplyDeleteThe interlinking of spaces is not really resolved in a way that goes beyond pulling volumes together. The value that I believe you are trying to get to would have to be highlighted in those zones of overlap which unfortunately do not show in your plans. It seems that these areas instead are either underdeveloped such as the transitions between "Collab/Meeting areas" and any other spaces or are simply connected with steps. I can see the multi-height spaces placed in these intersection nodes have potential and that you seem to know that they can be something useful however they do not seem to be scaled to the size where you could actually see them as "play" or interaction spaces. If the purpose is to really capitalize on the intersection zones as the key spaces between discrete programmatic elements, you should really start explicitly showcasing the differences in rigid programmed spaces versus the interaction spaces; for example, this may be done through materiality (i.e. quiet work spaces may be concrete while gap zones for interaction are in wood/steel) or even openness/light (i.e. quiet spaces dealt with in darker conditions while the interaction spaces are open and naturally lit). Those are just a couple of ways but certainly need refinement.
The other aspect of your library (as with other students' proposals) is that you might wish to really take advantage of circulation spaces as the interaction zones in an overt way - recalling what you proposed in your first project. Though Snohetta does it quiet a lot, perhaps you should take a look at this in their work - not just the SLC, but also precedents like their DIALOG collaboration for Calgary's Central Library. It isn't quite as "playful" as you might envision, but it certainly deals with the interaction component.
This initial set of drawings also come across as quite early and one would hope that the volumes do not have to stay as boxes but instead can take on a more holistic and engaging form. This would also allow you to have more design opportunity with the intersection/active zones.
Regarding your dilemma with the library on the site, rather than trying to spread program around the site through parking and cafes, it might be interesting to build low and flat instead of high. Certainly you may opt for a couple of stories here and there and possibly even digging into the ground but what if you could keep the project relatively low and set up the different programmatic elements as slightly higher or lower than each other, use the mild transition spaces as gathering zones, and ensure that users could visually connect with all the zones available to them? That might be more conducive to the notions of holistic social dynamics and also address your spatial challenge.
Your perspective sketch is a conventional ideal for large public spaces but still does not really showcase your position on the interactivity and social engagement that is possible within the realm of architecture. Effectively, what is done in this space that is done beyond conventional practice and where are your ideas re: play/social interaction highlighted here?