So far...

My first attempts at the building were derived primarily from the site, using the street edges created by the existing buildings.  One of the main ideas was to raise the building off the ground to create more of a transition space between the space of the street and the space of Harvard Yard.  The problem I encountered with this approach was that I tended to block off the program so that yes the building was raised up, but it was boring sectionally.  The next step was to create a more interesting section so that as you walk under the building so there are more abrupt changes in height, making you more aware of the transition between spaces.  The section did become more interesting but when adding the program in, I lost the site connection.



early models



improved sectional models

 

   



 

  

The critics at the mid review provided some very helpful criticism.  I think the overall theme was that I really need to step back and clarify what I want the building to do.  If I say that the building is supposed to be like the gates and the fence- permeable but defining space- then I have to create that. I can't just lift the building up.   I knew that the space under the building couldn't be empty, but that's something that has to be developed from the beginning-otherwise it becomes just an elevated building.  Also, the sectional changes can't be disconnected from the site.  Where there are sectional voids become the "gates" and the masses have to reach down to become the "fence".  Another thing to keep in mind is that I've argued that you can see through the fence, so I have to consider how much you can see through the building.  Perhaps there needs to be a module where the building is more transparent- the iron parts of the fence- and then more solid- like the brick pieces that also keep the fence standing.  Every decision should be based around the same idea.  Another statement that I thought was interesting from the review was about how the building relates to the Carpenter Center.  I know that this is part of the project statement, but I seem to have been disregarding it, something I shouldn't be doing.

Site Collage

When making the site collage I started by cutting up pictures from the site pertaining to the fence.  I started with the dark squares from each of those pictures and used them as the center that would lead up to the trees and sky that covered both sides.  The dark then acts as a transition space, much like the gates in the fence.  On the two sides are the two different materials that make up the fence, representing the different qualities of the two spaces: Harvard Yard and Quincy Street.

Moving Forward

On Tuesday we presented three schemes for the film archive.  The main concepts that I am working with came from the site mapping, using the street edge for the building site.  One model had the building following the street space opposite the Carpenter Center, while the other one stood over the street.  Both were raised up so that pedestrians have to travel through the building (underneath) to pass into Harvard Yard.  It is intended to increase the transition space of the gates that I originally looked at.  Suggestions for combining the schemes included using the Carpenter Center side street edge to help create building form on the other side of the street.  For tomorrow I have to look at the form more three dimensionally and how it can change both in plan and sectionally.  \

some of the original schemes:

 

Site Mapping

For my site I chose to focus on Quincy St, particularly the street edge opposite the Carpenter center.  I first looked at how the formal Harvard gates and iron fence created two distinct spaces on either side- the space of the street, and the space of the Harvard yard traditions.  So  I looked at the the space between the buildings.  The circulation is also lowered because it cuts through the spaces, adding to the transition zones of the gates. 

The start of the site collage

So I've officially chosen a site along the edge of Quincy Street.  On one side of the street is a series of formal gates into Harvard quads.  The gates and adjoining fence create a sort of wall between the traditional campus spaces and the street, and even the other side of the street.  The gates act as both a way to keep you out and a way to create a grand entrance.  They are transition spaces.  When next to the fence, you can see in, but you aren't actually inside.  The site then has to deal with the different spaces on either side. 



diagram looking at pedestrian circulation and the street




diagram looking at the gates as entranceways to multiple places




one side of the street is higher until the fence and the gates act as ramps between the two layers of the site

 So far I don't think I've found a good way to really express how the gates transition and how the two sides of the gates are different.  I think looking at the two sides on different layers is a good place to start, but there it needs to do something more.

Machines for Seeing

We finally finished with the machines for seeing and the cubist painting!  The machine for seeing cubist was a simple machine that had two sides of plexi so that they would reflect the object.  It also had four slides that have horizontal lines based on the regulating lines of the landscape that worked off the regulating lines of the painting.  The effect was to show depth and perspective.  It works fairly well because you can see the layers of space.  The second machine, for seeing nothing, was built from a cylinder of mirror with four lenses spaced throughout.  I think it is effective at refracting the image so that you can't tell what the object is.  However, in the review John brought up a good point that the user of the machine has no sense of the build up of layers of refraction.  I agree that that would have made the machine much stronger and more interactive.  I should have at least studied it by looking at how just the mirrors affect the image and then how each added lense distorts the image further.  It was also interesting in the reviewto hear about the machines that made you aware of the space inside of them versus ones that did not.  At one point in the project I wanted the machine user to know that they were looking through something but I never really made a conscious attempt to stick to that or to really think that maybe that meant seeing the space inside the model.  Overall it was neat to see all the different ideas that the group came up with for the machines.

Machine for Seeing

Machine for Seeing Nothing