Comments by Michael Leocata – Cody Studio : Final Jury May’10

Rob,

Here you go.  Sorry it took so long.

Mike

Comments by Michael Leocata – Cody Studio : Final Jury May’10          

Studio:

In all, really nice work.  The effort to create a solid and stylized presentation was appreciated and successful.  More importantly, I thought the progression from where the projects were (from my last visit) to the direction shown - was very good.  This phase of work, in my opinion – is a much more difficult process than the concept work I reviewed last time.

There were some general items that would make the techniques of the presentations stronger...  Just some suggestions: 

v       Bring study models and sketches which bolster your thesis

v       When describing your design process. Don’t use words such as, “I was playing around with this….”   Rather, present your work with, “I was investigating…”  Architecture is a rigorous analysis, so don’t cheapen your approach with wrong word choice.

v       Look out for misspellings on your drawings.  I saw the word “SEXTION” on one, I don’t know if that was a Freudian play on words, but once again – double check.

v       Time management – the final model is a trap.  Be sure that in every model made, (be it the final white strathmoor board or the initial gesture chipboard study) is an excuse to make/manipulate space.  If the model is to fulfill a requirement, it will more than likely be unsuccessful.

Projects:

Brian: Hawaii lab building– Glad to see that you didn’t bring along the SIPs panel this time ;).  The project came a long way in attempting to deal with the site.  My comments were that the architecture didn’t modulate itself enough from point of entry to the larger spaces.  The building needed to be developed, defined and detailed.  The windows and the experience of the exterior walls folding away and disappearing needed to be a point of departure.  The use of the indigenous black sand could have resulted in an interesting brise soleil that actually addressed the concerns of the overpowering glare and midday sun issues surrounding your site. 

The colored plans were nicely drawn, but your final model was not as powerful as your earlier studies, culminating with the rear retaining wall (cistern) which was architecturally unsuccessful.

Stacy: Holistic Long Island Community Center – Architecturally speaking, your work was a major push forward from my last visit.  The drawings and models were well executed.  There were a couple of criticisms that were mentioned that I agreed with in terms of the creating of the courtyard space, and the randomness of the façade skin, but I thought – that IF you introduced a couple of living units onto the site – it would have bolstered the premise of your thesis.  To create / activate that site with amenities (and proximity to trains), the natural progression would be housing.  Even if a pioneering singular housing unit was created for the caretaker of the facility, it would lend to the permanence and importance to your project.

Dennis: NJ Community Center and School – In my opinion, your project not only became successful, but became architecture.  Previously your project evolved from three disparate buildings in a field to an integrated amalgam that created its own archetype.  Perhaps the portalled façade was a bit too funky for some, I appreciated its playfulness – especially in its skin for a school.  Your drawings and model were very well constructed and what I thought was most successful was your investigation of the project in section.  To emerge from the ground to the entry is a powerful way to approach the site.  Good work.

Matt:  Farmer’s Education Center – I really like your thesis.  The building at time of the presentation needed work.  My comments were to mirror the location of the living quarters so that their facades bask in the south light.  The idea of the court space was intriguing but needed development and investigation.  Since the jury, I peeked into the studio blog and noticed the current state of your models and drawings….Massive improvements!  Very beautiful actually, so you don’t need any of my other thoughts…that’s for sure.

Nik:  Malta Symposium Center – Strong project start to finish. The process you went through is a good example of experiment, trial and error – in an attempt to continually test your thesis.  The building was appropriate scale for site.  Simple for tweaking and structural refinement needed to be vetted.  Materials (travertine) and shadow studies could be integrated into the drawings.  Structure holding theatre needs to integrate and develop into the main language of the architecture.  Solid.

Derek: Roosevelt Island Recovery – Amazing possibilities abound.  This project is sweeping and broad with many tensioned poetic dichotomies.  The introduction of the water elements and amphitheatre breaks down the scale and creates potential moments of intimate reflection….awesome.  I suggested the potential sectional interplay between the water elements to create motion and sound.  Perhaps that can assist in connection/procession between programmatic elements.

What was curious to me was handling the new form-making against the backdrop and within the hallowed existing ruins.  Unfortunately, you didn’t get that far.  I suggested you look at the First Unitarian Church in Louisville, KY and the other professor suggested Paul Rudolph (First Church of Boston?).  Once you get past the reverence of the existing hospital and really explore the modern organic transformation – the project has a lifetime of details and space-making opportunities.  I hope you continue with a real bold approach to the architecture to match the bold thesis.

Stephen: Closter Reservoir Rehabilitation – I understood the direction that you took for developing your archtitecture and thesis, but I personally disagreed with your approach.  The original scheme had a chapel and several moments that made places within the landscape.  When the project abstracted to basically two building forms with the organizing central court to bind the project – I felt it lost something.  The buildings in my opinion were sited too far away from each other to create a dialog or tension.  It just needed some more time to congeal.  This can be taken further especially after the professor gave you a great idea for simplifying the entry sequence.

Jenn:  Market – I felt your project was tough to develop because a major component was creating flexibility – thus, all needed to be open and clear – and when you did take a stand and create the mini-module-pod pieces to the idea – it seemed forced or unsupportive to your overall idea.  I suggested the use of color and the rooftop form to be more delicate in section as investigated in your 1:50 scale chipboard model… It is a tough project to critique because its power is when the exhibits/people inhabit it and create the richness within your shell.

Once again, thank you all for having me.

Michael Leocata

Architect