Reflection on Interim Submission

After a weekend to dwell on the interim submission my summary is as follows:

Critic Feedback:

The feedback was encouraging and definatley useful, in some cases reiterating or clarifying some issues that were already becoming apparent, but in doing so providing helpful meand of dealing with the issues, or good questions to consider to overcome them

Feedback points:
- a good and challenging brief - not there yet!
 - getting caught in fragmented detail - Time to zoom out and look at the abstract concept again to 'clarify and simplfy'
 - time to design the lnadscape area: think of it as just another material, and dont be afraid to make big moves if necessary.
Specific questions to consider:
      - where should the pedestrian bridge go?
      - what informs the direction of the cantilever?
      - consider the future development of the pyrmont bridge - reopening for lightrail? public space?


Also mentioned by the critics where a number precedents to look at: Henly Boat Museum by David Chipperfield, Seattle Sculpture Park, Weiss + Manfredi, and the work of Kathryn Gustafson



Personal Feedback:

Personally I think the presentation itself was not as clear as it should have been - I think I assumed too much understanding from the audience, of my previous work, yet with three guest critics, that was not a good thing! On top of that the way I presented was 'bitsy', and fragmented rather than wholistic. I think i got caught too early in some of the sketchy detail, which was itterated by the guest critics. Next presentation will have to be more thought out, considered and sensical!!


Reflection:

Overall, I felt the interim presentation went well, with constructive and not disheartening or 'go-back-to-square-one feedback, which is very encouraging. Still the the comments about a challenging brief, still are a little daunting - but the call is clear to jump in with both feet, and not being too afraid to start with the broader urban stratergy.


Where next:

Both from the feedback from the submission, and the semester programme I had already set, the next thing to cover is the landscape and urban stratergy (inclusive of the marine base site - ie architectural form to be part of the landscape.

In order to do this:
- finish landscape addition to the theoretical framework
- commence landscape/precedents
- define intention for the boat park
- model various  proposed topographies based upon the theoretical position.

Only once this general stratergy is defined should any return to detail occur!