Pocket Park 2015
2) Precise Location :: Guidance, "A.8 Cultural Diversity and Social Equity: Understanding of the diverse needs, values, behavioral norms, physical abilities, and social and spatial patterns that characterize different cultures and individuals and the responsibility of the architect to ensure equity of access to buildings and structures." - NAAB Student Performance Criteria :: “It is necessary to understand circulation patterns (both vehicular and pedestrian), the open space network, land use, constraints, and opportunities when you are designing in any environment or at any scale.” – Jessica L. Leonard, associate AIA, LEED AP BD+C. :: The aim of this category is to describe the encompassing environment that my park dwells in, as well as elucidate circulation patterns among visitors and the different methods they utilize to reach the park in the first place. The purpose of this oversight is to conclude whether or not improvements toward the park’s scheme of entry are in order. :: To reach the park, visitors will either arrive via motor vehicle, bicycle, or by walking. According to my observations, the most popular medium of mobilization is motor vehicle. Visitors usually park adjacent to the park, closest to the only entrance available. This simplified diagram represents the flow of those who are maneuvering just beyond the park’s boundaries (A1). The space dividing the park and the sidewalk most often parked next to is occupied mostly by trees and bushes, separated by a wooden fence (A2). The park, on the opposite side, overlooks a large valley consisting of many trees, shrubs, rocks, and bushes (A3). Because of this sudden departure, The Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program have labeled this area as both valid Grazing land and Farmland of local Importance (A4). :: Because the entrances that lead to the park are located on polar ends, there is much congestion near the southwest entry. Those who arrive by vehicle, on a busy day, are forced to have to walk all the way down along the sidewalk, which is inconvenient (A5). It is high time the park is given another entrance to accommodate visitors are parked in the middle between the only two openings.
Comments
(A1) http://modus2015.deviantart.com/art/A28-531131412
(A2) http://modus2015.deviantart.com/art/A26-531131206
(A3) http://modus2015.deviantart.com/art/A41-532773732
(A4) http://modus2015.deviantart.com/art/A27-531131283
(A5) http://modus2015.deviantart.com/art/A29-531131526
It seems to me that if there is already a park in your proposed area, it seems rather pointless to propose a new one (even just for a contest) over the top of the old. Rather than creating your own pocket park it almost is a revitalization of an old one. Other than that, good ideas.
Thank you for the input Ivsa1841! To denote my design as a mere revitalization is purely inaccurate, since I'm presuming you didn't invest much time into examining my complete site. In the Collected Info phase, I took the time to indicate all of the pre-existing flaws that hindered the previously established park. I didn't necessarily bring new life into an "old" park, I completely modified it to meet new provisions set by moi. To dismiss my design as pointless, is too a very shallow analysis, even for a competition. I believe, if memory serves me right, readjustment of an already existing park is welcomed. And besides developing a submission just for the sake of entering, how about designing a site for the sake of designing? Of embracing the artistic, pragmatic aspects of composing a good design? Far from pointless, I must say. Thank you Ivsa1841, I appreciate the feedback.
I understand that you are trying to correct certain flaws in a park - which IS a revitalization so you know - but I agree with Lvsa1841. I feel that the guidelines set by the CAF were meant to develop a park that could improve a community that lacked the option of a place of recreation. Just merely picking a park that you know well and feel has some issues doesn't necessarily mean that it had anything wrong with it in the first place. The design is really unique and interesting however I see you are very familiar with this park and although has a few hiccups here and there, really has no problem. Its the kind of park you would find anywhere and I don't know if it can even be considered it a "pocket park". The mere definition of a pocket park states that pocket parks "are frequently created on a single vacant building lot or on small, irregular pieces of land." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pocket_park) In an interesting article posted by Alison Blake for the Washington Department of Education she stated, "One of the unique and exciting characteristics of pocket parks is that they may be created out of vacant lots or otherwise forgotten spaces." (http://depts.washington.edu/open2100/pdf/2_OpenSpaceTypes/Open_Space_Typ...)
Merely passive aggressively brushing Lvsa1841's criticism aside as a lazy, shallow analysis of your design is rather rude. Many people have commented a number of compliments on your design and I, like many, feel your design is very well thought out and designed. I feel any constructive criticism should be received in the like manner. Your design is top notch and very well thought out and I appreciated the amount of detail and time you put into it.
Good work, interesting concept along with the previews!
jerbear127, thank you for your honesty and understanding response. I apologize to both you and Ivsa1841 if I appeared rude, and didn't intend to do so. Based on what I have read regarding the social aspects within the architectural realm, it is important to handle criticism and accept that there will be conflicting opinions, and that the capacity to treat these discrepancies reasonably with a rhetorical client is a must. This has been a great learning experience, jerbear127, thank you! Anyways, because you have responded with a considerable deal of deliberation, I will follow suit (out of respect!). First, Ivsa1841 narrowed the scope of my developments as a revitalization, which I felt was both inaccurate and dismissive, "To dismiss my design...". Let me remind you, according to Merriam Webster, to revitalize is, "to give new life or vigor to", which I believe failed to completely sum up my project. I will inform you just like how I informed Ivsa1841, "I didn't necessarily bring new life into an "old" park, I completely modified it to meet new provisions set by moi.". I didn't invest a few dozen hours into a new design that sought to fix,"a few hiccups here and there,", hence why I believed the latter was a bit shallow. Regarding the CAF, "I believe, if memory serves me right, readjustment of an already existing park is welcomed.". My park fits within the two-lot limit, same with the CAF's guidelines, otherwise I wouldn't have entered. In addition, i'm not sure if you've noticed that my pocket park fits perfectly with the pocket park definitions you have provided (save the two-lot size exclusive to the CAF's restrictions). It is not my fault the nearest flat of land with the perfect conditions for a pocket park in proximity to my home has already been seized. I sought to vastly (emphasis on vastly), improve the previously established pocket park. I am grateful for the myriad feedback my submission has been receiving, there is no doubt about it. I have made an effort to respond to every one of the comments written towards my project, as well as relay feedback towards those who took the time to view mine (when time permits) prior to this discussion. Again I wish to apologize for appearing rude, and want to thank you for your commentary. It is my hope we can both share the desire to put this little fuss to rest and agree to reach a resolve (like mature adults of course!). Thank you jerbear127!
Thank you, The Foundation. The concepts you mentioned first manifested as abstract phenomena developed when identifying flaws, materialized in the Develop Solutions phase, and solidified in the Final Design phase. I wanted to adopt a very methodical approach towards my pocket park for helping me organize everything and maintain a clear, uncluttered mind.
Goof job collecting info. Re-using the existing park is a unique approach, when you talked with other people about the design locally what did they think?
Thank you bderoo. Apart from observing the visitor's interaction with the pre-existing park, I asked both my family (frequenters of the park!) and the friends of my younger sister what they interpret as flaws that need fixing as well as things the pre-existing park accomplished well. The biggest response had to have been the awkward flow, how most of the tables were not connected via concrete and that all of the seating appeared to be cramped on one side of the park. (I apologize for the late response, I needed to take the time to study for my finals)