A view in the site...

As I am working on the physical model and the packaging, I also am looking at some presentation views, and thought I would share this preliminary one...

Back on the Ground...

Over the weekend, I decided that the front part of the design needs to meet the ground despite the advantages stated in the earlier post. As Ted so astutely pointed out, this was "avoiding" the issues regarding how this should interact with the ground instead of working to resolve those issues. It was too easy just to remove the enclosure from the ground level. So I am back to working this out. These drawings show progress so far...

The Truncated Lozenge Progress

Some progress plans:
1st Floor:

2nd Floor:

3rd Floor:

4th Floor and Green Roof:

A view from the corner:

Snooze Alarm Inspiration & the Truncated Lozenge

It occurs to me... If I am trying to "get out of the way" of the "flow of Boston", why don't I create a design that really allows the flow as if the building were not there? If the smaller section did not come to the ground, it would really get out of the way. It would instead create a canopy of structure (I hope this isn't Eddie's umbrella), define the entrance, define passageways, create the arteries for the flow. The upper levels could take whatever form is most in keeping with the concept, without interfering at the pedestrian level. The sketch below shows several possible upper floor shapes, but I think the one that works best is Ted's "Truncated Lozenge". (in green) It will create visual interest from all directions, create implied indoor/outdoor spaces, and allow for more green space - bringing a little of the square into the corner perhaps - at the ground level.

This is a quick study of the approach from the library corner....

And from the North on Dartmouth...

The lozenge...

Another attempt at the separated portion's form. The "lozenge" or "eye" shape works (but starts to create another "repellent corner") on the SE side but it blocks the subway entrance on the NW side... I will keep working on it.

Testing some design decisions

I have decided, before building this into the final presentation model, to test some of the design decisions so far and look to my cohort for some input.
I made the decision to cut the building in two at the ground floor level to allow the "Flow of Boston" to circulate through as if the building were not there. I did a quick sketch to try to get a feeling for occupying that space between the two parts of the building.

Cutting the building at a 45 degree angle did a few things. It freed the pedestrian flow as expected. It created two separate and unequal structures at the ground level and beyond. The smaller part has greater visibility and therefore importance where the larger part is more hidden, an interesting paradox. It also began to set up a geometrical language of 45 and 90 degree angles.

My first resolution for the form of both parts the building worked off of this now established relationship. This creates some strong forms which work with pedestrian flow and create an ordered expression. It steps into the sidewalk - the realm of the pedestrian - without being too oppressive. It serves to create some inviting exterior spaces and concave entrances to the pass-through.
I decided to look back to a couple of other options which were considered but rejected to see what everybody else thinks about them.

The first introduces a second geometry - a semicircle. This works to further differentiate the two different building parts formally, and it further softens the buildings "intrusion" into the pedestrian space. Do these two geometries conflict with each other too much or do they somehow work together to differentiate the parts and strengthen the whole?
I also considered a more of a "truncated square" approach, slicing parts out of the square form and shifting the smaller part of the building somewhat to interact with the pedestrian flow. This has strong formal continuity, and visually expresses the effect of the "slice". The weakness is that it presents a real "repellent corner" with its acute angles on the north and east approach. Do you think this factor is strong enough to reject this plan or does it deserve further study to soften that corner?
I would appreciate some thoughts on this - either to push me down my current path or to send me down a new one.

Intensive Photo

I found this cohort photo while looking for something else. It needed to be shared. I also uploaded it to Matt's FTP site if you would like a copy... It is IMG_5422.JPG in the Photos Directory.