The great attraction of this submission for the jury was its inventiveness in respect to energy conservation. In addition, the jury admired the principle of flexibility which the submission offered, relating unit planning to site planning.
The range of strategies for conserving energy was well regarded at every scale, from site plan configuration, to unit configuration, to building envelope design?even if the jury wasn't always convinced that the specified strategies propounded were workable in practice!
As for the site planning, the idea of relating the lower density edges to the surroundings was also well regarded, as was the clustering of the higher density forms around the park. Then too, the jury was interested in the idea of developing a range of unit types which could be applicable selectively to a range of lots across the site plan.
The reservations the jury had about the site planning were much like those they had about the energy conservation ideas, except that they were more acute. That is to say, the jurors feared that what was set out in principle wasn't necessarily demonstrated in practice. Thus, they were seriously disappointed at the sketchiness of the application of the clustering ideas to the site plan itself. In fact, they weren't even convinced that a sufficient number of unit types that really would fit workably on the smallest lots, had been developed or illustrated.
Thus, in the end, they held somewhat mixed feelings about the pop-art cartoon quality of much of the presentation. While they admired its immediacy, they had reservations about its precision.
(From jury report)
9 scanned / 6 viewable
- Site Plan
- Plan
- Plan
- Elevation
- Construction detail
- Schema
