Monday, June 4, 2012
Review selections from our research, our final boards, and a summary of our approach to planning and design in the national parks.
Thank you to all who have helped along the way!
Wednesday, May 23, 2012
Sunday, April 29, 2012
Wednesday, April 25, 2012
WEEK 17: COMMON GROUND TO COMMON THREAD
Monday, April 16, 2012
Thursday, April 12, 2012
Friday, March 16, 2012
Our presentation began with greetings, acknowledgement of people who offered support, and a review of our team process by our two professors, Ken Yocom and Manish Chalana.
This was followed by a presentation by students of Museum studies, Museology, who gave an overview of the four groups within our student team and the ideas we had brought forward together. The four groups consisted of between three and six students each and represented scales or areas of focus. The Technology Group looked at the use of technology through the journey to the park and at the park; the Island as Park group looked at re-describing the Park’s position; the Site group focused on design on the site and the Structure Group looked at structural form within the site.
The Museology group introduced the team concept of “Common Ground”, an idea that wove through our design interventions and our process of collaboration and integration of community. Four main Narratives were introduced as common within all four groups: the Park’s mandate, ecology, Native American, and local industry.
After an introduction to the history and place of our site, San Juan Island National Historical Park, we had a few minutes to talk with our guests over some snacks and refreshments while viewing the striking black and white photography of John Stamets, Professor of Photography, who has spent considerable time on San Juan Island, at our park site. Our group presentations then began in the Gould Hall Atrium, a wonderful expanse of light on the first floor of our four story building that houses the College of Built Environments.
Two groups presented their projects in each of the two locations followed by a break. The reviewers switched locations and the teams presented a second time, enabling the reviewers to hear all four presentations. Each group presented for fifteen minutes, followed by fifteen minutes of response by the reviewers.
The response by the reviewers was insightful and strong, pointing out the need for more integration among the groups and clarity of the design principles. In the coming weeks a smaller group of student's representing the larger group will pull together those loose threads spotted by the reviewers and channel all our collective efforts into a seamless package.
Congratulations everyone for a job well done! Go out and enjoy a well deserved spring break!!