WEEK 11: FINAL PRESENTATION

After nine weeks of preparation, the day of our final review finally arrived. With late nights leading up to this date, our studio wore the remains of our left over sketches, base maps and other images as we gathered in the atrium below, assembling two areas for our presentations. We greeted our guest reviewers who came from multiple fields of design and management in both the public and private realm and from our College of Built Environments. We were fortunate to have a discerning group of Landscape Architects from the National Park Service and from private firms in Seattle. Several professors of Architecture, Landscape Architecture and Urban Planning were also part of the team of reviewers.

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!!

NPS + Technology

Thank you for joining us on our Informed Journey! We hope visitors will use digital technology to access, generate and share information and experiences.

WEEK 10: REFINEMENT AND FINAL PRESENTATION PREPARATION

This final week of classes has been dedicated to synthesizing and refining our work, looking at the larger implications for NPS, and producing our final presentations. We have spent many a long hour in studio, collaborating within our teams and with other teams to focus our work, identifying overlaps and gaps.

Our studio has settled into five major groups, with some students moving among groups (learning from our design principles - expanding beyond traditional boundaries!).

---

Team Museology has synthesized a narrative framework, using feedback from the groups, to highlight four narratives: the Pig War, indigenous peoples, land based stories, and island industry. They use the story of the Pig War and the resolution through peaceful arbitration to interpret these histories, and working with the other groups, identified places in the park where these under-represented stories could be told. They framed their vision for the Park and NPS as a whole to be that "By holistically and critically looking to the past, we can inform and enrich our collective future." This has helped to inform their "Big Idea", or the main message they want visitors to leave with: "San Juan Island is common ground for a multitude of stories."

---

Team Island as Park has concentrated on clarifying the structure of their presentation, and creating diagrams that convey their large concept in a straightforward way. They want to emphasize the reach that NPS could have through enhanced partnerships, and show how that could be played out on San Juan Island. San Juan Island National Historical Park could play a pivotal role in re-imagining what collaborative partnerships could look like to create a mutually beneficial future.

---

Team Digital has been thinking about it means to visit National Park Service Sites in the 21st century, and what it means to be a visitor at these magnificent places. This means extending the visitor experience beyond simply being at the site, to include their experience learning about and getting to the site, as well as the return back to their homes. They see digital technology as a means to enhance their journey as well as provide access to those who might not otherwise be able to visit. At the same time, there is a recognition that there needs to be an appropriate application of digital technology, one that instills a reverence for place, rather than diminish it.

---

Team Site has been dedicated to creating vignettes and diagrams that evoke a sense of place, and help to illustrate, through a variety of ideas, how interpretation on the site can be enhanced and create a more vibrant visitor experience.

---

Team Structure has spent some time using the competition design principles to re-examine precedent and the history of architecture in NPS. In doing this, they have created their own set of design principles for building in NPS small parks, and applied those to San Juan Island National Historical Park to create a conceptual design for a visitor’s center on American Camp.

Tomorrow will be the final studio presentation to a jury of design and planning professionals, NPS staff, and professors. Their feedback will guide the development of the final competition submittal to the Van Alen Institute and NPS.

And now, back to the grindstone to perfect our designs, and tweak our presentations!

WEEK 9: NOSE TO THE GRINDSTONE - GIVING FORM / “MAKING IT SO”

This week has been a quiet one in studio SJI-NHP. Over the course of the quarter we’ve done as much talking, researching, gathering, and aggregating as we can, and now we’re on track to produce! Typically, design studios begin producing conceptual and schematic designs much earlier in the quarter. But the nature of this studio demands an incredibly rigorous exploration of the site: its history and ecology, its place within the National Park System, and its relationship with a rapidly changing nation.

Week 9 brings us to the point of testing our research, placing our interpretations of the guidelines in the site; in short, giving form. It is always exciting in studio to bring an idea into being, as it starts to feel and look “real,” and has the power to give observers a glimpse of the ideas we’ve worked so hard to express. But it’s also nerve-wracking at times: what does it look like when we frame a view on the site? What is a signifier when experienced in a place?

Despite an eagerness to dive into production, each of the groups has worked hard to stay in communication with one another, ensuring a fluid and consistent approach as we create our final deliverables. With our overarching conceptual approach established (‘Common Ground’), smaller-scale group work has remained as dynamic as ever.

Our final studio reviews next Monday are rapidly approaching; a sense of urgency has ushered in fast paced, strategic decisions. We struggle to visually represent succinct mission objectives, critiques of the current NPS operating model and suggested solutions that apply across time and space.

taj & helen