This past Monday, we returned to our brainstorming and iterative process. After debriefing from Friday’s trip to the conservancy where we had discussion and received feedback, we took time to clearly identify both the strengths and weaknesses of each of the four concepts. We made a list of what was working and what wasn’t so we could move forward more intentionally.
Our conversation centered around a series of core design questions such as:
- Where should the project sit on the site?
- Platform or no platform?
- Enclosed or open?
- Should the ramp pass through the structure or run along its side?
- What makes sense for the roof material?
- How does the trellis relate to the sweetgrass stands and the gathering space?
Rather than selecting one concept outright, we used these questions to guide another round of individual exploration. Each of us developed very quick concepts that pulled from the strongest aspects of our previous schemes while responding directly to the critiques.
When we pinned up the work, we briefly discussed everyone’s ideas and began noticing patterns. Some concepts shared similar spatial strategies, while others aligned more with circulation logic. We eventually split into two groups based on these similarities. One distinction involved the placement of the trellis, whether it should sit on the outside of the sweetgrass stands facing the gathering space, or on the inside opposing it. This was just one of several moves being tested.
At this point, the process feels less like starting over and more like a merging of ideas. We’re refining, combining, and pushing forward the elements that feel most resolved.