I think it is important to have a more formal analysis of the projects. I will absorb the information on these boards much better if I try to summarize and analyze it myself. Will posted his opinions, Nico did the same with his (reduced to an effective, two or three word description), but I think to gather some common themes, strengths and weaknesses, etc. will give us some guidelines as to what the judges are looking for in a good proposal. So after spending some time with all the boards, this is my analysis:
format:
Title (abbreviated) - "New title based on primary goal" - A. Primary Impact: Key phrases describing the primary impact or goal. This is the sales pitch in one sentence. B. Ancillary: supporting impacts or benefits C. Impacted Area: Determined geographically D. Strengths: of proposal and physical submission. This can be about the graphics, the layout, the concept, etc. This section basically tries to get a feel for what the judges like about the project E. Weaknesses: dealing with the same themes as the strengths only searching for what might hold these proposals back, or what keys us into understanding what is not so important in our own work.
1. Border Wall as Infrastructure - "Ecological, Social bang for the buck" - A. Primary impact: Improving upon a proposed border wall to get more beneficial results and efficiency for the dollar. Economic sensibility. B. Ancillary: energy generation, local ecology, water distribution, habitat restoration (30 different proposals, not all are listed on the website) C. Impacted Area: border of US and Mexico (as well as any population in close proximity) D. Strengths: probably the most simply presented submission of the finalists. A wide range of possibilities narrowed to a specific geographic location. Renderings are clean and simple. E. Weaknesses: No major cities are effected by this proposal. Four other finalists focus on at least one major U.S. city. There isn't much room for this proposal to grow in the second round. Besides planning which of the 30 projects will go where along the border, I don't know how much more depth this project will show. Of all of the finalists, this project seems to have the least overall impact.
2. Water Refugees - "Follow the Freshwater" - A. Primary Impact: Utilizing the rust belt's loss of population and its freshwater resources to relocate world populations threatened by future water scarcity. The primary goal of this project is to save people from drought. The emphasis is humanitarian. B. Ancillary: Repopulating major cities in the U.S. (a romantic benefit) as well as some detail given to the ecological fabric provided in the restructuring of these cities. C. Impacted Area: Detroit, Milwaukee, Buffalo, Chicago, Cleveland and potentially any area threatened by water scarcity. D. Strengths: Again, simplicity in diagrams and aerial renderings. There is a lot of room for this project to develop in the "redensification of under-utilized post-industrial landscapes" E. Weaknesses: I don't see much practicality in relocating populations from around the world to the rust belt of the U.S. Yes, there is room to fit the billion people, but it might be underestimating the desire/ability of these populations to relocate.
This image came from a blog about the competition but was left off the WPA site.
3. Coupling Infrastructures - "Water Economies" A. Primary Goal: Converting the sea back to its recreational use B. Ancillary: Allowing multiple economic opportunities for the production of salt, water, and more efficient greenhouses. C. Impacted area: Southeast (as a model for possible global impact) D. Strengths: Probably the best boards for their balance of great diagrams and renderings, depth, detail. E. Weaknesses: As Will pointed out, the idea of infrastructure as an extension of nature is hard to buy. Floating economic pods don't seem all that natural either.
4. Hydro-Genic City 2020 - "The Power of Water" A. Primary Goal: Community building by using the mechanistic waterworks of LA B. Ancillary: Light rail stops, water cleaning, accessible spaces in the city. C. Impacted area: Limited to Los Angeles D. Strengths: Renderings are beautiful, detail, specificity (the section of the proposed water tanks is especially impressive). E. Weaknesses: This only effects LA, and is not all that ecological. The emphasis is on creating gathering spaces, not the ecological fabric.
nice section of the tank (this team has some sexy boards)
5. Local Code: Interstitial Landscape - "Leftovers" A. Primary Goal: Converting leftover streets for communities. The epitome of the Pruned: Under Spaces series. B. Ancillary: no emphasis on any ancillary goals (besides maybe the ecological benefit of increased park-like spaces using native plants) C. Impacted Area: San Francisco, New Orleans, Seattle, New York City D. Strengths: Concrete, unambiguous, mathematical, very clear diagrams, beautiful as a whole, poetic prose E. Weaknesses: Obviously I like this project a lot, but I am uncertain about the long term impact. These spaces are left over for a reason. Local code has deemed them "unaccepted" based on some kind of organic population growth. I think the process and the motivation is solid, and you could very well make these spaces inviting, i'm just not sure such small spaces can change the dynamic of the surrounding neighborhood enough to make the impact last. Further analysis and development will be really interesting.
6. Urban Algae: Speculation and Optimization - "Nascent Capacities (Nico's title)" A. Primary Goal: Dealing with carbon dioxide emissions B. Ancillary: Community spaces, direct access from Brooklyn to the Battery, ecological fabric. C. Impacted area: Specific to NYC but they speak of wide-scale applications. I'm not sure how this project deals with toll booths and power plants, but it says it does. If that is the case this could be implemented across the country. D. Strengths: Specific proposal, draws on previously planned bridge (historical connection), the first board with the sections and the plan is very strong, one of the best boards of the finalists. Weaknesses: I'm not a fan of the renderings. However I am interested to see where this one goes in the next round (dealing with the toll booths and power plants).
one of my favorite boards (not the sexiest but great info)
That's it for now. I suggest people comment on this post to discuss common themes and things we feel are important for our own work (or disagreements to my opinions). I don't think we should spend much more time analyzing the finalists because we have enough of our own shit to do, but this was a good exercise for me.
Countdown: 7 weeks (49 days) until our boards are due!
If anyone is going to be around tonight, my brother is in town for a few days. I'll be headed to bingo tonight and Girltalk on Wednesday. All are encouraged to come!
No comments:
Post a Comment