That was about 12 days after mid term analysis, we (Group X) successfully fingered the gravity of work load and design problem at prefinal presentation on neighborhood planning development.
The new design requirement of prefinal presentation included the following:
- Detail design of the ground level showing the relationship between the housing units, roads and open space.
- Detail illustration of each individual housing units with open space in site showing sections.
- Inter linkage between the housing building blocks and site about how the house will fit into that site plot and how the site plot will fit into the allocated housing units.
We presented our prefinal proposal in front of juror and planner and we were hopeful of getting contextual comment and critique from jurors and planners, however in spite of our satisfactory work, those design proposals could neither win the heart of the juror nor was able to convince them in terms of justification of open space at row housing unit along with the placement of government service blocks including library, civic center and schools.
In our prefinal presentation, the juror’s comment and critiques were appreciable and we accepted our faults, error and problems in our planning proposal in terms of justification of open space and division of road hierarchy.
The situation after the comments and critique paused, that was an inaudible moment of dis satisfaction for me which caused a minor frustration and over thinking on actually where I made blunders and where our group failed during presentation session. Moving to home after the presentation session ended, I started reassessing the whole sheets and investigating where I failed actually.
Here I have summed up 7 issues and constraint which hindered me and challenged our design team to make our prefinal session a memorable.
#1. Row housing problem
I was assigned in the group to solve the unstable hierarchy of the open space at row housing units since the initial design phase. I had to accommodate nearly 450 plots in row housing units to gain a sum up of 1000 plots for 1000 families. This was not an easy task to operate this high dense row house scheme. However, my prime design perception to integrate courtyard system of neighborhood planning was not employed properly during class consultation session. There was lack of understanding of listening between me and teacher during the class consultation session. That’s why till prefinal phase I was struggling over the master plan zone of row housing units. Since we were struggling in total of 750 plots my teachers, supervisors and friends were in a favor of adding more number of houses so that overall house plot sums to 1000 which was a mandatory.
Neither they were right nor they were wrong. However, my initial aim was to create a neighborhood’s of courtyard with each social service center at each courtyard. I could not convince these circumstantial ideas to teachers and to my design team. Neither I got an appropriate input by teachers to my design proposal nor my friends could develop and improve those ideas. That was a bitter truth. Lack of listening and understanding was the main key issue that I confronted during these 5 months of design project.
Factually I had failed at mid-term solving those subject on row housing units and again I failed at prefinal. What I could sense during the critique session was just to listen to juror and list those statement. I could not defend since I had no notions and clues to justify those problematic issues on row housing units. I was in dilemma about if I increase the size of courtyards then number of housing units will be reduced since 1000 plots were required but at this stage our total housing units were around 750 plots only. On the other hand, If I had increase the number of houses then apparently the size of courtyard would be diminished.
A complete vacant circumstances was captivating for 3 days after prefinal session since I was not able to be wise and smart on fixing those issue from early phase. One of our lecturer during every class consultation, motivated our group and me to move on with the initial ideas of assimilating the traditional courtyard into modern functional system of neighborhoods.
But no one could actually fix up that idealism of courtyards into at least a realism in blue print. This row housing unit was always a matter of debate in every presentation. Neither my full time input and research were working nor my friends could come up with optional ideas on row housing so that we could fix those issue in 2d planning and that will save our time so that we could move on to 3d massing, development and detailing.
#2. Agricultural zone and its fundamental supportive facilities
Juror were convincing us to incorporate a proper market area for agricultural zone. I was defending and ignoring since I thought market area at row housing units could work and function for that purpose.
Juror even commented us to redesign the agriculture belt with proper facility like storage of pesticide material, finished crops storage, processing plant, refineries etc. They also mentioned us to make a wide road to pass a lorry for transportation facilities. I took their second comment seriously since the supportive space for agricultural belt were lacking in our planning proposal.
#3. Lack of gathering space in governmental building
In every governmental building the activity of gathering is a prime concern. At first people from different location would drop at the one point and they would at first gather at the chautari or a semi transit area to know their desired location in order to have their administrative task fulfilled. And also the waiting zone should be large enough to make a line and Que since we Nepalese have a habit of standing in a Que to take any government facilities.
In our planning proposal we had provided a chunk series of administrative facilities building without any provision of open space, waiting center and Que area within the building itself. We failed there too. We had to accept this fault during prefinal critique session.
#4. Waste water treatment plant
We had a very short research phase on waste water treatment plant that’s why we were back on design detailing of this treatment plant.
In last what else we could do is divide the agricultural belt into parts and remaining quarter of the agriculture land we planned to provide to waste water treatment plant. Here design detailing was a main task which we didn’t performed well.
#5. Entry node circulation
Still again entry node at two points were not clearly marked and more detailing had to be done to that entry portion as per jurors which we could not managed to do till prefinal session. We had proposed the memorial pillar at the entry node however due to less time we could not work properly to enhance those entry nodes.
#6. Hospital as a vibrancy
We were developing a hospital and medical facilities zone at the central portion which we concluded feasible after we did site analysis. But here also we lacked a good research on number of beds, volume of patients served per day, supportive parking space and drop off bus stop areas. We had provided parking and bus stop but its number and area were not logical and justified.
#7. “You don’t have any detailing sheet”-Juror
Lastly we were about to pin down our whole sheets from the panel, since at that time also comment and critiques had not finished yet. Lastly we were questioned on not presenting proper detailing sheets. I didn’t know what kind of detailing they were asking for since we had presented almost every illustration and design detailing in 3d, might be they were looking for Auto CAD plans. CAD detail plans were the major things we lacked during the prefinal presentation.
The changed design between mid term and prefina can be analyzed here in the pictures.
Left – Mid term phase Right – Prefinal phase
Stay with blog for final development and analysis