Highbury park – Luke Coe 3

30th January 2013
Today everyone in the group presented their final ideas; there was a really diverse range of ideas that tackled the way in which users might experience the site, including walkways that are partially submerged in the pond to create a immersive user experience, raised platforms that allow you to survey the site from above creating a different perspective and dedicated areas for wildlife habitation.
Below are the note that were took during the presentations with the pros and cons of each idea and at the end followed by the week ahead tasks.

Sam Baker
See through bridge
• Sunk into the pond
• Allows you to see under the water level
• Experience the pond in a more immersive interactive way
• First hand experience
• Personal lowers possibility for vandalism
• Attracts people in
• Academic

o Could be expensive
o Hard to make
o Will collect water
o Could use a roof of some sort
o Cleaning/maintenance
o Material might not fit with landscape

Dan
• Historical information
• Reintroducing history
• Habitat
• Accessibility
• Use of natural materials
• On site materials
• Enhance connectivity with water
• Fluid/flexible

Ula
Stepping-stones
• Good choice of materials, connect with the surroundings (Steel/Timber)
• Multiple crossings
• Differing levels
• Illumination
• Immersive
• Interactive

o No disabled access (may or may not be a problem)
o Lighting could repel wildlife

Fayzul
Secluded areas
• Succession
• Seclusion
• Changing level for interaction
• Strong

Craig
• Hidden
• Shelter
• Habitat
• Change from low levels to high level

Patrick
• Locally sourced materials
• Blur between man made and nature
• Immersive with the water

Sam Forsyth
Interactive raised platform
• Mixed wood platform using different wood from the site
• Adds a new level to the pond

Ideas for final design
➢ Interactive with the water in the centre and below water level
➢ Using recourses from the site
➢ Contemporary
➢ Habitat
➢ Simplicity
➢ Multiple pathway
➢ Enhance connectivity with water
➢ Material selection (steel and timber)
➢ Shelter

Work to do (ALL)
➢ How deep is the pond
➢ List of insects we are looking at
➢ Research history
➢ List of resources on site

From the presentations we took a series of key words/terms that will be reflected in the design we now will start to create as a group.

Over the next week we will be preparing some ideas to use as a basis to create one collective group design, also gathering some missing information on the site such as insect data and depth of the pond.

The plan for the 6th is to evaluate the new work and findings, then start producing a final design and model of the site.

Looking at my own work, the individual pages of the application are nearly finished; it’s taking far longer than I initially thought it would. Hopefully when the pages are finalised I may be able to create a semi functional version of the application in Adobe Flash to simulate what the user experience would be like.
Also after today I’m nearly certain that the App will appear as one of the key features of the finished design, I hope it does because I think it’s a really good opportunity to combine technology and the landscape, It also works really well with other members of the groups designs, allowing them to play off each other.

So personally for next week I’m going to be finishing the main pages of the App and probably be looking at trying to find more insect information.

About Co.LAB Student

MArch FT5 Free city

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: