shaowen wang

The intention of publishing the feedback below is so that all students can benefit by understanding the strengths and weaknesses of a range of projects. Please take the time to review other student's work with these comments in mind. If you have any questions or would like any further clarification don’t hesitate to ask me during the studio session.

Aidan

Withdraw

Leo

Key strength of the scheme:

Concise interpretation of “detail” as the mutation of each main orthogonal space evidential in the 2 panels showing a series of “genetic spring-offs” of the 2 labs. These “details” not only embellish the main structure but bring forth certain “characters” separating one lab from the other formally. Rather sophisticated in the idea of “form follows form”.

Most significant weakness of the scheme:

There isn’t any image showing the internal spaces in the final submission regardless the earlier attempts. Do bear in mind that inside/outside relationship in space constitutes one of the most important “tectonic expressions” in architecture. Otherwise, great progress.

Yahuda

Key strength of the scheme:

Clarity in your conceptual approach followed by an elegant design solution creating a visible tension between built form and landform. The thin “scaffold” like membranes, either coming together or flying away depending on the viewing position, dramatise the dialectics between built object and natural terrain. The textures are meticulously drawn and beautifully put together. Well-organized submission panels.

Most significant weakness of the scheme:

This could be a HD exp if the same dynamic effects also pronounce themselves in the details of the spaces: as ornament/structure duality (tension!) instead of just add-on fixtures. Carry on!

Joshua

Key strength of the scheme:

Highly sensitive to the tectonics of form evidential in the panel showing 3 aggregated formation of prisms. Understand the essence of “detail” in ornament/structure binary. Innovative textures and their application. The final SketchUp model is spatially interesting.

Most significant weakness of the scheme:

The development in landform is very limited and lack further experimentation between built and land forms. This is a major draw back in this exp. The process of each exp demands a constant pursue following each task and the skills required via weekly exercise. The more you interrogate your model-in-progress by testing each sketches in Crysis environment, the higher level of architectural richness in your final model emerges. Please work consistently and with an open mind. Otherwise, a good submission.

Hugo

Key strength of the scheme:

The completeness of development from aggregated hypothesis, prismatic formation, texture creation & application, the relationship of between-ness in 2 labs, the meeting place, the built form/landform binary and the documentation of design process. The map and levels are navigated by design intention instead of the other way around. All of the above have contributed to a constrained final model accentuated by texture application and careful siting of the built form.

Most significant weakness of the scheme:

Regardless the overall success of the final map, the 2 labs remain unremarkable especially when they are framed separately from the prismatic structure. The spatial quality of these two “habitable” spaces are limited except for those brought forth by texture application. This perhaps is not a design flaw but an inclination towards the semiotic aspect of architecture: the form & content correlation.

Nicole

Key strength of the scheme:

Dynamic prismatic formation with defined lab spaces by using a range of tools, different levels and lighting effects. The built form “sits” on landform without overwhelming it. The patient search for the best formal composition of the structure is evidential in the weekly uploads. Interesting details in each labs and the set up that leads to the meeting place.

Most significant weakness of the scheme:

The landform could be more engaged with the model. The “textures” of the environment, both in the built form and the landscape, lack certain rigor. The application of them doesn’t seem to accentuate the different quality of each space as detected by the aggregated hypothesis. Instead, textures and the colours work together to “mute” the otherwise complex model. Please explore more of the inside/outside relationship in the captured images and the walk through videos. Good work!

Chennedy L

Key strength of the scheme:

The idea to push built form and landform together into a mutual existence. The vertical spatial sequence in Freud’s lab and the view upward from the bottom of it are beautifully conceived and represented in rich textures. Persistence in design development and in the series of testing in Crysis environment.

Most significant weakness of the scheme:

The final model hasn’t been fully represented via captured images as it does in the map. The structure, although formally a strong volumetric formation, lack the contrast between light and heaviness, vertical and horizontal, inside and outside. You have made great progress. Please carry on.

Salli

Key strength of the scheme:

The proportion of the built form in comparison to the landform is convincing in some of the captured images. The textures are effective in their patterns and gradience. When applied to the model, they contrast with the landscape in a gentle way.

Most significant weakness of the scheme:

The model is underdeveloped and put into the landform in haste. Most of the captured images don’t give a comprehensive understanding of the environment developed by a set of ideas that are generated from the aggregated hypothesis.

Zoe

Key strength of the scheme:

Beautiful axonometric prisms and textures. Thoughtful aggregation of hypotheses, which leads to expressive prismatic structure with texture-accentuated spaces.

Most significant weakness of the scheme:

Lack development between the built form and landform. Regardless the well detailed tree-like “object”, central trunk holding up the cluster of horizontal prisms, the Crysis environment serves as passive “map” for the object to stand in with. The theme is “between” after all! Otherwise a well crafted submission with a weak relationship of between-ness. Please make sure to build up a set of strategies to tackle the main challenge in E3.

Siobhan

Key strength of the scheme:

Beautiful sketches of prisms and the care expressed in the organization between drawing out the ideas and drawing itself. This is another way to interpret the space-in-between. The landform possesses a kind of dream-like quality as if it has been draped over by fabric of liquid fuels.

Most significant weakness of the scheme:

This exp has been evidentially handicapped by lacking skills that could “tame” Crysis War. The built form was just dropped into the environment and intimidated by the silky landform. This is not a “real” weakness but do spend more time on “taming” the beast!

Jonathon

Key strength of the scheme:
The final model shows a group of prisms intersecting in 2 directions: vertical and horizontal. When viewed from different angles, the model reveals different spatiality both in its exterior form and interior spatial sequence. It is a skilful and highly constrained formation with just enough details for the specifics.

Most significant weakness of the scheme:

Not enough evidence of work has been presented in your blog. Regardless its completeness, your E2 uploads haven’t suggested a process of design development. The between-ness of built form and landform could be developed much further. With more effort, this submission could have got much higher marks!

Korn

Key strength of the scheme:

The SketchUp prismatic structure possesses potential in its “platform” typology.

Most significant weakness of the scheme:

Lack engagement in the weekly process on any levels: concept, research, design development and the general skills. Please try to focus on enhancing your representational skills at least: how to build different kinds of model in SketchUp, how to manipulate landform in Crysis Wars, how to add in different levels in the map and so on. Do something!!

Cyril H Y

Key strength of the scheme:

Ambitious pursue at every levels of the E2: sketched prisms and the digital rendu version of them, perfecting the model and its possible presence in the Crysis environment, persistent pursue for better spatial effect and experience.

Most significant weakness of the scheme:

The obsession in forms somewhat compromised the other aspect of this exp: how landform can upstages built form? what kind of significance is possible by shaping the landform? the interior spaces in an aggregated prismatic formation, the front-and-back issue when positing built object into a context. These are not weakness but a demand for equal attention. After all, it is not just about Form! As usual, well done and carry on!

Valerie B M

Key strength of the scheme:

Grand vision and audacious execution in Crysis environment. One of the best Between-ness in the built form and landform. The built object is prominent, expansive but not out of scale commending the landform like a mother ship in action. The landform has been enriched and dramatized by add-in features instead of just the manipulated form. The overall effect is BIG, complex, with inside and outside spatial fluidity. Dramatized environment without petty dramas!

Most significant weakness of the scheme:

Just stay with this level of engagement and be even more confident in your design development. Well done and great progress since E1.

Yingyi

Key strength of the scheme:

The well composed and effectively textured final model showing 2 main volumes in upright position mediated by another 2 groups of horizontal prismatic formation. This elegant and bold concept has been successfully represented in the over all structure. The landform serves as a loving “tango partner” to this structure: just there but not passive.

Most significant weakness of the scheme:

Need to experiment more in the Crysis environment: testing different effects, keep a short video log of the walkthroughs. Impressive progress. Carry on.

Pat

Key strength of the scheme:

A carefully constructed prismatic formation that bifurcated into many interesting spatial enclaves and sub-structure. The complexity in the structuring of “form” is evidential both in the diagrammatic stage and the final environment. The landform intersects with the built form in a naturalistic way and the effective appears convincing in some of the captured images.

Most significant weakness of the scheme:

This should be a HD submission if the Crysis environment has been further developed: different materiality and lighting effect, further dramatization of the landform, and more interior views. The way it is now, the add-in effects are all “singular“ in their applications (say lighting in just one location but doesn’t animate the bigger picture). Otherwise, good progress.

Tasman

Key strength of the scheme:

Strong prismatic formation showing a vertical front and another horizontal platform like front. Instead of one monolithic structure, this model possesses great potential in Crysis environment.

Most significant weakness of the scheme:

Lack rigor in design development. With the SketchUp aggregated prisms, there are many steps to follow in the Crysis environment afterwards: the relation between landform and the size of the structure, the materiality and lighting effect to accentuate the model and the scaling of the model by manipulation of the landfrom. More engagement please!

Kirsty

Key strength of the scheme:

The final model sits in the landscape well. The prismatic formation is interesting both in bird’s-eye view and in close-up at the foot of built form. Care has been given in the aggregation of prisms.

Most significant weakness of the scheme:

Not exploring design ideas via hypotheses. More engagement with every stage of the design development. The potential is there and your sensitivity in spatiality + formal composition evidential. Please try harder in your E3 submission.

Raymond Z C

Key strength of the scheme:

Some articulation in the landform and the details in the structure.

Most significant weakness of the scheme:

Lack engagement throughout the weekly process and indifferent to design development. The final model, regardless its uneven image captures, could have been a solid prismatic formation if more care has been given to the Crysis environment. Please spend more time exercising your skills and pay attention to the weekly process of hand-on exercise and testing your design ideas in Crysis environment.

Vera Y

Key strength of the scheme:

The series of steps as the mediator between the landform and the built form. The travelling routes have been effectively accentuated by colourful lighting and landing platforms. Simple idea that has been executed with care and imagination.

Most significant weakness of the scheme:

This submission could be at a higher mark if more integrations between the platforms and landform have been attempted and developed. The skill level has been picked up since E1 and is heading toward the right direction. Please pay more attention to the “thinking” part of the E3: research on the clients, the quotations as the springboard for design idea, experimenting more possibilities and full-on in Crysis environment. Good progress. Carry on!

Proun 1A: Bridge 1, by El (Eliezer Markovich) Lissitzky, 1919.

The Russian Constructivists in Perspective:

The Peak Competition, Hong Kong, by Zaha Hadid, 1982.

"ZAHA HADID AND SUPREMATISM," exhibition, Zürich, Switzerland, 2010.

What is a Bridge?

Bauen. Wohnen. Denken (Darmstadt in 1951), Martin Heidegger (1889-19760):

" To be sure, the bridge is a thing of its own kind; for it gathers the fourfold in such a way that it allows a site for it. But only something that is itself a location can make space for a site. The location is not already there before the bridge is. Before the bridge stands, there are of course many spots along the stream that can be occupied by something. One of them proves to be a location, and does so because of the bridge. Thus the bridge does not first come to a location to stand in it; rather, a location comes into existence only by virtue of the bridge. The bridge is a thing; it gathers the fourfold, but in such a way that it allows a site for the fourfold. By this site are determined the localities and ways by which a space is provided for."

Brücke und Tür (1909), Georg Simmel (1858-1918).
You can read this article from Theory, Culture, & Society, Vol. 11(1994): 5-10.

" The people who first built a path between two places performed one of the greatest human achievements. No matter how often they might have gone back and forth between the two and thus connected path into the surface of the earth that the places were objectively connected. The will to connection had become a shaping of things, still being dependent on its frequency or rarity. Path-building, one could say, is a specifically human achievement; the animal too continuously overcomes a separaion and often in the cleverest and most ingenious ways, but its beginning and end remain unconnected, it does not accomplish the miracle of the road: freezing movement into a solid structure that commences from it and in which it terminates."

Conclusion*

1. From the spatial aspect

a) a bridge allows a 360º view over the landscape; it draws the landscape into a circle on the horizontal plane;
b) it adds the vertical dimension to the landscape and breaks it into the upper and lower parts;
c) it can be observed as a bodily experienced part of the landscape – from afar, the vision prevails, but when the observer is moving on the bridge or under it, other senses participate in the aesthetic perception.

2. From the temporal aspect the bridge is not only an abstract and static spatial temporal image, but it is also dynamic and constantly changing in accordance with the geographical and climatic conditions of the given season. The movement and position of a body in space form an essential part in the emergence and transformation of the dynamic images of the bridge and the landscape – the bridge as a place is the part of the road that preconditions movement. The bridge is not merely a thing (Heidegger), nor a picture (Simmel), but an event (Heidegger).

3. From the metaphysical aspect the bridge is the symbol of man's being between the sky and the earth. The bridge is like the Tree of the World – its roots in the earth, its branches in the sky. Man's path is laid in the middle zone, between the sky and the earth, not simply on the earth. His separateness from the earth emphasises the perception of the threefold division of the world and makes it observable. Winter adds the experience of the horizonless landscape and allows the divine experience of infinity.

* See: "A Winter Landscape with a Bridge", by Kaia Lehari, 2000.

Bridge City, Lausanne, 1988 (project), by Bernard Tschumi

Interface Flon Railway and Metro Station, Lausanne, 1994-2001, by Bernard Tschumi

Back to the Russian Constructivists and Zaha Hadid

Malevich’s Tektonik 1977, London - United Kingdom

For the graduation project at the Architectural Association, Zaha Hadid explored the ‘mutation’ factor for the programme requirements of a hotel on the Hungerford Bridge over the Thames. The horizontal ‘tektonik’ conforms to and makes use of the apparantly random composition of Suprematist forms to meet the demands of the programme and the site.

The bridge links the nineteenth century side of the river with the South Bank, which is dominated by the Brutalist forms of a 1950’s arts complex. The fourteen levels of the building systematically adhere to the tektonik, turning all conceivable constraints into new possibilities for space.

The project has particular resonance with Hadid’s later projects. First, in the Great Utopia show at the Guggenheim, she was able to realize some of these tektoniks in concrete form, and second in the Habitable Bridge project, which considered the possibilities of a mixed-use development over the Thames.

- Zaha Hadid Architects press release

Habitable Bridge Project