Saturday, April 16, 2011
When Built Form Meets Landform
What can happen BETWEEN them? (notice the details too!)
STRETTO HOUSE TX, United States, 1989-1991, by Steven Holl.
Thursday, April 14, 2011
WK 7 - What kind of Landform?
Grecian or Gothic? Neoclassical or Romantic style?
From: Fragments on the Theory and Practice of Landscape Gardening (1816), by Humphry Repton.
Glen Canyon Dam, Page, Arizona, USA. Image via Wikipedia
Hagar in the Wilderness (1835), by Jean-Baptiste-Camille Corot, oil on canvas and owned by Metropolitan Museum of Art, Manhattan.
From: Fragments on the Theory and Practice of Landscape Gardening (1816), by Humphry Repton.
Texture of the surface:
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
EXP - 1 FEEDBACKS
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
Key strength of the scheme:
Clarity in the building volume.
Most significant weakness of the scheme:
The underground studio is either missing or you haven’t shown the ground level correctly in relation to the built volume. Please pay attention to the brief first. The animations are very limited in what they want to communicate and the skill level must be higher in EXP2.
Leo
Key strength of the scheme:
Thoughtful page layout with emphasis on the textures. The intriguing folds at the roof of the upper studio and the complex spatial composition.
Most significant weakness of the scheme:
The scheme lacks rigor in design development. The final project, since it began with a promising sketched model, is in need of details and more specific materiality. Please do explore further the spatial possibilities in EXP2.
Yahuda
Key strength of the scheme:
Persistent pursue in design development to embellish the model with animating curvy surface + landform; thoughtful details; dynamic structural expression.
Most significant weakness of the scheme:
The stairs are mainly one-dimensional: functional and precise instead of demonstrating “a distinctive and significant approach”. Please be more ambitious in your original idea for EXP2.
Joshua
Key strength of the scheme:
Compulsion in details and strong object-like formalistic approach. The animations are well timed in their framing sequences. Diverse style in texture sketches.
Most significant weakness of the scheme:
The scheme predicates on the intense rendering of the details if not to a fault. Please channel the creative energy into the architectonic aspect of the project: the integration of the stair with spatial possibility instead of a totem like enclosed shaft. The colour scheme has a fantastic hue that alludes to hyper-real environment instead of architectural representation. Please explore the meaning and value of abstraction in visual effects.
Hugo
Key strength of the scheme:
Persistent design development. The thoughtful integration of the built volumes with the landform and “stepped” terrain. Attention to details and the significant application of textures in interior spaces. The vertical cylinders accentuate the “depth” of the underground studio.
Most significant weakness of the scheme:
The lack of animating object/built form through out. However, since the design idea is to situate a series of repetitious volume in different sizes into a terrain of intricate steps, the lack then amounts to a challenge for EXP2. Do try different approach. Carry on with your good work.
Nicole
Key strength of the scheme:
Strong sense in plasticity evidential in the design development and 3D modelling while at the same time, highly organized. Fluid spatial sequence led by movement. Clarity in presenting the words, the sectional depiction and the architectonic pursue in finalizing the scheme.
Most significant weakness of the scheme:
The application of “surface effect”: texture, colour and the contrast between materiality (not just effect but the nature of the material!). Otherwise, impressive first submission.
Chennedy L
Key strength of the scheme:
Intricate stair/stepped terrain through out the 3 main spaces. Attentive sketches tinted by certain primitive sensitivity. Strong in interior spatial effect and quality.
Most significant weakness of the scheme:
The animations are unclear and “jumpy” in explaining the final scheme especially the 2nd one. The final model appears to be drawn through a die and lack the quality of a 3D object. This is the biggest drawback regardless the fine sensitivity in colour and formal composition.
Salli
Key strength of the scheme:
Strong visual effect in texture application. Good volumetric composition externally.
Most significant weakness of the scheme:
The stairs throughout your scheme lack a sense of scale and couldn’t suggest the kind of movement they want to bring forth. The final scheme is under-developed and the envelop for the upper studio doesn’t indicate any material specificity (thin and paper-like surface). Please consider details as part of the design development in EXP2.
Zoe
Key strength of the scheme:
Ambitious in the concept of form. The captured images effectively communicate the quality and diverse spatial components of the scheme. The interior space is highly theatrical coloured by the presence of landscape fragments.
Most significant weakness of the scheme:
The enclosing “surfaces” – flying roofs – are not finished in their design development. Complex geometry demands process of scrutinizing editing act. The 2nd animation is very confusing.
Siobhan
Key strength of the scheme:
Stunning beauty in the creation of form and the spatial quality. Elegant colour scheme that is expressive instead of realistic. The “tendril top” gently mingles with the floating curvy panels to create “room” for studio space without compromising its serene gesture. Highly sensitive in spatiality as demonstrated in the captured images and the use of art work to amplify the openness of gallery space.
Most significant weakness of the scheme:
The animations are not as effective as the images in explaining the scheme.
Jonathon
Key strength of the scheme:
Clarity in the depiction of the words and the volume of the scheme. Good texture sketches.
Most significant weakness of the scheme:
Not ambitious enough in design development. Limited exploration of the spatial integration. There isn’t suggested structure for the transparent envelop that sits above ground.
Korn
Key strength of the scheme:
Attempt to animate a group of boxes.
Most significant weakness of the scheme:
Lack ambitious to engage with architectural possibilities. The brief hasn’t been rigorously interpreted: the actuality, characteristic and quality of an underground space, stair that demonstrates “a distinctive and significant approach”, the meaning of datum.
Cyril H Y
Key strength of the scheme:
Audacity in the interpretation, design development and execution of particular spatial effects and qualities. Attention to details and the impulse to present the project as an integrated architectural event. The formal specificity to connote the characteristics of the above ground and underground studios are highly imaginative: fluid, linear, open and expanding for the former; condensed (in a sphere), introverted and tunnel procession for the latter. The animations are expressive and the page layout well organized. The overall quality of this submission is outstanding.
Most significant weakness of the scheme:
If any, please perfect your animation: the sequence+the viewpoints to anchor the walkthrough.
Valerie B M
Key strength of the scheme:
Dynamic interior spaces and the spatial sequence in the gallery leading to the upper studio. Understanding of the expressive potential in structure and the way it plays with volume. The SkethUp model is always more expressive than the sectional sketch which means that you have strong spatial conception.
Most significant weakness of the scheme:
The underground studio is unnecessarily complex and convoluted. In the process of design development, try to stay with a few ideas and work on the spatial possibilities persistently and you will do much better in the future.
Yingyi
Key strength of the scheme:
The vertical “column-zone” is a playful response to Ito’s Sendai Mediatecque. The application of textures is generally effective throughout the final model.
Most significant weakness of the scheme:
Not enough development for the stairs both in sketches and the model. Sectional quality is poor in the final model. Basically it is a 5-level slab pinned down by several figurative columns. Even though the top studio space engages with more sectional variation, this is a scheme centred on “repetitious slab“ instead of many other possibilities: volumetric composition, structure + space and so on.
Pat
Key strength of the scheme:
Rather deliberate concept of movement through space as epitomized in the intricate circulation “system”: the journey around underground studio up to the gallery then over to the stair leading to the other studio. The spaces in a way “wrap around” the circulatory system. Strong in formal manipulation. Imaginative sectional sketches. Interesting dialog between the landform and the roof form.
Most significant weakness of the scheme:
Texture application. There is almost none of the interior embellishment.
Tasman
Key strength of the scheme:
Attempt to create focal point in a scheme of box formation.
Most significant weakness of the scheme:
Lack imagination in design. The sketches are limited in their ideas and spatial conceptions. Please pay more attention to the formal, volumetric, structural, and material possibilities in a model and use them to gradually develop your scheme.
Kirsty
Key strength of the scheme:
Bold concept for bringing the 3 spaces together. Thoughtful and effective composition of the landform, the simple volume above ground, and the underground more complex double layer volumes.
Most significant weakness of the scheme:
Not enough design development has been insisted upon to further explore the possibilities of integrating the gallery with the upper gallery. The interior space is not expressive enough in materiality.
Raymond Z C
Key strength of the scheme:
The model generated from the selected section is well developed. This can be observed in the animations and the captured images. Effective interplay between the vertical elements with the layered spaces. Richness in materiality.
Most significant weakness of the scheme:
Inconsistency in the process of design development. The scheme had a promising start and could have been a highly successful project in the end. The scale is off in the interior. Some of the space is just too big and too high. Try to bring human figure in earlier and use it to test the scale of the space.
Vera Y
Key strength of the scheme:
The idiosyncratic giant pillars both organize the procession of the space and hold up the entire project. Some of the captured images show interesting contrast of materials and spatial quality.
Most significant weakness of the scheme:
The animations are fragmented, jumpy and don’t amount to an understanding of the entire model: too small, too close in and without an emphasis in the movement of the “camera”. The roof sort of kills the strong hold of this model as shown in the earlier stage of development. There is a lack in the overall control of the spatial effect and the desired quality.
Aidan
Key strength of the scheme:
Clarity in the building volume.
Most significant weakness of the scheme:
The underground studio is either missing or you haven’t shown the ground level correctly in relation to the built volume. Please pay attention to the brief first. The animations are very limited in what they want to communicate and the skill level must be higher in EXP2.
Leo
Key strength of the scheme:
Thoughtful page layout with emphasis on the textures. The intriguing folds at the roof of the upper studio and the complex spatial composition.
Most significant weakness of the scheme:
The scheme lacks rigor in design development. The final project, since it began with a promising sketched model, is in need of details and more specific materiality. Please do explore further the spatial possibilities in EXP2.
Yahuda
Key strength of the scheme:
Persistent pursue in design development to embellish the model with animating curvy surface + landform; thoughtful details; dynamic structural expression.
Most significant weakness of the scheme:
The stairs are mainly one-dimensional: functional and precise instead of demonstrating “a distinctive and significant approach”. Please be more ambitious in your original idea for EXP2.
Joshua
Key strength of the scheme:
Compulsion in details and strong object-like formalistic approach. The animations are well timed in their framing sequences. Diverse style in texture sketches.
Most significant weakness of the scheme:
The scheme predicates on the intense rendering of the details if not to a fault. Please channel the creative energy into the architectonic aspect of the project: the integration of the stair with spatial possibility instead of a totem like enclosed shaft. The colour scheme has a fantastic hue that alludes to hyper-real environment instead of architectural representation. Please explore the meaning and value of abstraction in visual effects.
Hugo
Key strength of the scheme:
Persistent design development. The thoughtful integration of the built volumes with the landform and “stepped” terrain. Attention to details and the significant application of textures in interior spaces. The vertical cylinders accentuate the “depth” of the underground studio.
Most significant weakness of the scheme:
The lack of animating object/built form through out. However, since the design idea is to situate a series of repetitious volume in different sizes into a terrain of intricate steps, the lack then amounts to a challenge for EXP2. Do try different approach. Carry on with your good work.
Nicole
Key strength of the scheme:
Strong sense in plasticity evidential in the design development and 3D modelling while at the same time, highly organized. Fluid spatial sequence led by movement. Clarity in presenting the words, the sectional depiction and the architectonic pursue in finalizing the scheme.
Most significant weakness of the scheme:
The application of “surface effect”: texture, colour and the contrast between materiality (not just effect but the nature of the material!). Otherwise, impressive first submission.
Chennedy L
Key strength of the scheme:
Intricate stair/stepped terrain through out the 3 main spaces. Attentive sketches tinted by certain primitive sensitivity. Strong in interior spatial effect and quality.
Most significant weakness of the scheme:
The animations are unclear and “jumpy” in explaining the final scheme especially the 2nd one. The final model appears to be drawn through a die and lack the quality of a 3D object. This is the biggest drawback regardless the fine sensitivity in colour and formal composition.
Salli
Key strength of the scheme:
Strong visual effect in texture application. Good volumetric composition externally.
Most significant weakness of the scheme:
The stairs throughout your scheme lack a sense of scale and couldn’t suggest the kind of movement they want to bring forth. The final scheme is under-developed and the envelop for the upper studio doesn’t indicate any material specificity (thin and paper-like surface). Please consider details as part of the design development in EXP2.
Zoe
Key strength of the scheme:
Ambitious in the concept of form. The captured images effectively communicate the quality and diverse spatial components of the scheme. The interior space is highly theatrical coloured by the presence of landscape fragments.
Most significant weakness of the scheme:
The enclosing “surfaces” – flying roofs – are not finished in their design development. Complex geometry demands process of scrutinizing editing act. The 2nd animation is very confusing.
Siobhan
Key strength of the scheme:
Stunning beauty in the creation of form and the spatial quality. Elegant colour scheme that is expressive instead of realistic. The “tendril top” gently mingles with the floating curvy panels to create “room” for studio space without compromising its serene gesture. Highly sensitive in spatiality as demonstrated in the captured images and the use of art work to amplify the openness of gallery space.
Most significant weakness of the scheme:
The animations are not as effective as the images in explaining the scheme.
Jonathon
Key strength of the scheme:
Clarity in the depiction of the words and the volume of the scheme. Good texture sketches.
Most significant weakness of the scheme:
Not ambitious enough in design development. Limited exploration of the spatial integration. There isn’t suggested structure for the transparent envelop that sits above ground.
Korn
Key strength of the scheme:
Attempt to animate a group of boxes.
Most significant weakness of the scheme:
Lack ambitious to engage with architectural possibilities. The brief hasn’t been rigorously interpreted: the actuality, characteristic and quality of an underground space, stair that demonstrates “a distinctive and significant approach”, the meaning of datum.
Cyril H Y
Key strength of the scheme:
Audacity in the interpretation, design development and execution of particular spatial effects and qualities. Attention to details and the impulse to present the project as an integrated architectural event. The formal specificity to connote the characteristics of the above ground and underground studios are highly imaginative: fluid, linear, open and expanding for the former; condensed (in a sphere), introverted and tunnel procession for the latter. The animations are expressive and the page layout well organized. The overall quality of this submission is outstanding.
Most significant weakness of the scheme:
If any, please perfect your animation: the sequence+the viewpoints to anchor the walkthrough.
Valerie B M
Key strength of the scheme:
Dynamic interior spaces and the spatial sequence in the gallery leading to the upper studio. Understanding of the expressive potential in structure and the way it plays with volume. The SkethUp model is always more expressive than the sectional sketch which means that you have strong spatial conception.
Most significant weakness of the scheme:
The underground studio is unnecessarily complex and convoluted. In the process of design development, try to stay with a few ideas and work on the spatial possibilities persistently and you will do much better in the future.
Yingyi
Key strength of the scheme:
The vertical “column-zone” is a playful response to Ito’s Sendai Mediatecque. The application of textures is generally effective throughout the final model.
Most significant weakness of the scheme:
Not enough development for the stairs both in sketches and the model. Sectional quality is poor in the final model. Basically it is a 5-level slab pinned down by several figurative columns. Even though the top studio space engages with more sectional variation, this is a scheme centred on “repetitious slab“ instead of many other possibilities: volumetric composition, structure + space and so on.
Pat
Key strength of the scheme:
Rather deliberate concept of movement through space as epitomized in the intricate circulation “system”: the journey around underground studio up to the gallery then over to the stair leading to the other studio. The spaces in a way “wrap around” the circulatory system. Strong in formal manipulation. Imaginative sectional sketches. Interesting dialog between the landform and the roof form.
Most significant weakness of the scheme:
Texture application. There is almost none of the interior embellishment.
Tasman
Key strength of the scheme:
Attempt to create focal point in a scheme of box formation.
Most significant weakness of the scheme:
Lack imagination in design. The sketches are limited in their ideas and spatial conceptions. Please pay more attention to the formal, volumetric, structural, and material possibilities in a model and use them to gradually develop your scheme.
Kirsty
Key strength of the scheme:
Bold concept for bringing the 3 spaces together. Thoughtful and effective composition of the landform, the simple volume above ground, and the underground more complex double layer volumes.
Most significant weakness of the scheme:
Not enough design development has been insisted upon to further explore the possibilities of integrating the gallery with the upper gallery. The interior space is not expressive enough in materiality.
Raymond Z C
Key strength of the scheme:
The model generated from the selected section is well developed. This can be observed in the animations and the captured images. Effective interplay between the vertical elements with the layered spaces. Richness in materiality.
Most significant weakness of the scheme:
Inconsistency in the process of design development. The scheme had a promising start and could have been a highly successful project in the end. The scale is off in the interior. Some of the space is just too big and too high. Try to bring human figure in earlier and use it to test the scale of the space.
Vera Y
Key strength of the scheme:
The idiosyncratic giant pillars both organize the procession of the space and hold up the entire project. Some of the captured images show interesting contrast of materials and spatial quality.
Most significant weakness of the scheme:
The animations are fragmented, jumpy and don’t amount to an understanding of the entire model: too small, too close in and without an emphasis in the movement of the “camera”. The roof sort of kills the strong hold of this model as shown in the earlier stage of development. There is a lack in the overall control of the spatial effect and the desired quality.
Monday, April 4, 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)