Wednesday, May 19, 2010

EXPERIMENT 2 COMMENTS

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.

Some general comments that everyone should take into account:

Consider carefully the perspective views that you take of your scheme. Introduce the scheme with one aerial shot from a distance to give an overview of the whole scheme and how it fits into the landscape. Other perspectives may explain the views you see on approaching the scheme and then detail views of specific spaces.

Look at your scheme and ask yourself if you can see the personality and character of the client expressed in your design. More successful solutions were ones in which the client's influence could be read clearly.

PAY CLOSE ATTENTION TO SCALE. You should think carefully about how big the spaces are in relation to a human. Take care not to design on a monumental scale - this may look impressive, but shows you have no understanding of how big your building needs to be.

Here are some blogs of other students in the year that did well this project. Take a look at their work and the attention they have paid to setting up their blogs:

http://jamesphilipgito.blogspot.com/

http://luen-samonte.blogspot.com/

http://livgreen3331408.blogspot.com/

http://xin--zhang.blogspot.com/

http://www.jingyukingyao.blogspot.com/

_____________________________________


Demetra

Key strength of the scheme:

Quite compelling siting for the proposition. Texture exercises show care and precision.

Most significant weakness of the scheme:

The model exceeds the limit of 9 prisms. Repeating the use of one form for each of the clients' labs doesn't really explain how you've accounted for the peculiarities of each clients' work and their perspective on the field of science. Late submission.


Rabi

Key strength of the scheme:

Some care and thought into the siting of the structure and it's engagement with the landscape is evident. Interesting variation in textural explorations.

Most significant weakness of the scheme:

Rabi, views in your image captures make it hard to understand overall massing/composition. Take care in scaling of the texture mapping - make sure it doesn compete visually with the forms.


Danny

Key strength of the scheme:

Good invention apparent in formation of landform and vegetation. Nice use of visual framing in your screen captures of the model. Good progression evident from draft models.

Most significant weakness of the scheme:

Agglomerated axos don't appear to be hand-drawn. Choice and scaling of chevron texture to the form below the meeting place is distracting. Meeting point is actually meant to be part of the landform.


Patrick Marsden

Key strength of the scheme:

Textural studies are carfefully drafted and well-thought out. Some interesting ideas starting to develop in the formal approach to each laboratory.

Most significant weakness of the scheme:

The labs are not linked by a volume (a requirement of the brief). Consequently, very difficult to see how your are trying to explore the relationship between the two clients.


Heather

Key strength of the scheme:

Interesting engagement with the site. Very good attempt at the axonometric sketches.

Most significant weakness of the scheme:

Late submission. Final propostion exceeds 9-prism limit.


John

Key strength of the scheme:

Beginnings of some interesting ideas starting with formal composition and engagement with landscape.

Most significant weakness of the scheme:

Some care required in finessing your sketch drawings. Linework still feels a bit 'beginner'. Would have liked to see development of superstructure idea for Kuepper's solar cells. Late submission.


Martin

Key strength of the scheme:

Good to see process sketches of scheme. Some clear signs of how the building structure might fix itself into the landscape. Clear logic behind selection and displacement of textures.

Most significant weakness of the scheme:

Potential of engagement with landscape not fully explored - which parts of the structure would 'root' itself into the landform? How could you use vegetation to enhance exterior spaces?


Rhys

Key strength of the scheme:

Interesting variation in textural explorations. Some ideas of hierarchy evident in proposition of the architecture.

Most significant weakness of the scheme:

Application of the textures to model appears haphazard - requires more control and consideration of scale and visual restraint. Relationship between building and landform not convincing, lacks cohesion.


Chad

Key strength of the scheme:

Some interesting ideas in formal manipulation - stepping, cantilevering over landform. Interesting play on filigree in texture exercises.

Most significant weakness of the scheme:

Overall propostion feels hurried - exploration of built forms and landform acceptable as a 'minimal requirements' submission.


Nazgol

Key strength of the scheme:

Some carefull consideration evident in narrative of landscape and the interaction of the built form. Experimentation of linking prism as a 'negative' volume of light very compelling.

Most significant weakness of the scheme:

Darwin's lab still feels like some work required to complete the evolutionary idea - use of scale, linking of similar forms, etc.


Julie

Key strength of the scheme:

Interesting idea of straddling river. Some ideas of proportion and cantilevering are present in a very basic form.

Most significant weakness of the scheme:

Late submission. No textures evident in initial upload. Screen captures taken from the editor rather than the program. Application of texture to Kuepper's lab is distracting - tighter control of scale and orientation required.


Patrick Leal

Key strength of the scheme:

Patrick, lots of thought put into composition of landscape, built form and the engagement between the two. Textures are also thoughtfullly deployed.

Most significant weakness of the scheme:

Screen captures appear to be taken from the editor rather than the game - tell-tale light golbes bring the imagery down.

Lynne

Key strength of the scheme:

Some interest shown in formation of landscape. Some logic apparent in application of textures.

Most significant weakness of the scheme:

Axonometric sketches not acceptable. No clear understanding of composition or hierarchy in model. More thought required in deployment of textures and their scale.


Daniel

Key strength of the scheme:

Strong sense of primacy in invention of landform and the way in which the building engages with the landscape.

Most significant weakness of the scheme:

Landform still feels a bit underdeveloped - exploration with rock formations and landscape would have enhanced this primal feeling. Screen captures taken from editor rather than inside game - light-globes compromise the imagery.


Peter Petrovski

Key strength of the scheme:

Adventurous creation in landform/landscape and your siting of the building. Sensitive negotiation between forms and vegetation.

Most significant weakness of the scheme:

Some evidence of textures applied to underside of building, but how could you have used these to offset differences between structural and spatial elements of building?


Carrie

Key strength of the scheme:

Most interesting element is the landform and potential for engaging with the crevice.

Most significant weakness of the scheme:

Spiral displacement of forms feels random. No real exploration of each of the scientists' personality and work is evident in the physical forms you have given the labs.


Peter Tran

Key strength of the scheme:

Beginnings of some interesting interacation with forms and the surrounding landscape. Appilcation of textures effective in communicating scientist's interests.

Most significant weakness of the scheme:

Still difficult to read which parts of the complex belong to which scientist. Meeting place is meant to be on the landform rather than part of built form.


Ireen

Key strength of the scheme:

Good to see some attempts to play with form and scale to differentiate between clients. Good attempts at axonometrics.

Most significant weakness of the scheme:

Late submission. Lack of resolution in final scheme indicates poor time management.


Pansy

Key strength of the scheme:

Some evidence of engagement of ramp, landform and the relationship they have with the built forms. Individual texture studies are strong.

Most significant weakness of the scheme:

Scale of building against landscape a little suspect. Some more exploration of proportion and refinement of volumes still required.


Laura

Key strength of the scheme:

Experimentation with landform, building and how they relate is adventurous and daring. Logic behind the compostion and how it relates to clients' work is strong. Very good work on the axo's and textures.

Most significant weakness of the scheme:

More development of landscape, exploration of vegetation etc. required to make this feel complete. Drama of the engineering feels let down a little by the basic nature of the landscape.


Vivian

Key strength of the scheme:

Adventurous exploration between landform and built form. Clear logic behind placement and forms of each client's lab and how they relate to the clients' manifestoes.

Most significant weakness of the scheme:

Meeting place should be on the landform itselft. Unclear where this is in the model. Further exploration of landscape and vegetation encouraged.


Amy

Key strength of the scheme:

There is interesting potential in the spatial relationships you propose in the scheme.

Most significant weakness of the scheme:

Scale of volumnes in relation to landscape is suspect. Scaling and mappinf of textures over building surfaces still requires a lot of thought and examination.

Tuesday, May 11, 2010

Monday, May 10, 2010

2 POINT PERSPECTIVE

Hi All,

Some images to help you adjust your headspace for today's tutorial exercise: 2-POINT PERSPECTIVES - same idea as 1-point perspectives, but twice as fun...

















1. Establish a horizon line.
2. Mark off 2 vanishing points on the horizon line. Think carefully about the spacing of the vanishing points and the implications for your drawing.
3. Generate a the perspective view of your object by projecting back into the vanishing points. Resist the temptation of using a ruler or straight edge.

Some examples from last year's students....




























































Theorists and designers have used the graphic qualities inherent in this kind of drawing to impart a sense of power and dynamism in their work.

Perspective was used extensively in the CONSTRUCTIVIST movement in architecture - active during the birth of the Soviet Union. These graphic/architectural fantasies are the work of Iakov Chernikov...








































































This last graphic incorporates a repetition of the slogan 'We Are Building'. c.1930

Tuesday, May 4, 2010

SketchUp model from design tute - May 4, 2010

Hi All,

Below is a link to download the model that people were playing around with during today's design tutorial:

http://www.mediafire.com/file/ygvxduyuyy2/ARCH1101_20100504_TuteModel.skp

Knock yourselves out....

Ken.

Monday, May 3, 2010

DRAWING IN PERSPECTIVE

1-POINT PERSPECTIVE: a horizon line and 1 vanishing point

















Composition using 3 forms drawn in perspective





PERSPECTIVE

Considering the history of art, the study of perspective is a relatively recent conception....






















































































Dürer: Draughtsman Making a Perspective of a Woman (1525)





















Fra. Carnevale: The Annunciation (c.1448)


















Carpaccio: The Disputation of St. Stephen (1514)
















Raphael: School of Athens (1518)

Tuesday, April 27, 2010

EXPERIMENT 1 COMMENTS

Hi all,

Below is a list of everyone in the group and the comments they received as feedback during the Experiment 1 assessment. Have a look at their work when considering a comment. Feel free to query me with any concerns you may have during next week's tutorial session.

Ken.

__________________________________________________

Alexandrou Demetra ( Demetra )
Key strength of the scheme:
Some interesting articulation of elements, consideration of light and orientation.
Most significant weakness of the scheme:
Animations poorly choreographed. A lot of work still required to develop scheme from representation of sketch to a convincing proposition of architecture.


Deheini Rabieh ( Rabi )
Key strength of the scheme:
Consideration of ground plane, landscape elements is evident. Interesting potential in developing roof form of the upper studio.
Most significant weakness of the scheme:
The two stairs are a repetition of the same element, not distinctive. Composition reads as a collection of independent elements, lacks coherence.


Huynh Danny ( Danny )
Key strength of the scheme:
Application of textures shows thought and restraint. Serrated roof form of gallery shows potential. Some thought has gone into the placement and composition of window openings.
Most significant weakness of the scheme:
Scheme still reads like a series of stacked orthogonal containers - feels like an office space. How would a gallery/studio differ from an office building?


Marsden Patrick John ( Pat )
Key strength of the scheme:
Evident that a lot of thought has gone into developing character of spaces, crafting of built elements and development of an architectural language.
Most significant weakness of the scheme:
Animations give the viewer motion sickness and prevent focusing on the work. Circulation route feels a little convoluted at times, esp. in lower studio.

Rattanajaturon Tharida ( Heather )
Key strength of the scheme:
Exploration of connection between single- and double-height volumes is evident, as is transmission of light into different spaces.
Most significant weakness of the scheme:
Entrance into the gallery space is underdeveloped. Progression offered by stairs from gallery to studios feels generic, not specific to sensibilities of the artists.

Wilkinson John Matthew ( John )
Key strength of the scheme:
There is a logical connection between the quality of space for each artist and the character of their works.
Most significant weakness of the scheme:
The entry feels like an afterthought - an annex tacked onto the scheme. Multiplicity of textures on wall surfaces is overpowering.

Barr Martin Patrick ( Martin )
Key strength of the scheme:
The 3 drum forms and the resolution of their connection with the gallery below presents some promising ideas not fully realised. Good consideration of light and nature of openings.
Most significant weakness of scheme:
Entry to the gallery space is weak. Nature of relationship between lower studio to Piccinini and to gallery space not so strong. Sectional video acrobatic but doesn't explain scheme clearly.

Chen Dahua ( Ryhs )
Key strength of the scheme:
Some consideration of light and interaction of larger and small spaces is evident.
Most significant weakness of the scheme:
No understanding of wall or floor structure has having mass or thickness. Purpose of upper roof form and timber 'shards' is not clear at all.

Dao Chad ( Chad )
Key strength of the scheme:
Overall formal approach is interesting. Some careful thought in detailing of stairs evident
Most significant weakness of the scheme:
No understanding of thickness to structure - feels kind of careless considering the strengths and the thought that's gone into wall and skylight geometry.

Hamid Nazgol ( Nazgol )
Key strength of the scheme:
Clear relationship between crafted nature of upper studio and Swallow's sensibility. Thoughtful composition of stair elements and application of textures.
Most significant weakness of the scheme:
Lower studio for Goodwin not as convincing. Don't be afraid to experiment far beyond realm of conventionality at this stage.


Juwono Julie Katrina ( Julie )
Key strength of the scheme:
Roof form of upper studio offers some compelling internal modeling of space. Detail to upper stair also interesting.
Most significant weakness of the scheme:
Gallery and lower studio not as stront in their development. Glazing to below ground studio doesn?t work.

Leal Patrick John ( Patrick )
Key strength of the scheme:
Solid process experimenting with some interesting themes of form and controlling light.
Most significant weakness of the scheme:
Lacks some cohesion between formal gestures - eg. shape of skylight and void space to floor in upper studio.

Lu Xiaoting ( Lynne )
Key strength of the scheme:
Sketch sections and textures show a natural aptitude for exploration and experimenting with form.
Most significant weakness of the scheme:
This has not translated into the proposed architecture - stairs offer an unremarkable arrival, no clear understanding of how the upper studio would work.

Navarrete Daniel Esteban ( Daniel )
Key strength of the scheme:
Strong attempt to experiment with a family of forms and good structural understanding of the building also evident.
Most significant weakness of the scheme:
Entry to the gallery space doesn't benefit from the formal exploration - feels a bit domestic in comparison with rest of scheme. Opportunity to explore interaction of lower studio form and rupturing of ground plane would help with cohesion of scheme overall.

Petrovski Petre ( Peter )
Key strength of the scheme:
An inspired upper studio form evocative of the artist and proposing a varied and considered progression of spaces.
Most significant weakness of the scheme:
Relationship of spiral stair form into with lower space feels very random. The stair ribbon offers more potential here.

So Ka Yee ( Carrie )
Key strength of the scheme:
Sectional study sketches and textures demonstrate inventiveness and exploration.
Most significant weakness of the scheme:
The space is not a viable gallery space - no windows, uninspired by artists' sensibility. Stairs are uneventful.

Tran Duc Phuc ( Peter )
Key strength of the scheme:
Spiral ramp form offers potential for a dramatic connection between upper studio and gallery that could drive the whole scheme.
Most significant weakness of the scheme:
Overall, the scheme lacks cohesion - a collection of unrelated gestures and forms. The glazing to the lower studio would not work under ground.

Wu Dongying ( Ireen )
Key strength of the scheme:
Detail of stair to lower studio is an interesting experiment in repetition and rotation of form.
Most significant weakness of the scheme:
No clear understanding of how the studio spaces work above - are they connected by glazed galleries? How/why do the three spaces differ? No understanding of light into the lower studio spaces.

Yau Chui Ting ( Pansy )
Key strength of the scheme:
Interesting forms in roof structure of upper studio and walls/floor in underground studio.
Most significant weakness of the scheme:
Would have liked to see more rigorous exploration of these forms to create some spatial variation. Stairs to lower studio don't resonate with formal gestures.

Cowie Laura Frances ( Laura )
Key strength of the scheme:
Clear understanding of spatial relationship between upper studio and gallery. Interesting displacement of stair to side of volume.
Most significant weakness of the scheme:
Lower studio requires a lot more resolution due to the 'invasive', fractured nature of the forms in order to work successfully.

Lu Xing Ru Vivian ( Vivian )
Key strength of the scheme:
An interesting collection of ideas and gestures - stairs show consideration, lower studio space some exploration in spatial progression.
Most significant weakness of the scheme:
No intuition of mass or thickness of materials or how they work together.

Wang Ruo ( Amy )
Key strength of the scheme:
Some understanding of materiality and notion of procession through spaces. Gallery space the most developed of the three.
Most significant weakness of the scheme:
Underground studio space has no sense of enclosure or how light would enter the space. Upper studio appears to be made entirely of glass. How does this work as a studio space?

JOURNEY

Consider the journey through the spaces you create - both the studio spaces and the gallery space. How do you enter? Is there a sense of progression from one space to the next? Is there a sense of arrival? How can the artist move artworks through the spaces? How can you use this to create interest in the spatial arrangement?

Frank Lloyd Wright: Guggenheim Museum, New York City

Frank Lloyd Wright:  Guggenheim Museum, New York City
The progression through this gallery space is paramount. The gallery spaces are arranged around a central drum-shaped void.

Guggenhiem: Gallery spaces

Guggenhiem:  Gallery spaces
Each space is linked to the next via a ramp that circumnavigates the central void.

Guggenheim: Circulation

Guggenheim:  Circulation
The fluidity of the circulation route and its progression throughout the gallery imbibes the experience of the space with a sense of continuity and calm - ideal conditions for contemplating the artwork on display.

Importance of Light in gallery and studio spaces

Keep in mind for both of your studio spaces and the gallery space in between, the introduction of natural light can be crucial to the success of the space. Consider orientation - the direction the light is coming from, its intensity and the amount of light entering the space.

Herzog + de Meuron: Sammlung-Goetz Gallery, Munich

Herzog + de Meuron:  Sammlung-Goetz Gallery, Munich
Positioning of window openings will determine how light falls into a room.

Sammlung-Goetz Gallery, Munich

Sammlung-Goetz Gallery, Munich
This is a two-level gallery building. Note the ceiling height. The gallery space is below ground level. The high-level windows you see in the interior shot are at ground level outside.

Sammlung-Goetz

Sammlung-Goetz

Kahn: Kimbell Art Museum, Fort Worth, Texas

Kahn:  Kimbell Art Museum, Fort Worth, Texas
A gallery comprised of an assemblage of vaulted spaces arranged side-by-side.

Kimbell: Section Detail

Kimbell:  Section Detail
The vaults drawn in section - the light source is located at the apex of each vault.

Kimbell interior

Kimbell interior
The result is an even, indrect light that falls down the sides of the vault providing ideal lighting conditions for viewing the art.

Materiality and Texture

Hi All,

Following on from some of the discussion in today's studio, some images to consider about material qualities and different textures that are related to different materials. Think about the work of each of your artists and their process. Think about the characteristics of different materials and the process that is involved in working with that material. Is there a connection to be made between artist/process and material/process?

Concrete

Concrete
A 'plastic' material - traces of its process are left in the surface finish...

Nervi: Orvieto Aerodrome

Nervi:  Orvieto Aerodrome
Nervi experimented with the structural actions of the building that resulted in a visceral, textured surface.

Nervi: Palazzo dello Sport, Rome

Nervi:  Palazzo dello Sport, Rome
Plasiticity can lead to moulded geometric arrangements that explain the structural activity of the building

Hadid: Phaeno Science Museum, Wolfsburg, Germany

Hadid:  Phaeno Science Museum, Wolfsburg, Germany
Hadid uses concrete's plasticity to create a hyper-smooth architecture, 'cool' and 'fast'.

TIMBER

TIMBER
Fujimoto's 'Final Wooden House' uses timber in an elemental, massive sense. Structural and textural characteristics of the material lend an organic, human quality to the space and light entering that space.

ZUMTHOR: SWISS PAVILLION, HANOVER EXPO 2000

ZUMTHOR:  SWISS PAVILLION, HANOVER EXPO 2000
Stacked timber used to expore notions of transparency vs. enclosure...

PIANO: KANAK CULTURAL CENTRE, NEW CALEDONIA

PIANO:  KANAK CULTURAL CENTRE, NEW CALEDONIA
Timber doesn't have to be straight...

Kanak Cultural Centre, New Caledonia

Kanak Cultural Centre, New Caledonia

RSP Architects: Henderson Waves, Singapore

RSP Architects:  Henderson Waves, Singapore
An aerial walkway through rainforest national park makes incremental use of timber to achieve a fluid result.

RSP: Henderson Waves

RSP:  Henderson Waves
Floor plane, wall plane, ceiling plane morphed into one element...

Glass and Steel

Glass and Steel
Nouvel: Institute of the Arab World, Paris. An active steel shutter wall under a glass skin.

Nouvel: Institue of the Arab World

Nouvel:  Institue of the Arab World
The shutter system repsonds directly to external light levels and references traditional arab architetural screens.

Nouvel: Institute of the Arab World

Nouvel:  Institute of the Arab World
The screen generates a mosaic of light on the building's interior.