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?