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.
