Alana Peddie
Key strength of the scheme: Overall form and textures work well. Nice procession and flow between the different spaces.
Most significant weakness of the scheme: The scheme remained more of a forming exercise rather than delving into rigorously developing upon your concept as architecture.
Annie Tran
Key strength of the scheme: Your scheme is formally and texturally interesting – and makes good use of the islands view corridors.
Most significant weakness of the scheme: More work could have gone into developing your scheme – especially the relationship to the environment and the programs within. More sophisticated integration into the site itself would have improved your overall grade.
Brian Lau
Key strength of the scheme: Good use of textures and interesting forms.
Most significant weakness of the scheme: More care and finesse needed in your drawings. Also you needed to carefully read the brief to ensure that you fulfill all of the submission requirements. Greater integration into the landscape needed too.
Caroline Hadchiti
Key strength of the scheme: Simple sequential progression between programs articulated well into architectural spaces.
Most significant weakness of the scheme: Much greater integration between your scheme and the site/landform needed.
Cheng Lu
Key strength of the scheme: A very bold, striking scheme. Interesting circulation solution. Good image composition and selection too.
Most significant weakness of the scheme: The ramp could have been somewhat simplified. You needed to balance out the functionality of meandering up 4 floors worth of ramps with the poetics of the ribbon like structure. Also the landform could have been manipulated to allow for greater integration with your scheme.
Cynthia Quang
Key strength of the scheme: Interesting use of colour and texture in your scheme.
Most significant weakness of the scheme: More could have been made about the context of your building. Especially in relation to how the building is affected or relates to its surrounds.
Emma Jin
Key strength of the scheme: Good tectonic development of your scheme. Nice lighting and materiality too.
Most significant weakness of the scheme: More investigation needed into how the site/landform could have been manipulated in and around your scheme. Greater integration between the two could have improved your overall grade.
Esmonde Yap
Key strength of the scheme: Interesting landscape – and together with the site and form of your scheme it showed real potential.
Most significant weakness of the scheme: Much more design development needed – you did not progress beyond the conceptual stage. Your scheme is also lacking material and textural qualities.
Ian Manhuyod
Key strength of the scheme: Good planning skills –especially the siting of the 2 laboratories.
Most significant weakness of the scheme: The ramp rather than being a separate element could have been integrated not only with your buildings but also with the site. More work needed on the relationship between built form and landscape.
Ming Zhe Woo
Key strength of the scheme: Great textures and materiality. Good compositional skills too – in relation to how you constructed your built form.
Most significant weakness of the scheme: A more reciprocal relationship between your building and its surrounding landscape would have improved your overall scheme.
Patti Bai
Key strength of the scheme: Great design sense. It’s great to see a student who is experimenting in all aspects of her submission. Beautiful graphic skills shown on your blog too!
Most significant weakness of the scheme: It became hard to read your scheme due to the intense graphic style. More development and work on your tectonic forms and their relationship to each other would have benefited your concept.
Peter Lei
Key strength of the scheme: It was interesting to see you begin to address more internal aspects of the forms as well – e.g. puncturing or penetrating some of these forms.
Most significant weakness of the scheme: Much more care and refinement needed in your drawings, renderings and textures. Too many were repetitive too. The brief called for an understanding of Boolean operations –you did not push this far enough and as a consequence you only really produced a series of isolated forms.
Rui Chen
Key strength of the scheme: Your scheme has a good relationship to its immediate site and the scale of your built form works well too.
Most significant weakness of the scheme: You need to carefully read the submission requirements in order to satisfy them –i.e. you have not rendered your drawings. Also most of your images are taken from a similar camera angle hence its difficult to read your scheme in its entirety.
Sam Whitby
Key strength of the scheme: Good textural/material qualities and tectonic exploration.
Most significant weakness of the scheme: Although the siting of your built form in your landscape works really well you could have started to articulate the underside of these forms more to allow for greater connectivity and opportunities to the site.
Sarah Sim
Key strength of the scheme: Great understanding of siting the built form in its environment. Your lighting effects work very well too. Great development throughout this project well done.
Most significant weakness of the scheme: Some of your camera angles chosen for your images were repetitious – more thought needed in regards to how you best portray your scheme.
Sunny Sunwha Chung
Key strength of the scheme: A simple and bold idea – the diagram of scheme was quote strong. Greater integration with the landscape would have benefited your overall grade.
Most significant weakness of the scheme: Your scheme needed to experiment and explore how by adding or subtracting prisms you can alter the overall tectonic built form. More needed to be done to realise your concept as habitable spaces.
T J Mundy
Key strength of the scheme: Great scheme - carefully considered relationship not only between the 2 separate spaces to each other (including the link) but also the overall built form and its relationship to the site. Well done.
Most significant weakness of the scheme: More design resolution could have illuminated how these spaces could be used. Also issues of scale (lack of openings, human inhabitation etc) made it difficult to understand some components of your scheme.
Tony Trong
Key strength of the scheme: Very powerful scheme - visually quite arresting. You have done a great job in siting these buildings – in order to maximise the key surrounding natural features. Great use of scale and textures. Well done.
Most significant weakness of the scheme: The bad news is that this is an impartial submission – where is the rest of the submission? This is very unfortunate as had you submitted all of the required work you could have gained a grade or two. Also you needed to push the design of the link between the 2 buildings much further.
Youli Choi
Key strength of the scheme: Good formal resolution and use of textures throughout your scheme. Nice interplay between positive and negative forms too.
Most significant weakness of the scheme: Although you had started to consider the natural landscape (i.e internalised courtyard spaces) a greater connection between your scheme and the site would have improved your overall grade.
Yvonne Chan
Key strength of the scheme: Your integration between the built form and the natural landforms is quite successful. Your platform/link structure works well as a common meeting space.
Most significant weakness of the scheme:The use and application of textures as a flat surface onto the prism unfortunately let down your submission. More experimentation in this component needed.
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Monday, May 10, 2010
Bridge
Steven Swain and Sean Ryan, Inhabited Bridge project
link
OMA, Jebel al Jais Mountain Resort
link
Rocker-Lange, London Bridge 800: Inhabited Bridge competition
link
Ryszard Rychlicki, London Bridge 800: Inhabited Bridge competition
link to this and other entries
Li Xiaodong Atelier, Bridge School
link
link
OMA, Jebel al Jais Mountain Resort
link
Rocker-Lange, London Bridge 800: Inhabited Bridge competition
link
Ryszard Rychlicki, London Bridge 800: Inhabited Bridge competition
link to this and other entries
Li Xiaodong Atelier, Bridge School
link
Monday, April 26, 2010
Experiment 1 Feedback
Alana Peddie
Key strength of the scheme: Great work – interesting overall form and great connectivity and flow between your 3 spaces. Beautiful drawings too. Well done.
Most significant weakness of the scheme: More could have been made about the schemes relationship to the ground. Further resolution needed e.g. the spikes penetrating the ground, and the subterranean vault.
Annie Tran
Key strength of the scheme: Sophisticated overall form – with some evocative spaces. Its great to see the attention to detail (textures, materials, etc.) also. Well done.
Most significant weakness of the scheme: You relied on the same animation techniques in all 3 videos. You could have used the animations to reveal more about your scheme/clients to the viewer. Also more finesse needed in your drawings.
Brian Lau
Key strength of the scheme: Interesting overall form with bold/strong geometry and good selection of materials
Most significant weakness of the scheme: Incomplete submission – majority of sections and textures are missing. Please carefully read your submission requirements in future.
Caroline Hadchiti
Key strength of the scheme: Good understanding of structural and construction principles – you have produced some nice stair sections.
Most significant weakness of the scheme: More experimentation is needed. Your final design scheme lacked the dynamics of some of your earlier sections/concepts. Also you need to further develop your understanding of the ground – its mass, density etc.
Cheng Lu
Key strength of the scheme: Great overall form – and use of incorporating structural elements as sculpture into your exhibition space.
Most significant weakness of the scheme: More thought and exploration of the stair form is needed as well as developing your detailed design. You need to carefully read the submission requirements – e.g. relationship between artworks and your exhibition spaces.
Cynthia Quang
Key strength of the scheme: Interesting building form well done. You have produced some great section sketches.
Most significant weakness of the scheme: More detail and resolution is needed in order to move beyond the conceptual sketch design into a more developed design.
Emma Jin
Key strength of the scheme: Good overall form – and great use of textures in your scheme.
Most significant weakness of the scheme: More detail and resolution (especially on the stairs – balustrades?) is needed. The brief asked that you develop and detail the stair. You also need to refine issues of scale and intimacy for exhibition spaces - your scheme is massive.
Esmonde Yap
Key strength of the scheme: Fantastic building form very interesting! This scheme showed great potential and understanding.
Most significant weakness of the scheme: Your stairs and interior spaces however lacked formal resolution. They lack the dynamism, distortion and elegance of your overall form. (e.g. chunky masonry handrails?) seem at odds with your faceted form. Be mindful of the ground plane – its not paper thin.
Ian Manhuyod
Key strength of the scheme: You have designed some beautiful interior spaces – great materials palette. Strong understanding of materials and textures. Great work
Most significant weakness of the scheme: Lacking detail – missing balustrades, landings etc. Also the scale is massive – how can you begin to reconcile the intimate studio space with the large open plan floor plans?
Ming Zhe Woo
Key strength of the scheme: Great progress throughout Experiment One. Great section drawings too – many of them had potential to be developed into a fantastic scheme too. Well done.
Most significant weakness of the scheme: Lacking formal resolution. Your final scheme lost some of the playfulness and sculptural forms of earlier sketches. Incomplete animations – 2 are duplicates.
Patti Bai
Key strength of the scheme: Beautiful work – great tectonic and compositional design skills. Fantastic development throughout session one.
Most significant weakness of the scheme: More resolution needed. Although you have created some amazing stairs – the remaining interior spaces lacked some of the design development shown in other parts of the scheme.
Peter Le
Key strength of the scheme: Nice material palette and subtle forms – that work well together. Very nice use/placement of artwork as part of stair form.
Most significant weakness of the scheme: More care needed with your drawings. Stair concept and resolution also needed more attention (balustrades?) Remember too the ground plane is not paper thin.
Rui Chen
Key strength of the scheme: You have produced some interesting tectonic forms.
Most significant weakness of the scheme: Incomplete submission – some sections are missing. More design work needed on stairs in order to respond to requirements of the design brief. Also you need to carefully think about ground plane (its not a paper thin!) consider its materiality, density mass etc.
Sam Whitby
Key strength of the scheme: Good design development – it was nice to see your scheme improve with each week. Well done on producing some interesting stair types too.
Most significant weakness of the scheme: You need to ensure that you take more care with your hand drawings. They lost some of the clarity/vision of your final scheme.
Sarah Sim
Key strength of the scheme: You have created some dynamic, varied forms especially in your organic studio. And produced a strong sculptural relationship between the overall forms and the stairs within them.
Most significant weakness of the scheme: More clarity needed in order to pull together the 2 very disparate studios in the one building typology.
Sunny Sunhwa
Key strength of the scheme: Great overall form an interesting tectonic solution. Well done.
Most significant weakness of the scheme: Much more detail and resolution is needed overall. It is hard to see how your scheme optimally functions as exhibition and gallery spaces. Incomplete animations – one animation was only 2 seconds in duration!
T J Mundy
Key strength of the scheme: Well done – great work and nicely resolved too. You have designed and brought to life some beautiful spaces. Your forms are not only sophisticated but you have really pushed the relationship between the 2 occupants and the resultant spatial form.
Most significant weakness of the scheme: You needed to then push the idea of the landscape and how this permeates your scheme. More could have been made of sculpturing the land in and around and through your scheme. Your exhibition space was the weaker of all 3 spaces.
Tony Trong
Key strength of the scheme: Some nice design options presented its also refreshing to see students do multiple options. Scheme No 2 could have been a more fruitful choice for design development it had fantastic beginnings.
Most significant weakness of the scheme: Incomplete animations – you needed to provide 3. You need to carefully think about the ground plane consider its materiality, density mass etc. How do you prevent earth from falling into your subterranean studio?
Youli Choi
Key strength of the scheme: Design development of your scheme – good progress. Your overall tectonic is interesting and had potential to be a great scheme.
Most significant weakness of the scheme: Incomplete submission – as a result the stairs/interior spaces are never seen in detail. Please carefully read your submission requirements in future.
Yvonne Chan
Key strength of the scheme: Beautiful forms and images – very sculptural and evocative. Great work.
Most significant weakness of the scheme: More formal resolution needed in order to gauge how you can actually use the spaces as per the brief. More could have been made about the schemes connection to the landscape.
Key strength of the scheme: Great work – interesting overall form and great connectivity and flow between your 3 spaces. Beautiful drawings too. Well done.
Most significant weakness of the scheme: More could have been made about the schemes relationship to the ground. Further resolution needed e.g. the spikes penetrating the ground, and the subterranean vault.
Annie Tran
Key strength of the scheme: Sophisticated overall form – with some evocative spaces. Its great to see the attention to detail (textures, materials, etc.) also. Well done.
Most significant weakness of the scheme: You relied on the same animation techniques in all 3 videos. You could have used the animations to reveal more about your scheme/clients to the viewer. Also more finesse needed in your drawings.
Brian Lau
Key strength of the scheme: Interesting overall form with bold/strong geometry and good selection of materials
Most significant weakness of the scheme: Incomplete submission – majority of sections and textures are missing. Please carefully read your submission requirements in future.
Caroline Hadchiti
Key strength of the scheme: Good understanding of structural and construction principles – you have produced some nice stair sections.
Most significant weakness of the scheme: More experimentation is needed. Your final design scheme lacked the dynamics of some of your earlier sections/concepts. Also you need to further develop your understanding of the ground – its mass, density etc.
Cheng Lu
Key strength of the scheme: Great overall form – and use of incorporating structural elements as sculpture into your exhibition space.
Most significant weakness of the scheme: More thought and exploration of the stair form is needed as well as developing your detailed design. You need to carefully read the submission requirements – e.g. relationship between artworks and your exhibition spaces.
Cynthia Quang
Key strength of the scheme: Interesting building form well done. You have produced some great section sketches.
Most significant weakness of the scheme: More detail and resolution is needed in order to move beyond the conceptual sketch design into a more developed design.
Emma Jin
Key strength of the scheme: Good overall form – and great use of textures in your scheme.
Most significant weakness of the scheme: More detail and resolution (especially on the stairs – balustrades?) is needed. The brief asked that you develop and detail the stair. You also need to refine issues of scale and intimacy for exhibition spaces - your scheme is massive.
Esmonde Yap
Key strength of the scheme: Fantastic building form very interesting! This scheme showed great potential and understanding.
Most significant weakness of the scheme: Your stairs and interior spaces however lacked formal resolution. They lack the dynamism, distortion and elegance of your overall form. (e.g. chunky masonry handrails?) seem at odds with your faceted form. Be mindful of the ground plane – its not paper thin.
Ian Manhuyod
Key strength of the scheme: You have designed some beautiful interior spaces – great materials palette. Strong understanding of materials and textures. Great work
Most significant weakness of the scheme: Lacking detail – missing balustrades, landings etc. Also the scale is massive – how can you begin to reconcile the intimate studio space with the large open plan floor plans?
Ming Zhe Woo
Key strength of the scheme: Great progress throughout Experiment One. Great section drawings too – many of them had potential to be developed into a fantastic scheme too. Well done.
Most significant weakness of the scheme: Lacking formal resolution. Your final scheme lost some of the playfulness and sculptural forms of earlier sketches. Incomplete animations – 2 are duplicates.
Patti Bai
Key strength of the scheme: Beautiful work – great tectonic and compositional design skills. Fantastic development throughout session one.
Most significant weakness of the scheme: More resolution needed. Although you have created some amazing stairs – the remaining interior spaces lacked some of the design development shown in other parts of the scheme.
Peter Le
Key strength of the scheme: Nice material palette and subtle forms – that work well together. Very nice use/placement of artwork as part of stair form.
Most significant weakness of the scheme: More care needed with your drawings. Stair concept and resolution also needed more attention (balustrades?) Remember too the ground plane is not paper thin.
Rui Chen
Key strength of the scheme: You have produced some interesting tectonic forms.
Most significant weakness of the scheme: Incomplete submission – some sections are missing. More design work needed on stairs in order to respond to requirements of the design brief. Also you need to carefully think about ground plane (its not a paper thin!) consider its materiality, density mass etc.
Sam Whitby
Key strength of the scheme: Good design development – it was nice to see your scheme improve with each week. Well done on producing some interesting stair types too.
Most significant weakness of the scheme: You need to ensure that you take more care with your hand drawings. They lost some of the clarity/vision of your final scheme.
Sarah Sim
Key strength of the scheme: You have created some dynamic, varied forms especially in your organic studio. And produced a strong sculptural relationship between the overall forms and the stairs within them.
Most significant weakness of the scheme: More clarity needed in order to pull together the 2 very disparate studios in the one building typology.
Sunny Sunhwa
Key strength of the scheme: Great overall form an interesting tectonic solution. Well done.
Most significant weakness of the scheme: Much more detail and resolution is needed overall. It is hard to see how your scheme optimally functions as exhibition and gallery spaces. Incomplete animations – one animation was only 2 seconds in duration!
T J Mundy
Key strength of the scheme: Well done – great work and nicely resolved too. You have designed and brought to life some beautiful spaces. Your forms are not only sophisticated but you have really pushed the relationship between the 2 occupants and the resultant spatial form.
Most significant weakness of the scheme: You needed to then push the idea of the landscape and how this permeates your scheme. More could have been made of sculpturing the land in and around and through your scheme. Your exhibition space was the weaker of all 3 spaces.
Tony Trong
Key strength of the scheme: Some nice design options presented its also refreshing to see students do multiple options. Scheme No 2 could have been a more fruitful choice for design development it had fantastic beginnings.
Most significant weakness of the scheme: Incomplete animations – you needed to provide 3. You need to carefully think about the ground plane consider its materiality, density mass etc. How do you prevent earth from falling into your subterranean studio?
Youli Choi
Key strength of the scheme: Design development of your scheme – good progress. Your overall tectonic is interesting and had potential to be a great scheme.
Most significant weakness of the scheme: Incomplete submission – as a result the stairs/interior spaces are never seen in detail. Please carefully read your submission requirements in future.
Yvonne Chan
Key strength of the scheme: Beautiful forms and images – very sculptural and evocative. Great work.
Most significant weakness of the scheme: More formal resolution needed in order to gauge how you can actually use the spaces as per the brief. More could have been made about the schemes connection to the landscape.
Monday, April 19, 2010
Boolean
MVRDV, Wozoco's Apartments, Amsterdam.
Moshe Safdie, Habitat 67, Montreal.
Kisho Kurokawa, Nagakin Capsule Tower, Ginza, Tokyo.
OMA, House near Bordeaux.
Frank Lloyd Wright, Falling Water, Pennsylvania.
Moshe Safdie, Habitat 67, Montreal.
Kisho Kurokawa, Nagakin Capsule Tower, Ginza, Tokyo.
OMA, House near Bordeaux.
Frank Lloyd Wright, Falling Water, Pennsylvania.
Saturday, March 20, 2010
Stairs
Atelier Bow-Wow, House Tower, Tokyo. Photograph, Sectional Model, Sectional Perspective Drawing. The staircase 'shaft' is used to separate each room, and divides small service spaces from larger living spaces.
MVRDV, Rooftop Extension, Didden Village. Hanging single and double spiral staircases.
Levitate Architects, Bookshelf staircase, London.
Sou Fujimoto, Final Wooden House, Kumamoto. Concept section and photographs. A realisation of the architect's interest in the 'cave house'. Internal spaces are dispersed over a series of levels/platforms - inhabitable stairs..? A variety of spaces are formed through the stacked arrangement of a timber block module - how each space is used is not specified by the architect; rather, he envisages that occupants can choose how they use each space based on size, proportion, light, privacy etc.
MVRDV, Rooftop Extension, Didden Village. Hanging single and double spiral staircases.
Levitate Architects, Bookshelf staircase, London.
Sou Fujimoto, Final Wooden House, Kumamoto. Concept section and photographs. A realisation of the architect's interest in the 'cave house'. Internal spaces are dispersed over a series of levels/platforms - inhabitable stairs..? A variety of spaces are formed through the stacked arrangement of a timber block module - how each space is used is not specified by the architect; rather, he envisages that occupants can choose how they use each space based on size, proportion, light, privacy etc.
ARCH 1101 - 2010 STUDENT BLOG LINKS
Hi All,
Welcome to first year architecture. For those students who have not yet done so, can you please 'follow' me and include a link to your own blog in your profile so I can add it to my list.
Welcome to first year architecture. For those students who have not yet done so, can you please 'follow' me and include a link to your own blog in your profile so I can add it to my list.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)