Wednesday, April 28, 2010

What Is Landform?

Superstudio, 1971.

Shell Petroleum Headquarters Rueil-Malmaison, France. Designed by Kathryn Gustafson, 1989-1991.

When we discuss the idea and the historiography of Landform, we are, regardless the ahistorical tendency of the abundant imaginary forms projected onto the "Land", confronting the notion of Artifice as "the art of the multiple diversifying reality"(1); and the notion of Artifact as "the glory of man (or human kind) brought forth by the builders"(2).
The Imaginary and the Real, the constant players of the ultimate "shaping" of Landform, should guide you through Exp 2.

(1)-Christine Buci-Glucksmann, 2000.
(2)-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tower_of_Babel


1- The Tower of Babel, the Imaginary;by Pieter Brueghel the Elder(1563).

2- Grand Canyon, the Real;


3- The Grand Canyon Skywalk, The Real mixed with the Imaginary;




4- Back To the Real;


The Dream of the Architectby Thomas Cole, 1840.


The Continuous Monument, An Architectural Model For Total Urbanisation,By Superstudio, 1969.


Built Form as Landform
Swimming Pool, Le├ža de Palmeira, Oporto, by Alvaro Siza (1966).

Tuesday, April 27, 2010

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.


Albert

Key strength of the scheme:
The attempt to compose and articulate the volumetric relations in the final scheme.

Most significant weakness of the scheme:
The relationship between each levels is not clear neither by the SketchUp images nor by animations. Not using sectional sketches to develop and clarify the vertical organization has limited this scheme’s design potentiality.

Andrew

Key strength of the scheme:
Playfulness in formal composition and the attention to interior details. The texture has been effectively applied in the underground studio. The contrast between the open curvaceous roofs and volumetric spherical protrusions intensifies the qualitative differences between the underground and above ground studios.

Most significant weakness of the scheme:
Skills in sketches. Developing design ideas through a series of 3D visualization.

Aneta

Key strength of the scheme:
Clarity in volumetric composition.

Most significant weakness of the scheme:
The 3 animations are all about sections and haven’t gone inside of the project. Lacks of imagination and vigour in design and the process of design development. The scheme needs more details and materiality. The architectonic aspect in the spaces hasn’t been explored and represented. Please be more engaged.

Blake

Key strength of the scheme:
The attempt to tie everything together in a scheme that appears to be “as found” and without artificiality. Exercise constrain in the expansion of formal construct. Sensitive to materiality.

Most significant weakness of the scheme:
Lacks rigour in the process of design development. Limitation in imaginary audacity.

Charlie

INC

Dominic

Key strength of the scheme:
The playfulness in formal composition and the contrast between underground and above ground spaces. The 2nd + 3rd animations explain the spatial organization and quality of the scheme comprehensively.

Most significant weakness of the scheme:
Lacks design development. Needs more definition throughout the scheme.

Howard

Key strength of the scheme:
Balancing act between craft and imagination. Willingness to engage with technical challenge by working towards difficult solutions instead of dwelling on the conventional ones. Employing movement to string together landscape and architecture. The 3D 36 Textures. What a treat!

Most significant weakness of the scheme:
More concerns for aesthetics and architectural imagination in enclosed space.

Jason

Key strength of the scheme:
Fluidity in spatial disegno via ShetchUp. The final scheme as represented in the 3 animations has been rendered with imagination, attention to details and playful volumetric composition.

Most significant weakness of the scheme:
Lacks design development via sketches. “Design is a patient search”, to paraphrase Le Corbusier, and an intense study of benchmark projects could help you focus on the process.

Jeremy

Key strength of the scheme:
Level of skills in details and rendering materiality is high. The 3 animations show clear spatial sequences and the interior spaces are represented with great care. Highlight the contrast between underground and above ground spaces.

Most significant weakness of the scheme:
The SketchUp images couldn’t convey the scheme’s spatial quality. Lacks imagination in formalistic and aesthetic aspect of design. This can be improved by exposure to canonical buildings throughout history.

Kate

Key strength of the scheme:
Room based spatial idea with playful volumetric composition. Attempt to create a series of staircases is appreciated.

Most significant weakness of the scheme:
Not enough engagement with the experiment. The design development is inconsistent and lacks vigour. The final scheme needs a lot more details and spatial definition.

Kevin

Key strength of the scheme:
Strong design skills accompanied by imaginative details development. The tendency to seek expressive structural solution is much appreciated. Good sense of texture and public scale for the gallery space. Strong imagination in complex geometry and at the same time capable of visualizing it.

Most significant weakness of the scheme:
Lacking a sense of aesthetics in the formal aspect of architecture: the plasticity achieved through solid/void, inside/outside, volume and open spaces. Please study more canonical buildings.

Kirra

Key strength of the scheme:
The attention to details in animation: rich materiality, accurate representation of spatial elements. The siting of the building into landscape is thoughtfully arranged.

Most significant weakness of the scheme:
Lacking a strong design idea to carry the apparent skills in details development to the next level. Architectural imagination has been limited to the “real” instead of experimenting the “possible”. You can achieve much higher mark if there is more vigour in design development.

Kristin

Key strength of the scheme:
Clarity in design ideas generated from keywords. The spatial organization is reasonable and the final scheme demonstrates certain understanding of the “objecthood” in building.

Most significant weakness of the scheme:
Lacking vigour in design development. Need to explore diverse aspects of spatial and programmatic organization. This can be achieved by studying bencjmark projects.

Luen

Key strength of the scheme:
Clarity in spatial conception, organization and design execution. The overall proportion of the spaces is deliberately rendered. The skill in drawing is particularly strong and imaginative in “drawing out” ideas.

Most significant weakness of the scheme:
Need more ambition and dynamic approach in design. You have potential to get higher mark.

Marcuse


Key strength of the scheme:
Highly imaginative design development and diverse approach to the materialization of the spaces. Excellent sense in composition during the developmental phases.

Most significant weakness of the scheme:
The final scheme lacks spatial fluidity and its architectonic solution is short of understanding in geometric composition. This can be improved by studying benchmark projects and through reading.

Michael

Key strength of the scheme:
Playfulness in accentuating verticality and vertical stacking in the underground studio. There is a sense of grandeur in the presence of each spaces as presented in your images even though they are often out of scale.

Most significant weakness of the scheme:
Lacking integration in the thematic aspect of your E1.

Qian

Key strength of the scheme:
Boldness in concept and design development. Beautiful sectional sketches showing rich spatial imagination.

Most significant weakness of the scheme:
The interior space for the upper studio is not clearly represented neither by SketchUp images nor 3 animations. Need to invest more effort in the process of design development.

Ray

Key strength of the scheme:
Clarity in all three spaces and their connectivity. Dramatic use of textures and colours in the interior spaces. The engagement with design development and spatial organization.

Most significant weakness of the scheme:
The articulation of inside/outside is limited and often not clear in how a space is enclosed and where a wall fenestration can take place.

Sarah

Key strength of the scheme:
Meticulous in the effect of composition for the building volumes and the spatial fluidity. Good sense of colour and texture. Some interesting details to highlight the lineal procession through circulation and path.

Most significant weakness of the scheme:
The scale of the spaces as represented in your 3 animations comparing to the human figures is general too big.

Steven

Key strength of the scheme:
Strong volumetric composition and sensitivity to the effect of texture.

Most significant weakness of the scheme:
Lacking vigour in design development and spatial experimentation. The 5 animations are poorly organized and couldn’t convey neither the orientation nor the quality of the internal spaces regardless their proper scale and proportions.

Yuki

Key strength of the scheme:
Sensitivity to details and method of construction in stair design sketches. Effective application of texture onto building surface. Effective contrast between inside/outside & solid/void.

Most significant weakness of the scheme:
Lacking organization and missing information in your blogger uploads. The process of design development couldn’t be comprehended.