DESIGN FACTORS: God/Bird's Eye View of Projects

It has become extremely evident that students have been designing their projects from an extremely detached world view. The needs of the occupants in the various projects already outlined in the studio have focused more on the building-as-object paradigm rather than the building-as-occupied model.
An example of a terrible designer/person is Zaha Hadid where she designs buildings that are "Far from nice but nice from far". Her Aquatic Center at the London Games was clearly designed from afar and likely with little consideration of how it worked both inside and out.

Despite its seductive form:

Once her minions had to develop the structure and seating AFTER the seductive imagery, the construction proceeded with this. Take note how the structure and ceiling obscure any views of the pool from the upper level seating.

Needless to say, even after the Olympic organizers had to refund tickets because people could not actually see the event, Zaha refused to take responsibility.

Things NOT to DO:

• Do NOT create a "cool-looking form" and then shove walls and program into the bounded volume; it will only lead to mediocrity
• 
  
• Do NOT limit your architectural design process as linear (e.g. working from outside to the inside) but instead look at the design from multiple levels holistically
• 
  
• Do NOT take fundamental elements such as structure and program lightly; if you consider these factors early, they will not make for huge problems in the future
• 
  
• Do NOT be Zaha

Things to DO:

• Do use the ability to set up Cameras and saved views in your digital model to understand the impact of changes from the macro (God's) view as well as the micro interior perspectives
• 
  
• Do set up a sequence of views to understand the approach/narrative a person would go through in your design; think about how the building serves as a choreographing tool rather than simply a static art piece
• 
  
• Do use macro/God views to showcase how the design works in the larger context and possibly in different seasons/times that would not otherwise show well in human-scaled perspectives

DESIGN FACTORS: Negligent Symmetry

Remember the two reasons why you would likely find symmetrical buildings? For those other disadvantaged sections unaware, Section 2 knows that symmetry is often found in buildings tied to classical order/formalism (for example, ancient houses of worship or landscape art) or (in the contemporary studio) in weak design projects. 

Really - why would you need 4 stairs within such proximity? Worse still, if you made one awkward and terrible set of stairs, why make the occupants suffer 3 more of the same? Palladio had a focus on order but it reflected an inability to consider other forces.

Similarly the Burj Khalifa (as with many projects in the Middle East and Asia) is also devoid of true contextual factors which renders the plan such a problem (though admittedly SOM realized that there had to be nuanced asymmetry to make this project work). Think about how the sun would hit the building in the morning versus the evening and you automatically realize that symmetrical treatment is nonsensical.

That there are a multiplicity of forces emerging from a site such as solar orientation, major axes and circulation, and adjacent buildings all demand a response that goes beyond symmetry. It makes no sense that a building sitting adjacent to a path with different surrounding elements (such as trees, seating areas, and other anchors for social activity) would be symmetrical in its design. 

Yes, a building may have some symmetrical components (for example theatres often have symmetrical performance spaces on account of acoustics) but the entire building would unlikely be symmetrically split along some major axis. It is in the nuances of the differences that show thoughtful design.

3 Things NOT to DO:

• Do NOT feel compelled to mirror a design simply to fit the space or "make it look right"; the human mind tries to find patters and symmetry but that does not necessarily cater to creating a good design
• 
  
• Do NOT second guess your design in the instance you do have symmetry; such a design decision may be the most appropriate choice
• 
  
• Do NOT sprawl; corridors and mirroring components in the current final project exercise would not be conducive to this project nor to one's architectural education

3 Things to DO:

• DO think about the space from a person's perspective as opposed to "God's View" from plan; mirroring and symmetry often emerge from the weak designers who only see the 2D plan
• DO consider a range of factors that impact design such as solar orientation, circulation, adjacencies, attractor points, etc. and integrate them as part of the design discussion
• Do think in 3D and you will realize that it is extremely difficult to justify mirroring design elements

DESIGN FACTORS: Clarity of Design Idea

Though this is a communication studio, you are all developing as designers for at least the next three years, if not your entire career. Take a moment and write a single sentence that outlines what YOU wish to accomplish with the design. This statement will likely be something you will repeat in your presentation which will ultimately be the lens that the reviewers and assessors will evaluate your project.

3 Things to NOT DO:

•  Do NOT try to do everything at once (e.g. present your project as fulfilling a checklist of items)
•  Do NOT set your “design idea” as something inherently tied to tacit factors (e.g. “My big idea for this writer’s studio is to ensure he can write…” instead it might be something more akin to “My design idea is to use varying degrees of transparency to support the range of writer’s activities.”

•  Do NOT cater to your prof’s preferences (e.g. “She likes symmetry so I’ll do it even though I know it is useless in this project…”) but instead you should begin learning to proceed with your design ideas fully aware of the feedback from your instructor; if your design is completely misguided, they will tell you, but take their feedback as constructive criticism to make your work better; if you attribute a design decision to a professor, you may as well give him or her your grades for the project

3 Things to DO:

• DO identify your design idea and correlate the ways your design expresses and reinforces it (e.g. the design idea deals with transparency and there are instances where the design uses clear glass and frosted glass to delineate space)
•  DO show your classmates your work in a quick presentation and ask them if they could articulate what the main idea behind the design is; if they cannot, find out where the failure between intention and expression came from
•  DO ensure you have something to show with some level of reasonable articulation when meeting your professors; despite having the best idea possible, it is extremely frustrating for professors to understand what is in your mind unless you are able to represent the idea adequately (digital/physical models, drawings, and measured illustrations); sketches or parti imagery are devoid of scale and often fail to offer anything more than initial concepts

How Not To Design Project 4 (Mitch)

I'm posting this more for the purposes of showing you guys what not to do but here's some renders of a quick design I did up this evening. While it's not an extrusion from a plan, I noticed afterwards that it looks like an extrusion from the elevation which is just as bad.

The Grange

TEST

Title says it all.. let's see how well this looks