The basic idea is to create a studio that has separate spaces as an entry room, bathroom, and working room. The change of elevation and stairs separates the working area from the entrance, making the studio seem more like a comforting area like a home, and less like a prison cell or room in a university residence (which are pretty much the same thing anyways). The quarter-sphere window facing towards the south will allow more natural light to enter the room at any time of day. The diagonal wall on the north side is to make the entrance space longer and the bathroom space shorter while keeping the point where the bathroom ends and the point where the stairs end in line with each other.
There will of course be doors in the final design, I just haven't modelled them yet.
First here are some exterior shots:
And some interior, with the roof and upper wall layers turned off:
And here's the floor plan:
The design intention is not strong as it is really only a response to programming - separation of spaces based upon use is something a great deal of people would be doing. You should reconsider the nature of your design before jumping too quickly into the computing. The good part is that you have greater comfort in that media so when designs have to get overhauled, you should be able to recover.
ReplyDeleteThe overall shape is extremely suspect and seems more appropriate to a vehicle design (e.g. a trailer, train compartment, or RV) than an actual building design. There are some similar aspects between the two projects but unlike a vehicle, architecture tends to have some connection to site or something fixed. Architecture is unique in its response to those factors as opposed to vehicle design which is a repeated commodity that can be placed anywhere. Such sensitivity is not apparent in your design.
The general organization and sequence of space is adequate and follows one of the four major groupings that will come about in this project. That said, you may wish to revisit your actual design intention (as opposed to putting the program into a form) and find ways to massage the organization with a clear design intent and aesthetic. The sharp contrast between the curved and angled/rectilinear components is not very developed and as a result comes across as very dated (some of the 1980's works in the West tend to do this - but like shoulder pads and big hair, it is very dated). Perhaps trying to develop a more consistent design palette would help. Also the bubble window not only makes the design look more like an underwater vehicle than a building, but really dominates the design to the point where it looks like it is highlighting the writer's presence. If you are honest about letting in light, there are better options such as clerestory windows, skylights, and even well-thought windows. The bubble will only lead to a lot of challenges - but if you really want to stick with it, at the very least come up with a stronger design intention.
The design comes across as a bit of a Frankenstein project where bits and pieces are tacked on to a base form and you may wish to rationalize it immediately. The strange awning, the window/bubble, and the contrasting geometry all seem like random components that don't work well with each other. Refine an consolidate.
You may also find that with the interiors, you could integrate the furniture - we have had this discussion in the section but given the nature of the assignment, integration of shelves/walls and seats/bench/spatial-separators will make for a more holistic design.
NOTE: NEVER CALL A WIRE FRAME TOP VIEW AS A FLOOR PLAN. We spoke of convention and the last thing we will do is reinforce this representation method. Once you start designing buildings of more complex geometry or program, this habit will only pave the way for extremely harsh criticism. Rendered axonometrics, hidden lines (with line weights would be great), or any other method of representation will be instrumental in helping you out.