Interim presentations have a few differences from typical desk reviews:
- They are formal pinups akin to final project reviews (unlike desk reviews which are low-key affairs)
- They often have another critic to ensure "another set of eyes" on a project to ensure as many design facets are adequately covered
- They demand a clarity in the design intention and proper expression of the idea (drawings, models, perspectives,etc.)
- Though they sometimes have marks associated with the work, regardless, your work is being judged so take these reviews seriously
There should be NO question that a student should have these bases covered for this upcoming week's presentations. If everyone has a COMPLETE drawing set (e.g. all orthographic plans, elevations, sections, and site plan/section, etc.) that properly (e.g. follows conventions, does not look like it was a colouring book exercise, etc.) showcases ALL the major aspects of their design, then that is a bare minimum starting point.
Additional materials include any TWO of the following:
- 2 Interior and 2 Exterior computer generated or hand drawn perspectives (based upon accurate drawing data)
- A 1:25 massing model (no colour, single material, no hot glue)
- An exploded axonometric showcasing notable content (not a redundant 3D drawing)
- Full or half scale proper layout sheets (based upon the extensive review last week, anything close to the pathetic charette work will not be tolerated)
Remember that there is a great deal of work that will arise from the discussion at the interim reviews. Keep in mind that the more content you showcase, the more relevant feedback you can get in order to refine your design work for the final. It is better to fail now when there are no marks and get as much feedback as possible than to hold back and be "surprised" when the final grades are issued. Nobody likes surprises in architecture.
No comments:
Post a Comment