The things stan mentioned at the interim review were:
- The window in the front is too big, and in addition to looking awkward, will let in too much harsh direct sunlight to allow for a good workspace and will also cause the studio to heat up too much
- The design should better reflect my design intention, which is to have a large panoramic view, so it would be a good idea to have the curved window extend all the way across the curved face of the building
- The desk should be more dominant and less tucked in a corner, as it is the main focus and is where the writer will spend most of their time. The space between the desk and counter serves no purpose and is completely wasted. It might not be a bad idea to have the desk or counter be longer, or perhaps even connect.
- The desk can vary in curvature, elevation or shape
- The plan view on the poster should line up with other drawings for more context
- The plan and site plan should have the same orientation, north does not have to point straight towards the top of the page
- The site plan does not give enough information for viewers to locate the building on the site, it can be extended and take up more of the page, should cover enough site to show at least 2 major landmarks like the street or building
- The Site plan should show paths, not have them be obscured by trees
- The Site plan should use the floor plan of the building not a view of the roof
- The entrance area on the east side may be too small to provide any use
- My renders should actually show the panoramic view the writer has of the park, considering that is the intent of the design
- The writer should be given places in the building to hide from sunlight, if it is too harsh
- Building orientation and rotation, roof overhangs, desk position and wall curvature could be changed to adjust lighting and ensure the desk is not constantly in direct harsh sunlight.
I've addressed some of this feedback in my new design and layout, but since I don't have all the drawings of the new design, here are a few quick screenshots showcasing it (The overhang in the back and the walls of the bathroom should be appearing solid, but there seems to be some kind of windows-mac compatibility error making them display in wireframe). The major changes I've made include extending the desk, moving the counter and wall over to make the entrance larger, removing the large awkward window and replacing it with a smaller skylight, altering the roof, adding overhangs in the front and back, and adding a mini-fridge in between the desk and counter.:
And here's the rendered images on their own, in larger more detailed images than on the poster:
We already spoke about Stanislav's comments and how they are very appropriate and should be taken seriously in order to make this a strong design. A few notes for other students to learn from your most recent board:
ReplyDelete-do not inundate posters with gigantic title blocks; you do not even have to feel obligated for this poster to indicate your section (it's not necessary)
-your drawings must be significantly improved in order to showcase your ability to follow architectural convention; sections should not have perspectival convergence so do NOT mindlessly generate material from the computer and trace over the material
-the drawings must be cleaned up in Photoshop to remove the gradient from the trace paper that is evident in your poster; DO NOT FREEHAND ANYTHING PERTAINING TO THE BUILDING IN AN ARCHITECTURAL DRAWING
-be mindful of the saturation and colour balancing when you bring the renders into the photo when you use Photoshop; if you are unable to do this convincingly, you should consider going to greyscale as it removes the dimension of colour that makes the images you currently have look cartoon-ish
Your elevations continue to make problems for you. Rather than adding material in your design, you should really consider removing elements or at the very least clarify and consolidate the design gestures you have. For example the roof visor splitting on the Southeast is not only a strange thing to design for (if it were actually intentional) but comes across like a sloppy computer modeling mistake. Perhaps it would be better to simply keep a consistent roof atop the building but consider using the "strips" that you have along the roof as a governing system for where you could put glass. That way you can also remove that strange glazed component above the writer's desk. As you can imagine, cleaning up the ideas and the geometry will not only make for a better design but also afford you greater confidence in detailing the assembly and construction of the building.
The redesign that you have right now seems to be designed from plan as opposed to really thinking about the work in 3D. If the design really went beyond the plan, it would be fairly clear that putting an overhang on the North elevation makes no sense at all as there never would be direct sunlight from that direction. This is especially odd when you look at other sides such as the East/Northwest/North faces which have (for the most part) nothing at all. Think about how you can make your design something more than just an extruded plan with a mildly interesting roof.
The skylight is again something that is too over the top and instead you might find it better to put as a continuous element with the roof. Currently what you have is quite clunky so I am tempted to take it out unless it gets fixed.