Project 3 Interim (Daniel)

So here's what I produced for the interim:

ISO:

SITE PLAN:

GROUND FLOOR PLAN:
SECOND FLOOR PLAN:

THIRD FLOOR PLAN: 
NORTH-SOUTH SECTION:
EAST-WEST SECTION:
EXPLODED ISOMETRIC VIEW:

Posted by at

2 comments:

  1. [R]ed[U]x Lab20 February 2015 at 18:01

    This project needs a very thorough and critical reassessment and I do not think I could address every single design problem without having been at earlier desk reviews/crits. In essence, this project epitomizes what many of the first year class is suffering from:

    -the "design" has no intention aside from filling in required elements, whether it is filling up as much of the given site, filling out the building with the inflated program, or filling the design with token elements without any sense of overall holistic connectivity; you have to find a clear design idea or else this whole exercise is less about architecture and more about programmatic optimization
    -there is not a clear design intention; this is one of two very disturbing characteristics in approach to this project; aside from the seemingly requisite atrium, the program is simply stenciled onto the building floor plates; one should be able to see a clear design intention or unique organization of spaces/materials/operations that make this project an architectural proposal as opposed to simply a building; unfortunately it is missing here; think about every acclaimed or notable architectural work you have come across and you will realize that there is a central idea that the architect stuck with and maintained throughout the design; it is worth spending time to identify this before jumping into simply designing a building
    -the second major flaw with the entire project is that it reads as though it was done in the following steps:
    A) playing tetris with various plan elements, [you can see this in your room designs]
    B) drafting up some rough plans based upon those boxes while leaving far too many problematic circulation/open spaces, [your ground floor by the reception, whatever that area of confluence between your yoga rooms on the second floor, etc.]
    C) extrusion of the walls and layer caking them atop each other, [the fact that your walls don’t align and you have no basic structure is very troublesome]
    D) upon realizing how terrible the design looked, the design was added strange (seemingly random) design gestures to compensate[the prismatic roof element, the bulging over the Crawford elevation], and
    E) attempt to add architectural elements to make the building appear like architecture rather than simply a programming layout exercise [The fountain on the ground floor? The apparent overuse of café seating masking underdeveloped spatial design?]
    The step you haven't got to is F) the realization that the elevation does not exist resulting in random punching out of windows and doors to provide some sense of design. [Your design is so early it still lacks windows and even your plans still have doors with no openings]

    Logistical/Technical Issues
    -does your fire star on the east actually exit OUT of the building?; why do you not exit the South fire stairs onto Crawford?; these are basic mistakes
    -where is the restaurant/kitchen storage?; is that little closet by the retail supposed to be its storage?; think about the basics of loading, storage, and back of house material and you’ll quickly realize how terrible the layout of the ground floor is; the scale of the spaces between discrete rooms is out of scale (for example, the area between the restaurant/kitchen and the washrooms is huge whereas the distance between the feature stairs and the women’s washroom is nonexistent and awkward)
    -why are the washrooms separated from the café areas? Your circulation from College into the building is very awkward; you circulation throughout the building is very poor too; that strange catwalk on the second floor is awkward, the seating area on the southeast corner of the top floor is weak and extraneous
    -the drawing is weak and you will need to really improve your conventions (line weights, stairs, doors/openings) in order to merit passing into the next year

    ReplyDelete
  2. [R]ed[U]x Lab20 February 2015 at 18:02

    Design
    -the fountain is extremely weak and makes no sense unless you expect everyone waiting in the facility to be sitting around its perimeter; you may instead find that integration with the feature stair might be an option
    -your walls and division of space in the building is terrible; try aligning walls (i.e. your fire stair wall could line up with the washroom wall); check your section and see if things can fall in line with each other
    -it is extremely difficult to help out on this as there is no real design intention that comes across; if the intention was to make for a box with contrasting random triangulated geometries create more awkward spaces, then even that needs to be made more evident as it could have used a rigid concrete grid structure to speak about the conventional building and then perhaps steel frame for the more triangulated geometries; but that is not likely the intent
    -what is shown here comes across as a project that tried to make for an interesting form but started with a mandate to make building program boxes instead; as a result you get the worst of both worlds – conventional boxes poorly organized in a form that is clumsy and ruins any architectural opportunity
    -the best advice would be to focus on the design intention first and you will quickly realize that everything else will come relatively easily if it is a strong and clear idea; things such as materiality, light, circulation, spatial changes, and effects will come into play and support the main idea once you have some confidence in making it work; you need to get this first
    -don’t throw out everything; if anything, use this as an opportunity to clarify and focus your ideas so instead of doing four or five things poorly, do one thing really well

    You always ask for what is good:
    -you have a great deal of time to put this together still
    -you have great faculty members who will help direct you in clarifying your idea
    -you are receptive to critical feedback so you can make these changes effectively

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)