Congratulations on the successful completion of Experiment 3 to all those who made it.
To everyone else, a reminder that:
"Late submissions will be penalized at a rate of 10% per day unless the student has made an arrangement with the course coordinator prior to the submission date."
Wednesday, June 15, 2011
Sunday, June 5, 2011
Forgotten Monuments
http://www.archdaily.com/131331/yugoslavia-forgotten-monuments/
Scultures to commemorate WWII battles. Some inspiration for the meeting space and table on the valley floor...
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
Making Rain
Video tute demonstrating how to make rain, but can be extended to many more applications
Monday, April 25, 2011
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
EXP1 FEEDBACK
The intention of publishing the feedback for the tute group here is that you may benefit from feedback given to your peers and be able compare strengths and weeaknesses to help everyone to improve.
They are published alphabetically:
Batros,Merna
Incomplete Submission
Cheong,Sharon
Key strength of the scheme:
Introduction of above ground studio to create two distinct spaces, one for the studio and one for the exhibition space. Good use of stairs within the structure to continue the ‘hopeless’ idea
Most significant weakness of the scheme:
Underground space is under developed in comparison and the animations aren’t well captured to reveal interior space
Hammersley,Amy Dianne
Key strength of the scheme:
Layering and texturing of elements in underground studio is quite successful and turns what could have been a simple extrusion into a more sophisticated design
Most significant weakness of the scheme:
Above ground stairs are underdeveloped or seem at odds with the form of the studio space, and overall the studio spaces are quite literal interpretations of the words. Late Submission
Hwang,Yoonteak
Key strength of the scheme:
Well resolved 3 dimensional scheme, dealing with the datum quite successfully in relation to the underground studio
Most significant weakness of the scheme:
Exhibition space and the links between it and the studio spaces could have been developed further, to connect the stairs better, for example. Late Submission
Kelso,Jacqueline Louise
Incomplete Submission
Li,Tzu-Hao
Key strength of the scheme:
Unique resolution of the datum and use of the studio spaces to frame exhibition space
Most significant weakness of the scheme:
Section animations are fly throughs and don’t really capture how the spaces work internally
Late Submission
Lim,Li Chi
Key strength of the scheme:
Development from section sketch into a feasible and successful scheme with 3 distinct spaces
Most significant weakness of the scheme:
Confusing animations that jump around too much to get a sense of the spaces
Late Submission
Lim,Winjing
Key strength of the scheme:
Development of stairs is quite successful for the spaces involved
Most significant weakness of the scheme:
Exhibition space is under developed and studio spaces don’t go far enough to create two unique spaces to suit each artist
Lodewyke,Elaine Ivorene
Key strength of the scheme:
The beginnings of a reasonable exhibition space and well designed stairs to fit the themes
Most significant weakness of the scheme:
Studios are underdeveloped. Hard to distinguish between studio and exhibition space. Highlighted by stairs going to a slightly raised podium. Animations too short and simple.
Late Submission.
Maley,Liam
Key strength of the scheme:
Good development from section drawing into consistent design with well thought out materiality and structure
Most significant weakness of the scheme:
More challenging section drawing could have led to the design of less conventional architecture but with more relationship to the words chosen
Meshgini,Niloofar
Key strength of the scheme:
Attempt at some difficult forms and experimenting with threshold between exhibition space and studios
Most significant weakness of the scheme:
Only one animation that doesn’t show much of substance. Studios do not make the most of the interesting form making you attempted, each one being a simple platform floating in space.
Exhibition space walls are poorly resolved. Late Submission
Muhammad Aqil Bin Mohd Tahir
Key strength of the scheme:
The incorporation of the stair with the above ground studio space inspired by ‘companionship’
Most significant weakness of the scheme:
Underground studio is underdeveloped and there is little indication of the exhibition space. Section drawings are poor.
Qing,Kejun
Key strength of the scheme:
Section drawings and early sketchup modelling work show promise
Most significant weakness of the scheme:
Incomplete Submission
Tang,Kangyi
Key strength of the scheme:
Experimenting with different enclosures and layers in the above ground studio space
Most significant weakness of the scheme:
Underground studio is unresolved and the use of the words for inspiration is unclear
Taylor,Kieran
Key strength of the scheme:
Use of landscape to frame the architecture and experimentation with thresholds for the above ground studio to develop a sense of freedom
Most significant weakness of the scheme:
Exhibition space is underdeveloped and fits awkwardly with the rest of the scheme
Ten,Dara
Key strength of the scheme:
Experimenting with different spatial conditions through the use of varying ceiling heights and internal volumes.
Most significant weakness of the scheme:
Simple extrusion of section with little resolution of interior space which isn’t well shown in animations
Tor,Jiajun
Key strength of the scheme:
Development of the above ground studio space and incorporation with the exhibition space
Most significant weakness of the scheme:
Below ground space has a variety of ideas for ‘hide’ but fails to bring them together into a coherent space
Tse,Caiyen
Key strength of the scheme:
Well resolved model of what was a challenging section drawing, well captured in the animations
Most significant weakness of the scheme:
Exhibition space could have done more to differentiate itself from the above ground studio
Wong,Constance Yiting
Incomplete Submission
Wong,Meng Min
Key strength of the scheme:
Development of above ground studio to provide functional space for artist and exhibition space while keeping the original essence of the section drawing. Well captured in the animations
Most significant weakness of the scheme:
Section drawing are underdeveloped
They are published alphabetically:
Batros,Merna
Incomplete Submission
Cheong,Sharon
Key strength of the scheme:
Introduction of above ground studio to create two distinct spaces, one for the studio and one for the exhibition space. Good use of stairs within the structure to continue the ‘hopeless’ idea
Most significant weakness of the scheme:
Underground space is under developed in comparison and the animations aren’t well captured to reveal interior space
Hammersley,Amy Dianne
Key strength of the scheme:
Layering and texturing of elements in underground studio is quite successful and turns what could have been a simple extrusion into a more sophisticated design
Most significant weakness of the scheme:
Above ground stairs are underdeveloped or seem at odds with the form of the studio space, and overall the studio spaces are quite literal interpretations of the words. Late Submission
Hwang,Yoonteak
Key strength of the scheme:
Well resolved 3 dimensional scheme, dealing with the datum quite successfully in relation to the underground studio
Most significant weakness of the scheme:
Exhibition space and the links between it and the studio spaces could have been developed further, to connect the stairs better, for example. Late Submission
Kelso,Jacqueline Louise
Incomplete Submission
Li,Tzu-Hao
Key strength of the scheme:
Unique resolution of the datum and use of the studio spaces to frame exhibition space
Most significant weakness of the scheme:
Section animations are fly throughs and don’t really capture how the spaces work internally
Late Submission
Lim,Li Chi
Key strength of the scheme:
Development from section sketch into a feasible and successful scheme with 3 distinct spaces
Most significant weakness of the scheme:
Confusing animations that jump around too much to get a sense of the spaces
Late Submission
Lim,Winjing
Key strength of the scheme:
Development of stairs is quite successful for the spaces involved
Most significant weakness of the scheme:
Exhibition space is under developed and studio spaces don’t go far enough to create two unique spaces to suit each artist
Lodewyke,Elaine Ivorene
Key strength of the scheme:
The beginnings of a reasonable exhibition space and well designed stairs to fit the themes
Most significant weakness of the scheme:
Studios are underdeveloped. Hard to distinguish between studio and exhibition space. Highlighted by stairs going to a slightly raised podium. Animations too short and simple.
Late Submission.
Maley,Liam
Key strength of the scheme:
Good development from section drawing into consistent design with well thought out materiality and structure
Most significant weakness of the scheme:
More challenging section drawing could have led to the design of less conventional architecture but with more relationship to the words chosen
Meshgini,Niloofar
Key strength of the scheme:
Attempt at some difficult forms and experimenting with threshold between exhibition space and studios
Most significant weakness of the scheme:
Only one animation that doesn’t show much of substance. Studios do not make the most of the interesting form making you attempted, each one being a simple platform floating in space.
Exhibition space walls are poorly resolved. Late Submission
Muhammad Aqil Bin Mohd Tahir
Key strength of the scheme:
The incorporation of the stair with the above ground studio space inspired by ‘companionship’
Most significant weakness of the scheme:
Underground studio is underdeveloped and there is little indication of the exhibition space. Section drawings are poor.
Qing,Kejun
Key strength of the scheme:
Section drawings and early sketchup modelling work show promise
Most significant weakness of the scheme:
Incomplete Submission
Tang,Kangyi
Key strength of the scheme:
Experimenting with different enclosures and layers in the above ground studio space
Most significant weakness of the scheme:
Underground studio is unresolved and the use of the words for inspiration is unclear
Taylor,Kieran
Key strength of the scheme:
Use of landscape to frame the architecture and experimentation with thresholds for the above ground studio to develop a sense of freedom
Most significant weakness of the scheme:
Exhibition space is underdeveloped and fits awkwardly with the rest of the scheme
Ten,Dara
Key strength of the scheme:
Experimenting with different spatial conditions through the use of varying ceiling heights and internal volumes.
Most significant weakness of the scheme:
Simple extrusion of section with little resolution of interior space which isn’t well shown in animations
Tor,Jiajun
Key strength of the scheme:
Development of the above ground studio space and incorporation with the exhibition space
Most significant weakness of the scheme:
Below ground space has a variety of ideas for ‘hide’ but fails to bring them together into a coherent space
Tse,Caiyen
Key strength of the scheme:
Well resolved model of what was a challenging section drawing, well captured in the animations
Most significant weakness of the scheme:
Exhibition space could have done more to differentiate itself from the above ground studio
Wong,Constance Yiting
Incomplete Submission
Wong,Meng Min
Key strength of the scheme:
Development of above ground studio to provide functional space for artist and exhibition space while keeping the original essence of the section drawing. Well captured in the animations
Most significant weakness of the scheme:
Section drawing are underdeveloped
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)