Experiment 2 Feedback

The intention of publishing the feedback below is so that all students can benefit by understanding the strengths and weakness’ of a range of projects. Please take the time to review other students work with these comments in mind. If you have any questions or would like any further clarification don’t hesitate to ask me during the studio session

Lorayne Bejjani
Key strength of the scheme:
The transitions between large and small openings in the Nobel lab demonstrate some good architectural qualities and sequences of hiding and revealing spaces
Most significant weakness of the scheme:
Cousteau lab still seems awkward in terms of useable space – instead of not having enough access to the space, now the access reduces it to almost nothing. The axo could have been developed further to achieve a more useable space that kept the ideas of imitation

Jaryd Carolin
Key strength of the scheme:
Interactive components are ahead of their time, and should hold you in good stead for Exp 3.
Overall scheme well presented and explained through blog
Most significant weakness of the scheme:
The Campbell lab seems to have been restricted by the axos used rather than inspired by it and developed further

Wei Heng Chin
Key strength of the scheme:
The structure and application of textures to the Nobel lab produces some great spatial effects and is overall a well made and proportioned space
Most significant weakness of the scheme:
The use of the spaces is unclear – Cousteau’s lab especially seems to be a series of ramps, some not connecting, that don’t lead to any space of significance

Ryan Dharmansyah
Key strength of the scheme:
Very well finished spaces achieved using a restricted material palette and well applied lighting. Custom textures are thoughtfully applied
Most significant weakness of the scheme:
Didn’t take advantage of the varying conditions that spaces inside and outside a cliff might have. Spaces seem to be too similar, not helped by the linear ramp and spaces being all on the one horizontal plane

Sre Gnanamurthy
Key strength of the scheme:
The sequence of spaces in the outside lab achieved through varying floor height and ceiling height produces some interesting spatial relationships
Most significant weakness of the scheme:
Lighting is terrible (or nonexistent) and textures should be carefully chosen and applied to avoid them appearing as rock from one angle and glass from another

Max Hu
Key strength of the scheme:
A series of well thought out contrasting spaces. The combination of floating masses, low horizontal overhangs and vertical voids make the Cousteau lab particularly successful
Most significant weakness of the scheme:
The half height glass walls detract from the strong massing that was clearer in the draft

Nazrul Islam
Key strength of the scheme:
Stepping structure of ramps produces some good effects with shadows and textures. They combine to create some relatively complex and satisfying spatial arrangements
Most significant weakness of the scheme:
The scheme is overscaled and poorly lit. The use of unsuitable UT game textures may contribute to the poor lighting

Nik Kardum
Key strength of the scheme:
Well thought out and proportioned scheme with a series of clever visual links that connect the spaces but avoid a direct physical link which helps give each space their own identity
Most significant weakness of the scheme:
The lighting, especially in the Cousteau lab, could have gone further to take advantage of the skylight boxes

Michelle Lee
Key strength of the scheme:
Outside lab has produced some interesting arrangements of spaces and lighting conditions and is well contrasted with the rigid structure of the meeting space
Most significant weakness of the scheme:
The cliff lab still has trouble distinguishing itself from the meeting space. Perhaps this could have been achieved by embracing the idea of hollowing out the cliff to produce a completely different type of space

Nicole Meo
Key strength of the scheme:
Ramps used well to represent each client, especially in conjunction with the glass light well for Cousteau’s lab
Most significant weakness of the scheme:
The meeting space doesn’t convey the idea of ‘explosion’ as you suggest. The reliance on what is essentially decoration to convey an explosion is fairly unsuccessful and instead could have been incorporated into the actual form of the space

Phil Nguyen
Key strength of the scheme:
The lighting, texture, and form of the Cousteau lab combine to produce and amazing space. The water is a critical part of the success of this space and its creation and application was well handled
Most significant weakness of the scheme:
Meeting space misses an opportunity to link what are 2 very different spaces together in a more meaningful way. The linear connection, both physically and visually lessen the impact of the labs

Yu Qi
Key strength of the scheme:
Cousteau lab floating in tank of water is achieved well and produces some good relationships within this space. Swimable water would have improved the idea
Most significant weakness of the scheme:
The scale of the stairs in the Nobel lab, and circulation in general, are a bit awkward

Jennifer Salcedo
Key strength of the scheme:
Series of quite successful ramps and interesting spaces in the Nobel lab that explore the relationship between inside and outside quite well
Most significant weakness of the scheme:
The structure of ramps surrounding the coloured room in the meeting space are a bit utilitarian and reduce the likelyhood of actually meeting in the coloured room, which is successful on its own


Prateek Shorey
Key strength of the scheme:
The transition of spaces within the Nobel lab work well with different lighting conditions and room sizes
Most significant weakness of the scheme:
Meeting space and ramps show no real connection to the clients

Kevin Tanuwidjaja
Key strength of the scheme:
Good visual aids to give direction to the user such as the material banding throughout the Cousteau lab and the lighting in the Nobel lab
Most significant weakness of the scheme:
Unclear as to what some spaces are. The octagonal platform attached to Cousteau lab, for example, has no clear purpose or link to the overall design

Saffat Waes
Key strength of the scheme:
The beginnings of some good ideas with the slatted walkway through the large vertical shaft
Most significant weakness of the scheme:
Overall scheme is basic and unfinished with the scale and textures poorly resolved and the lighting missing

Simon Yaghoubpour
Key strength of the scheme:
Experimentation with repetitive linear elements of the form and textures in the scheme
Most significant weakness of the scheme:
Little evidence of engagement with UT software

Ying Zhang
Key strength of the scheme:
Campbell lab is clear and structured with the custom textures well applied and the timber slats to tie the whole space together
Most significant weakness of the scheme:
The use of too many textures distracts from the meeting space and Cousteau’s lab. Cousteau’s lab is also overscaled, even for a ‘naval officer’