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’

Perspectives - Iakov Chernikhov

Here are a few examples of perspectives and an axo from Russian Constructivist architect and graphic designer Iakov Chernikhov. Some pretty good examples of hatching parallel surfaces to help understand the drawing.
They are all sourced from http://www.icif.ru/Engl/index.htm
Worth a look

Experiment 1 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 underground space is well resolved with the stair appearing as a pile of rock growing up to the exhibition space. Your use of textures in the above ground studio is well thought out to give the flat surfaces a degree of expression while still providing as interesting contrast with the wave form
Most significant weakness of the scheme:
Animations are poorly cropped, being viewed from to far away, and are fly arounds for the most part showing little of the interior spaces

Jaryd Carolin
Key strength of the scheme:
Good wholistic approach to design where each stage developed layers of meaning to the scheme and excellent use of the blog to provide an understanding of this process.
The animation narrative was an interesting idea that separated the presentation from the more conventional submissions
Most significant weakness of the scheme:
The early stages of design that focused on objects (masking tape and grenade) may have limited the scheme from becoming more expressive and free. The exhibition space as a space that links the above and below ground spaces could have been better resolved

Wei Heng Chin
Key strength of the scheme:
A series of very successful stairs and spatial arrangements, particularly the exhibition space and its relationship to the studio spaces
Most significant weakness of the scheme:
The size of the scheme, while helping to create some interesting spaces and complexities, has also left some large unresolved areas that could have become more compact in a smaller scheme more suited to individual studio spaces

Ryan Dharmansyah
Key strength of the scheme:
The applied textures work well to break up what are essentially rectilinear interiors. There are the beginnings of good ideas in the underground space in the relationship between the ‘dark’ theme and the hexagonal side lights
Most significant weakness of the scheme:
The scheme has little relationship to the original ideas. ‘Man’ being represented as a ‘straight thing’ is simplistic and misses an opportunity to develop what were quite rich and interesting sections.

Sre Gnanamurthy
Key strength of the scheme:
Composition of overlapping studio space is quite successful and well demonstrated in your animations. The animations work quite well in terms of what is shown and the music to accompany them.
Most significant weakness of the scheme:
Exhibition space is not resolved to the same level as the other spaces, nor is it integrated with the scheme as a whole. The underground space could have been more successfully demonstrated in the images and animations

Max Hu
Key strength of the scheme:
Clear development from section to model producing a successful ‘embracing’ space, despite still having a slightly awkward stair entry. The ideas of shifting and embracing are extremely well demonstrated through the animations
Most significant weakness of the scheme:
Above ground studio is a 3d space created from extruding your 2d section. The idea of shifting could have been taken further and into 3 dimensions

Nazrul Islam
Key strength of the scheme:
Overall development of the scheme shows promising signs and it has come a long way from the sections you attempted in the first class
Most significant weakness of the scheme:
The building produced still shows little relationship with the themes of ‘looking’ and ‘timber’ apart from simplistic forms and material applications. The scale change between the above and below ground studios is a major oversight

Nik Kardum
Key strength of the scheme:
An extremely accomplished overall scheme and model that shows a clear development from the section drawings into a 3d form
Most significant weakness of the scheme:
As you have identified, the separation of your design into clear levels has perhaps limited the creativity and fluidity of the design process. As Menis said, it has moved away from what was quite a free expressive section into a rigid and structured scheme

Michelle Lee
Key strength of the scheme:
Good evidence of development from sketch through to model and a successful exhibition space to link two very different studio spaces
Most significant weakness of the scheme:
The above ground stairs (repeating) lack the richness that the other stairs and spaces have and the below ground space could have been developed further beyond what is essentially a 2d section extruded to produce a 3d space.
On a technical level, the model images and animations are of poor resolution – possibly a limitation of your computer screen size?

Nicole Meo
Key strength of the scheme:
Good development of exhibition space to link the 2 studios successfully. The form and the stairs of the above ground studio are well designed in relation to separating and the animations have been well thought out to demonstrate these ideas
Most significant weakness of the scheme:
Interior studio spaces are not as successful as the overall form. Spectrum is a fairly standard rectilinear space and separated produces a slightly awkward studio space

Phil Nguyen
Key strength of the scheme:
Unique approach to the datum line and the resolution of an underground space to suit the ‘fantasy’ theme quite well.
Most significant weakness of the scheme:
Overall scale is a bit overwhelming and while I appreciate there are good reasons for the shape and size of the underground space, it could have become a bit more refined and suited for an individuals studio.

Yu Qi
Key strength of the scheme:
Underground ‘wonder’ space has great ideas on how the space works and is experienced through changing lighting conditions and materiality. The interrupting stairs have been well developed and are quite successful
Most significant weakness of the scheme:
Interrupt space doesn’t have an identity of its own. It seems linked to the exhibition space for no clear reason. The idea of interrupting could have been taken further to produce a studio like the wonder studio, that is connected to the exhibition space but also achieves separation

Jennifer Salcedo
Key strength of the scheme:
Integration of the exhibition space with the overall design is achieved simply and successfully. Animations also capture the ideas (fading especially) of the scheme quite well
Most significant weakness of the scheme:
Above studio (metal) is a bit separated from the user which the suspended walkway seems to confirm. The bubble shapes could have been integrated more into the use and experience of the space

Prateek Shorey
Key strength of the scheme:
Good ideas on the below ground space and how the stairs are created from the artists process
Most significant weakness of the scheme:
The below ground studio has dictated the from of the rest of the scheme which has created an exhibition space that is a large extrusion of the below ground floor plan that has little relationship to the artworks produced.
The presentation of your sections and textures is terrible. Don’t edit them to remove the colour as they also lose the finer details and their appeal as hand drawn sketches

Kevin Tanuwidjaja
Key strength of the scheme:
Your ideas from the section drawing were quite promising and your expression space shows good development throughout the experiment. The stairs show potential and are a good attempt but are left unresolved
Most significant weakness of the scheme:
The ‘happy’ studio is a simplistic and not very successful attempt to develop the section into a 3d space. Combining the ‘expression’ studio with the ‘dark’ texture to produce a gloomy and monotonous space seems to contradict the initial ‘expression’ idea

Saffat Waes
Key strength of the scheme:
The grasp idea works well and produces a well balanced composition. This balance between the suspended circle and the pear shaped supports produces spaces that challenge the occupant and create a sense of unease
Most significant weakness of the scheme:
The scheme created from extruding your 2d section is a simplistic way to produce 3d space. Despite some good grasp ideas the stairs are rather standard and unrelated to the overall scheme. The underground ‘zest’ space is underdeveloped

Simon Yaghoubpour
Key strength of the scheme:
Animations are good. They show some interesting spatial arrangements in what is ultimately a simple design
Most significant weakness of the scheme:
As you have identified on your blog the rectilinear shapes have little or no relationship with your sections or words. There is little consideration of how the artists work within the spaces

Ying Zhang
Key strength of the scheme:
The development of the twisting space to consider its use and occupation is very good. The above ground studio is also successful in the way it brings together a number of elements to produce a ‘union’ of parts
Most significant weakness of the scheme:
The exhibition space doesn’t have the same level of resolution the studio spaces have. It could have been developed further to link the twisting space with the union space. The absence of your words and accompanying art works from your blog is a missed submission requirement

Some Extra Research? :)

The Life Aquatic With Steve Zissou



For those of you who need a study break i recommend checking out The Life Aquatic With Steve Zissou. According to wikipedia it's a homage and a send up of Cousteau's career. So not only is it a good laugh for those of you with a slightly strange sense of humour, but it is also slightly relevant to one of the clients

Axo examples

From the top:
Steven Holl's Simmons Hall, MIT Cambridge
Peter Eisenman's Fin d'Ou T Hou S stages 1 to 4
Jorn Utzon's Opera House, obviously enough
Frank lloyd Wright's National Life Insurance Offices, Chicago

Just a little sample that show off the benefits of axo's
Steven Holl's is still quite sketchy and quick but allows measurements to be taken all the same. It should also be noted it is an isometric, it doesn't have the 90 degree angle that Eisenman's clearly has.
Eisenman is able to show a process of decomposition
Utzon can show how a construction site with cranes will operate
FLW produces an amazingly detailed exterior render

The Datum and Section

Some animation work from Patrick Boivin. Seemed relevant for the datum idea of experiment one. It also has some interesting interactive components, sort of like a choose your own adventure. If you're interested he has also done some pretty impressive stop motion videos using action figurines, the transformers are particularly good

M.C. Escher

I mentioned M.C. Escher to a few of you last week and here is an example of his work, titled 'relativity,' it seemed relevant for the stair task.
His works are mainly woodcuts and lithographs and are worth a look for some ideas on textures and rendering techniques