The presentation went by fast and the jury was just consist of my studio instructor and another studio instructor. I was grouped with another girl in my studio under the category of "floorplate". There are other categories like "walls", "volume balanced", "porche" and "transitional geometry". I was stunned by her ability to see through the nature of the everyone's project and hit on the head of every nail. This is even more obvious when she saw my project and coin the thesis as the "oblique" even though I have no idea what it has become of. (this question should be addressed later)
Anyways, the all-nighter did really bad thing to me and I wasn't able to speak properly. But the idea got across, just in a piecemeal fashion...
RECAP:
The project is called "between incompatible plans", which requires us to negotiate two given orthogonal plans (plan 1 & 4 in the drawings) three-dimensionally.
My design is about creating an oblique flooring system as a critique of orthogonality. My approach to marry the two incompatible plans is to search for an intermediate level which is geometrically referential to both plans and simultaneously challenges the conventional floor stacking system in the third dimension.
As you can see the ramps are positioned in a rhythmic way between the two plans while creating volumes both above and below.
- using the plans and sections to show the positioning of ramps and floor plates
The application of such topology to the building as a whole establishes a new type of connection between floor plates (in this case, two incompatible plans), amplifying the connectivity through the oblique, which blurs the boundary of floors as well as de-emphasizing the distinction between habituation and circulation.
- The genealogy of the intermediate floor plates based on the geometry of the two plans
- The connectivity (the diagram showing the oblique floor plates connected as a whole)
the questions I got were:
1) The directionality of the oblique: why in a single direction not the other?
2) The parallel grains versus the cross grains: there are definitely clues regarding the spatial possibilities of those cross grains, but my design only reflected the upward motion and connectivity along the longitudinal axis. Why is that?
3) Spatial qualities of the compression and the extension created by the floor plates: there should be an agenda which dictates these relationships
4) The clarity of the circulation and habituation can be improved so as to create a complete experience through the oblique system
5) The oblique should be registered in both basement and roof - to announce itself, or I should be ambitious about how it should manifest itself within a box.
These are really constructive comments and I think all these questions came along during the shifting of my design thesis. If I had clarified the thesis earlier and communicate well with my instructor, I would have been able to think about the project in the oblique mentality and start to ask myself theses questions. I felt that my thinking process is interrupted in a way that is clear to her but not clear to me. Therefore I wasn't really going after what I had started out doing but changed my project to a product that I am not familiar with. I should have consolidated the idea along with each step of the design, and constantly ask questions about every move I make.
But I do appreciate the statement that my design has made. It is really about the oblique, which has endless potential in the third dimension and is a great way to resolve the problem I had about the connectivity between orthogonal planes. Overall the process is very rewarding and I realize the importance to have an agenda in making design decisions. However, being open-minded and change as it goes is always good if not necessary, only it has to come to a point where design is finished and start the representation process to show where the project is at.
Need to communicate more and think harder during the design process.
Then carefully make the graphics and the model to tell the same story.
Execution should be fast and clean!
Some people played with the wall as a connector between floors, which is a great way to resolve the incompatibility, but there were few people who actually exploited the possibilities resided within the plans. Other people had played with the volume or the experience, and sees the body moving through spaces almost as a carving operation. Transitional geometry might look fancy but the operational/functional aspect can be tricky.
Other great things I learned in the review:
1) always pay attention to what the architect is not showing you - which normally is what they have not thought about
2) always being consistent in the rhetoric of your design - the perception of the viewers should be the same through the drawings, models and the words, which means the orchestra of the representation plays an important role in the story that you want to tell
3) architectural design is always about translating ideas generated in other fields into architectural language. This means not to be literal about the idea or inspiration you have had but to utilize the principles/diagrams/imagination that is inherently alien to conform architecture - to use the idea and play with the spaces. That is to say, instead of relying on metaphors and pure ideals, the design process should be building upon architectural elements translated/transcends from its original form. It also requires activators. The activators can be anything - program, subject/object relationship, light, experience, stairs or anything else that is important. Of course each architect does it differently, that is why we need to study from each other and to see how each person makes that jump/push in the design.
4) the specificity of design: what is what - oblique is oblique, transitional geometry is transitional geometry. Do not lose the specificity and legibility of the design while making changes and adjustment, always being mindful about what the story is and what you want to convey to the audience.
No comments:
Post a Comment