While we were in the 9th studio of undergrad architecture we had a project of designing a children's organization headquarter building in Dhaka, Bangladesh. I tried to design it in two different face and part... one for specially the children and the organization itself and the other face of the building is for the public. See this project in discussion in archsociety.com here>
I'm curious why, in the final presentation, the perspectives are left to the end.
Yes, the presentation is to architecturally savvy critics, judges, and classmates who could all be expected to read the more dry drawings but a perspective can say so much about the general. They're also a little more flashy.
Which COULD be a reason to save them for the end, bracket the presentation with flash.
Still, my inclination would be to give the viewer a general base from which to work and interpret the rest.
You rather completely segregated them apart!
Classic critic comment. Whatever you did could have been done a different way and you must be chastised for doing it the way you did.
Or just as easily not. Would lifting it be so much better? I don't know. An auditorium includes lots of traffic; I'd think easy in/out would be a good thing. Public to private gradient from ground to roof. As it is, you've provided a nice private roof garden rather than a dimly lit ground level cavern under an uninterrupted dark auditorium underside...
work on and on and develop a design
By ninth semester, if you aren't doing this already, it's a wonder you're still in design. Did you do as he says? Does he know this from watching you work the project? Or is this just some comment based on the fact that you didn't fill up the board with process?
I've seen both admonishments already in my career: "Why isn't every single scrap and coffee stained paper napkin you breathed on during the course of this project pinned to the wall?" "What's all this crap?" No doubt it's a combination of "pushing the students to learn some thing" and "we all have different arbitrary preferences".
It seems to me that your presentation consists of _this is what this project IS_. I don't know how to look at your presentation and figure out that you just settled on the first idea in your head.
Maybe because it isn't full of unbuildable fantasy garbage? Though I would have expected that to be done with by fifth year.
So, what's the realy story eh? ;-)
- g
We had one idiot in first year who would say, not matter what you did, "Awhhhhh. What would you want to *THAT* for?!" It was his job to beat oput of you the confidence in your own thinking processes so that the other guys could then substitute theirs for yours before the end of the year.
What's with the *tube*?
What's this mean:
"We redesigned it according to the new programs and demands of the client thinking the site as a blank one" ?
Cults and the Marines work the same way.
Yes, they have existing buildings on the site but we were supposed to ignore them. Not an addition or remodel, a new facility on this bit of land.
Our designs were to fit new programmatic requirements (real or imagined as per the assignment).
IMO.
Ah. Wipe the site clean, but not the context.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.