Experiment 2 Feedback

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.

Ian Arenas
Key strength of the scheme: Presentation of sketches and screenshots although simple were very effective in showing all facets of the architecture.
Most significant weakness of the scheme: The depth to which the custom textures were taken in terms of experimentation was lacking, especially when compared to the quality of previous work.

Nicholas Bolianitis
Key strength of the scheme: Sketches demonstrate an inherent concern with exploring spatial relationships and materiality.
Most significant weakness of the scheme: Although there is a large amount of intricacy to the architecture, little of it can actually be experienced when walking around in UT.

Erica Chan
Key strength of the scheme: Great use of sketches as a way to question 2D/3D relationship of spaces and proportion.
Most significant weakness of the scheme: More care could have been taken with the sketches to best represent the ideas presented within them. The essence of the sketches was lost when transferring them from 3D idea into architecture.

Natalie Fu
Key strength of the scheme: Some brilliant screenshots demonstrating the best of the architecture.
Most significant weakness of the scheme: Although the meeting place and client spaces were articulated well, the development of the in-between spaces was lacking. eg how they are connected or related to each other.

Lili Hinh
Key strength of the scheme: Extreme care with sketches, especially the textures.
Most significant weakness of the scheme: Although the architecture in the environment draws directly from keys ideas in the sketches, the development upon them is relatively minor.

Jae Hwang
Key strength of the scheme: The point of views chosen for the screenshots.
Most significant weakness of the scheme: The size of the screen shots do not do the scheme justice.

Nooshin Jozan
Key strength of the scheme: Simply beautiful axos. The blurring of boundary lines in-between architectural spaces. The way in which client space and meeting space mix in not only plan but also section.
Most significant weakness of the scheme: Use of transparency in environment is not collaborating with use of light. Eg. Capitalising on different scales for privacy/publicity.

Sharon Lam
Key strength of the scheme: Axos and textures, both done with care and consideration as well as presented appropriately to communicate their significance.
Most significant weakness of the scheme: External space seems to have been developed less than interior. Auxiliary elements do not add much to the main elements of architecture within this scheme.

Ping Liu
Key strength of the scheme: Brilliant drawings demonstrate enquiry into 3D relationships, especially intersection.
Most significant weakness of the scheme: Did not show much development when transferred to UT environment.

James Maroun
Key strength of the scheme: Variety of thought put into the ramps, experimenting with scale and proportion, privacy and exposure.
Most significant weakness of the scheme: Use of textures moved from riskiness to recklessness in terms of experimentation. They detract from the spatial arrangement rather than enforce it.

John Nemedez
Key strength of the scheme: Use of light to demonstrate spatial qualities. Arrangement of client spaces relative to meeting place.
Most significant weakness of the scheme: Development of ramps was lacking the consideration seen in the development of client spaces.

Jay Patel
Key strength of the scheme: Use of images to make the most of a simple environment. Their position, orientation and resolution.
Most significant weakness of the scheme: Consideration of materiality within the scheme is very two dimensional. Perhaps more thinking should be done about wall/floor thicknesses in order to push this scheme into the next level of detail.

Patrick Sells
Key strength of the scheme: Simple, elegant and concisely expressed scheme. Even the gesture of flooding artificial light with natural light from opposing sides of a room is quite carefully details and executed.
Most significant weakness of the scheme: Use of textures to reinforce architectural ideas. Perhaps extensive manipulation of them before their use in UT is required. Could have included a smaller scale to emphasise rhythm. Potential of using balustrade to enforce ideas, rather than its omittion.

Savas Stavridis
Key strength of the scheme: Development of sketches demonstrate greater intention to develop them as a mode of inquiry.
Most significant weakness of the scheme: Progression of spaces in the environment seem segregated, when in the drawings they are tied together. Keeping such an important element when developing a design is important.

Hang Wu
Key strength of the scheme: Mixture of overt and covert elements of architecture that capture attention and create subtlety.
Most significant weakness of the scheme: Screenshots chosen to represent the architecture could have been more considerate; picking out the key elements of the scheme and showing them.

Bonnie Zhou
Key strength of the scheme: Natural flow between spaces give the sense of continuous spaces that support one another. Meeting place as almost a tense confrontation that spills into the vertical dimension.
Most significant weakness of the scheme: Use of colour palette in terms of materials and lighting does not enforce the key architectural elements, but rather detracts from them.