|
View previous topic :: View next topic
|
| Author |
Message |
cdohert13
Joined: 21 Jun 2009
Posts: 21
|
 Posted: Sun Jun 21, 2009 5:06 pm Post subject: Lingering Question |
    |
|
Hey everyone,
I'm new to the forum, and was just looking for a little outside opinion/help. I have just finished my second year as an architectural student, and I have had this lingering problem in my design work in studio courses and it has been bothering me for some time now. The main problem seems to be I can never execute what I set out to execute in the beginning of the project. I guess that's a vague statement, but I'll try to explain it more.
I always seem to have a good idea of what I want to do on a project, meaning what problems I want to solve, and how I want to solve them, but can never come to a sound design that answers what I aimed to solve from the beginning. It's been pointed out to me by my studio professors, and I've noticed it myself too. It's almost like I know exactly what I want to do, and when I'm presenting my work I state all the right solutions to the problem at hand, but my work does not show for it nearly as well as I would like.
I always seem to be very close to solving the problem, but miss making the key decisions that will help me arrive at a sound building. I mean I know it comes with time of being given tough problems to solve (site strategy, relation to surrounding building context and such), and I've only been an architecture student for 2 years, but I've been bothered by this problem, and was looking for advice.
I was just wondering if anyone had some advice on how to possibly overcome this problem of talking a big game, but not following through on what I say I'm going to do. I know there isn't a set answer to this problem, but I'm trying to take a step back and learn from my mistakes.
I know its a real vague question, but any advice would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks again,
Chris
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
cdohert13
Joined: 21 Jun 2009
Posts: 21
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 06, 2009 10:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| why did all of the posts get deleted in my topic?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SDR
millennium club
Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Posts: 1845
Location: San Francisco
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 06, 2009 11:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hmm. That was a fun thread. Maybe it got moved ?
SDR
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
djswan
millennium club
Joined: 17 Aug 2007
Posts: 1119
Location: Montana, USA
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 06, 2009 11:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
I would say it was one of the best. We were all getting along so well. I'm a bit dishearten. Lake House Design was blasted apart too.
_________________
n/a |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
csintexas
millennium club
Joined: 06 Feb 2006
Posts: 2174
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 06, 2009 1:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Keven said that it was caused by a mix up in the forum database.
_________________
-Chris Stewart
http://bcshdb.blogspot.com >
The B/CS Home Design Blog |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cdohert13
Joined: 21 Jun 2009
Posts: 21
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 06, 2009 5:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ah, figured it was something like that.
Hm..I poked around a bit but still couldn't find the rest of it anywhere. The forum decided to randomly ban my account because of spamming? while I was trying to reply to my Lake House Design topic. Oh well. For people that were interested in my elementary school design project, here are some of the pieces of work I have from it. All comments/criticism are welcome.
In short, we were given a set list of specific program for an elementary school in the South End, Boston, MA. The site was quite an interesting one, situated in the crosshairs between a more urban, commercial area on the Harrison Street side (the upper street on the floor plan) and a residential, row house neighborhood on the Washington Street side (The bottom street on the floor plans). The open space requirements were to leave 25,000 sf of open space (at least) that could be used by the public as well as the school. As my analysis of the site and the project went, the site was in a “buffer zone” of sorts, between the commercial and residential zones in the South End. Accordingly, I decided to have a main theme of my school be a strict separation of program elements, where loud elements such as auditorium and gym on one side of the site, and quieter classrooms and such on the other side. These two distinct types of program pieces ended up having their own separate identity, with each one facing a separate side of the site. Open spaces also played a great role in my design, where a visual connection of open spaces up to, and through the site was vital. So, I decided to have the loud and quiet program elements each have their own open space that specifically related to the adjacent program. This allowed me to create an open public terrace on the loud program side, and a grassy more intimate open space on the classroom wing side. The open space in the middle (including the access road) served to connect these two spaces as well as open the entrance of the building to a secondary road, instead of having the entrance on a busy road.
Without going into too much detail, that’s my main idea behind it all. If you have any other questions about anything, feel free to ask me and I’ll attempt to answer them.
Thanks again,
Chris
| Description: |
|
Download |
| Filesize:
|
860.75 KB
|
| Downloaded:
|
114 Time(s)
|
| Description: |
|
Download |
| Filesize:
|
590.47 KB
|
| Downloaded:
|
109 Time(s)
|
| Description: |
|
Download |
| Filesize:
|
815.06 KB
|
| Downloaded:
|
108 Time(s)
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
djswan
millennium club
Joined: 17 Aug 2007
Posts: 1119
Location: Montana, USA
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 06, 2009 7:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Word to the wise. Posting images like this is a more effective.
this one is for fun.
it's a lingering question.
_________________
n/a |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lekizz
millennium club
Joined: 11 Jan 2006
Posts: 1212
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 07, 2009 5:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
Yes, shame that last thread was lost, it was interesting! And thanks for putting yourself up for criticism again and sharing your drawings of your school. I'm sure there's been a lot of work to get it to its current state!
If you want my input, I would firstly suggest the drawings should be less neutral. It is impossible to tell from your plans and sections which are the busy streets, which are quiet. Shouldn't there be more animation - people, cars, shadows, descriptions... which will help explain why you have put things where they are.
Secondly the spaces in the school seem to be very generous. Will it be difficult to adequately daylight/ventilate the deep classrooms in the way you have organised things. Though I can see there are some interesting things going on when you offset the classrooms - nice break-out spaces.
Is there another reason to put the lecture hall in such a prominent position - is it an architectural feature? Generally lecture rooms are dark boxes and may be better placed at the 'back', where access to external wall and daylight is less.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
csintexas
millennium club
Joined: 06 Feb 2006
Posts: 2174
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 07, 2009 6:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
I think we have to keep in mind that there are time constraints involved and we don't know the full program you where given.
The figure ground diagram does not tell me much -I suppose the school site is somewhere in there.
I agree with lekizz, your presentation does not explain or convince me of much. There are trees on the classroom side but no way to get people to them. They seem more like a traffic screen than a people place. I would never know by looking at this presentation that the open areas where a primary element.
Also I would want to know how it is going to use the sun and power efficiently. Why use sections instead of elevations or a nice perspective? Are you modeling this in 3d?
_________________
-Chris Stewart
http://bcshdb.blogspot.com >
The B/CS Home Design Blog |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
solidred
Joined: 05 Jan 2006
Posts: 728
Location: Scotland
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 07, 2009 3:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
If I understand you correctly, your 'quiet' side is on the 'urban, commercial' side and your 'loud' side is on the 'residential' side???
Assuming I've got that the wrong way around or... is there a reason for doing this that's not been mentioned?
Other than that, it seems like a good, basic diagram. Having dabbled briefly in school design a few years ago, I'd say the major hurdles arise in meeting floor area requirements (which are often incredibly specific) and functional adjacency diagrams (the proximity of a particular office to a particular classroom for a particular age-group, say) security, in our age of paranoia, such as the strict segregation of pupil circulation and potentially public access then, finally, the entire environmental / mechanical plant / ventilation / deliveries strategy. For example, is there a really logical route for services to travel from a plant room to the areas said plant (mechanical equipment) serve?
I mention all these boring things because, in a 'live' project, these are the kinds of things that would be considered at this, the next step; the detail design. Also materials, structure and construction.
Incorporation of at least a consideration of such factors would lend the perspectives and more detail-rendered images that others are asking for some real conviction. It's often a hidden trick of successfully presented student schemes that they actually have understood where the structure is and how the walls are actually assembled: it's giving a subtle sort of tangible life to the drawings that is, with equally subtlety, lifting it out of 3-D diagram territory or 3-D Studio Max / Form Z / Maya-mongrel territory.
I suggest the above not as a critique of what you've done. This looks like solid, promising work. I suggest it as where you might consider going next.
I haven't mentioned anything to do with sophisticated theory: political, philosophical, sociological, educational, environmental etc. This is not that I'm suggesting these are academic obscurities with no place in the 'real world'. They have a fundamental place in it and are all worth looking into. But I'm second-guessing here that your class agenda is focusing on getting a solidity of spatial and programmatic technique together. Sometimes, that's all the focus you need to become a great architect.
Thanks for posting your drawings. That's another thing that convinces: not just talk 
P.S. You might have some school catering staff complaining about the rooftop dining, saying that deliveries to and from the kitchens via the lift (elevator) won't work and... where's the delivery bay etc. etc.? It's probably healthy to throw in the odd idea that 'sensible' people think is 'crazy' - at least one per project. It keeps everyone on their toes (including you) and acts as a barricade against the rising pressures of mediocre banality. Plus, it's a nice idea, that stepped, multi-space, indoors/outdoors roofspace(s) 
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cdohert13
Joined: 21 Jun 2009
Posts: 21
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 07, 2009 5:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I do have this modeled in 3d, and I actually tried uploading them yesterday, but the forum spit back a message saying it was spam, and wouldn't accept it. I'll try again later tonight when I get home from work.
Lekizz: Yes, the spaces ended up being much more generous than I originally wanted, and I guess some of that ended up coming from time constraints (but it comes with every project). I think it's also to credited to the notion of me not being able to let go of certain ideas/elements (i.e. the set configuration of the classroom/quiet side as one clean "bar", and the louder program side as another "bar". As for the offset classrooms, they served a few purposes (in my mind at least). They originally started off being staggered because of a classroom module design project we did earlier in the semester to prepare for the school design. But when incorporating them into the school design on that site, the staggering/repeating module related to a more residential row-house language given off by the neighborhoods on that side. And, as well the stagger created a gathering space for each grade (the staggers were in 3, where there were 3 classrooms for each grade). But in all it did give me some trouble lighting the actual classrooms, although it was not brought up much in my critique. I didn't get enough time to design the more minor details as much as I (and the rest of my classmates) would have liked to. As for the lecture hall/auditorium, I placed it there so it could be more open to the public. My intentions were such that if the school were to be closed down, that the gym and the auditorium could be both accessed by a separate entrance, and isolated from the rest of the school if necessary (the public use of these facilities was quite important). So if there was a show playing in the auditorium, the rest of the school could remain closed/sealed off.
Csintexas: The open spaces, like I had said before were a problem of mine. Although they were a main part of my scheme, I lost track of them during my process by getting caught up in the smaller things. But the open green space on the side of the classrooms ended up being more of a frame" for the classrooms rather than an open playing space (which I had originally intended it to be. The critics mentioned that my building had quite a large footprint considering that open spaces were my main focal point (or I said they were, but didn't develop them enough). As for the sections, I used those for a few reasons. One reason was that they were part of our final requirements for the project. But also, it helped clear up the stacking of elements on the large program side of the site (where things were less regular than the repetitive classroom module side. But, I'm going to try and upload my perspectives and some other things later today to help some more.
|
Filesize: 273.61 KB
Filename: exterior2-1.jpg
Viewed: 90 Time(s)
|
|
|
Filesize: 274.02 KB
Filename: exterior1-1.jpg
Viewed: 88 Time(s)
|
|
| Description: |
|
Download |
| Filesize:
|
1014.51 KB
|
| Downloaded:
|
103 Time(s)
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
csintexas
millennium club
Joined: 06 Feb 2006
Posts: 2174
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 08, 2009 6:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
This forum software is bad about that. Spam and bots are a big problem these days and it is all automated.
Many people who post online use an image server which can be something like flicker or facebook, etc.. That way you don't have to worry about the unique posting requirements of different forums.
I suppose I agree with your school crits -when you say something is a primary concept you need to follow through and make it convincing. This would be like me saying passive efficiency is my main concept and then plopping an ordinary box onto the site with no regard to efficiency.
The scale of the project seems a bit too much for one class. It doesn't seem to leave room for much more than superficial design. I looks more like a high school than an elementary school and for that matter more like an office building than a school.
If you where selling this design to a school board why would they buy it? What makes it a better elementary school? All I imagine here are little kids wearing uniforms and being orderly.
I agree with solidred the cafeteria was the one cool idea even if it is impractical.
_________________
-Chris Stewart
http://bcshdb.blogspot.com >
The B/CS Home Design Blog |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
justellus
Joined: 22 Jan 2009
Posts: 203
Location: World Wide
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 15, 2009 6:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
First of all, you are confusing your readers, as your street order is inverted. The residential street on the Washington side appears on the North Side or top of the plan but you said it was the bottom street on the Floor Plans.
Your overall layout of elements and disbursement in the site seems good. Yet ,when it translates into an actual building, something is missing. The vocabulary of nice exterior architectural design is simply not there. A program must not articulate itself simply as a nice plan with properly zoned spaces, but in an integral architecturally pleasing design. The plan in itself could lead to an interesting 3d expression. It is just that the articulation of this in the exterior design is simply not there. It is apparent more attention was given to the interior plan layout then the exterior design. I think this is the problem. Again, getting to involved in the details of the project and the layout of the elements on the site, and interior disposition of the spaces, while ignoring the overall exterior design. So my remarks previously on getting caught up in details still applies.
And, then we have, as some have noted, placement of a cafeteria up above where access to supplies is made difficult. And the classrooms could have been staggered some more to afford more light.
And the spaces on the Floor Plan are lacking names so we can know what each one is as well.
It would be nice as well to see site photos or sketches so we can relate the site elements to the design. And the direction of the sun, wind, more information on local trees existing and new, height of same, views looking out from the site what is seen and so forth. In summary, the entire urban fabric better illustrated so we can understand the context better.
Also, what is your concept "strict separation of program elements"? This is not quite a concept, but rather a pragmatic decision that it would suit the program best to strictly separate them. What comes next is most important - a more concept statement like "to separate the program elements in order to create unique identities for each and interstitiary spaces in between related to each program element.." Although not clearly stated, this seems to be the concept, and is given by the details of your description.
And indeed, if the open areas are to be a primary element, they seem somewhat empty of meaning and devoid of character to make them the primary focus. They seem like lost intermediate spaces that could be better used, or spaces which lack the necessary sense of place to tie them into the interior spaces in a way to make then harmonious with the same. In essence, functionally separating the spaces does not guarantee the actual usefulness of these exterior space as originally intended, nor does it bring their character to life in itself. More attention should have been given to these elements. As you yourself stated: | Quote: | | "But the open green space on the side of the classrooms ended up being more of a frame" for the classrooms rather than an open playing space (which I had originally intended it to be." |
So in essence, you started off with one idea in mind, but in practice these exterior spaces began to serve other functions then intended, due to your overzealous preoccupation with other details.
And the layout of the structure seems at best schematic and whether this structure will actually work this way is dubious and may need some more cross perpendicular mains shear walls. In essence, it is to schematic.
And now the lecture hall. It could be more ideally an opera house or an amphitheater in this location, but a lecture hall? The idea of having it separate so the rest of the school can be closed-up makes sense, but it need not be a separate construction on the site to achieve this. This might be needed if more exterior window space is desired, which apparently was not a factor here.
The design in essence at this point starts to sound more like the design of a city then a campus for class-rooms. The placing of the elements may make sense within the concept, but functionally may not work so well, as in the case of the Lecture Hall, as Lekizz has pointed out, and as elaborated on above as well, among the other points and issues addressed.
In essence, so much attention is given to the formal separation of the elements and the programmatic distribution of these elements on the site, that you forgot to produce an integrated piece of architecture that brings in the exterior urban spaces into a harmonious dialog.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cdohert13
Joined: 21 Jun 2009
Posts: 21
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 16, 2009 5:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
justellus: Thanks for all your input, it was really helpful after reading and re-reading it a few times to let it sink in. I definitely agree with you on the fact that the overall site layout and programmatic separation seemed to be a strong point, but the exterior shell of architectural design is just not there. I think that might have had to do with the process I went at with this design. I spent too much time finding a correct placement of the programmatic elements on the site, and not enough time designing the building shell itself. It felt unfinished to me, but with time constraints it was what I had to hand in. I mean I'm not completely unsatisfied with it, because I definitely see a lot of improvement in not only my work, but on how I attacked each problem within the design.
As for the concept, the main concept (not shown unfortunately, because the system decided to not let me upload my parti diagram) was these two "street walls," if you will that folded up on to the site, each one having its own distinct architectural language, and its own adjacent open space. So, on the classroom side, the threshold of classrooms became that "wall", where my idea of this side was that the classrooms were attached on one side of the wall, and the circulation corridor was attached on the other side. And the adjacent open space would be an open green space relating to the playing fields across the street (sorry for the lack of pictures, I'll try and upload some more). As for the larger program side, the "wall" on this side developed into a retaining wall, wrapping around the large program elements, and holding them into the rest of the building.
So, overall the concept was these two distinct "bars" of program, attached to the street walls. The third piece of the school was not necessarily a bar itself, but more of a connector or hinge of the other two pieces. It held the program pieces that were neither large program, nor quiet classroom spaces (administration, music, art and such)...the more "flexible" program.
I tended to get myself attached to my ideas/concepts (the strict separation of program elements, the larger program being a taller scale and the classrooms a smaller scale, etc...) That's where I went wrong. I have to just let go of some ideas and move onto new ones. I guess I thought that if I let go of an idea, it was gone forever. But, I guess I could always eventually go back to that idea/concept if I needed to.
Like I said before (and it just becomes more apparent to me with all of the critiques from you awesome people), I find that I can come up with a reasonably good idea/concept about how to attack a problem, and get part of the way there in developing this idea into an architectural answer. But, putting my ideas onto paper is where I fall short. I can have a great idea in my head, and have a ton of ways to make it work. But, I feel like when it comes time to draw it all up and bring my ideas to life, I fall short of developing a successful piece of architecture.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
WalkerARCHITECTS
Joined: 25 Sep 2007
Posts: 105
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 28, 2009 2:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Design solution evolves as a cycle of intellectual postures.
(Express, Test, & Cycle) Your initial vision is expressed, then tested against criteria and the reality of the initial vision proposed, then the lesson extracted by testing it intellectually, is cycled and expressed as a revision, tested again and repeated.
Your just new to the intellectual exercise, and the fact that you are asking this question tells me you have what it takes. Never stop working the problem!
One observation, fully visualize the problem solution in the mind before you render with a computer, after you have achieved the capacity to "live" in the building, in that model you have in your mind, then apply advanced technology to refine it.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
blogger
del.icio.us
digg
slashdot
