Exp02 Strengths and Improvements

Hi all,

its a short time before everyone needs to submit, but hopefully you will find these useful. If youre looking for things to improve further in your next design, this list is it! GOODLUCK!

For those who can spare some time in reading, you can see some similarities of the comments for your peers (Sabrina/Jennifer, Geoff/Ee Ning). You can see also some comments that run generally for the most of you. For example:

1)   making/suggesting spaces rather than shapes is generally a good outcome especially if it reflects the brief, and;
2)   paying attention to the scale of things is something everyone needs to improve on.




Akter, Sabrina

Strength: Strong hierarchy and clear distinction between two concepts; a observation-like structure floating above the platform vs a totem entity detached and anchored onto the ground. Light vertical frames and horizontal outlines adds to the tension between light vs heavy, float vs sunken.

Improvements: Plan dimension needs further deliberation - rooms, thresholds, and spaces in the horizontal experience. Step away from building as a straight line in plan. Landscape - more work on it please.


Bhuiyan, Faiza

Strengths: Dialogue between the architecture and landscape created with horizontal planes anchored into different levels of the site, suggesting a multitude of paths into the architecture.

Improvements: Sparsely deliberated spaces going no further than a series of slabs and a box form on the top.


Cho, Eugene

Strengths: Creation of intimate spaces through positioning of masses as planar elements, contrast of light and heavy "planes" occurs on the plan and the elevation, rather than leaving your spaces as block entities. More Miesian expression rather than Kuma or Aalto perhaps.

Improvements: Read the brief! We are not designing a house.


Gan, Violet

Strengths: Contrast in material thicknesses, prisms interlocked rather than stacked in response to an exercise of "aggregation".

Improvements: overtly object-like with a geometric overtone. Colors too overused and serves to further separate the architecture into its prism elements rather than drawing attention to surfaces.


Garland, Richard

Strengths: Attention to the internal experience in your monument, based on distortion of horizontal and vertical perspectives.

Improvements:  Over-preoccupation with the one effect mentioned above, exacerbated with the selection of your 5 imagery that all focus on the same phenomenon. Lets think multi-dimensional, think beyond the pursuit of a simple effect.


Greenbaum, Adela

Strengths: Model tested against different environmental conditions, demonstrating an understanding in manipulating the medium beyond the limitations of sketchup and other static representation softwares.

Improvements: First person experience missing, model very premature resembling a direct first draft iteration on sketchup.


Lam, Dorothy

Strengths: Experimentation with a range of material thicknesses evident. Presence of multilevel "paths" although where they end up is still a mystery

Improvements: Stick object scenario lacking in detailed refinement. Think spaces/forms rather than shapes/blocks.


Lau, Ee Ning

Strengths: Presence of internal experiences and details lifts scheme from being an assembly of prisms to a spatial product.

Improvements: Tight and overconstrained spaces, all geometries prism like in similar ticknesses all facing one direction. Clarity of three places not evident.


Nagaya, Maki

Strengths: Control of materiality, texture, light and shadow through the Crysis medium.

Improvements: Additive process of detailing - inserting forms such as arcs without a holistic consideration of the scheme. The 10 forms under-utilised as "skins" over a slab element. Consider variety of scales, from prisms as planar elements, to prisms suggestive of rooms/spaces, prisms suggestive of monuments.


Nguyen, Aurelie

Strengths: Prisms manipulated to a range of scales from thick, heavy monumental objects to thin planar elements. Clear delineation of two opposing structures that offsets in the plan, constrast with a light floating deck where two sides come together.

Improvements: First person experiences critical. Hesitation to articulate the detail components of the scheme - two monuments on the end remain as prisms and are identical apart from the sizing of the prisms.


Nguyen, Ha

Strengths:  Contrasting and varied ways in the translation of your prisms; alternating between prisms as pure structural frames and prisms as rooms and architectural spaces. Model proportioned to domesticated and intimate scale.

Improvements: Re-evaluate the use of "literal" detail elements (ziggaurat stairs = temple-like entries, domesticated windows/doors). Architecture drastically underscaled, compacted rather than monumentalised.  More rigorous unpacking of the brief into its components (here it is two monuments and a meeting place) is essential.


Nguyen, Yen

Strengths: Assembly between solid, heavy objects supported by lighter, thinner elements adding to the overall suspended, floating overtone of the architecture. Building nestles and recedes into the landform.

Improvements: Domesticated scale. Architecture works in the close up where we see how different sizes and scales come together, but overt block-like overtone becomes evident once we jump to the birds eye. Push detail elements further, transform the monuments as exquisite experiences rather than blocks.


Pearce, Brandon

Strengths: Very thoughtful interpretation of the massing exercise, two interlocking monuments in reflecting the exercise of aggregation. One carries the solidity of the earthed forms of Aalto while the other plays with the horizontality of semi-transparent elements. Landscape/Architecture connection well articulated; Aalto solids sfollowing the steps of the base while Kuma projects from the face. Well sized building to reflect a monumental scale.

Improvements: Generic internal experiences, think spaces of monumental proportions rather than long squarish plates. More judicious selection of imageries please.



Song, Tao

Strengths: Clear articulation between two monuments with its distinct aesthetics. One which seeks to bury itself into the landscape and the other to anchor.

Improvements: Monuments scaled largely however the internal resolution very thin. We are not designing office blocks nor concrete pads.


Su, Jennifer

Strengths: Refined scheme drawing out of the 10 blocks, one of the successful aggregation between detail elements and rectangular prisms in the class. Variety of material scales and thicknesses with attention to its proportioning. The contrast of Kuma and Aalto is evident; tension between the solid, vertical, tactile in Aalto vs the horizontality of Kengo.

Improvements: Next step, architecture as existing on multiple levels on plan, have the scheme engage with the topography of the site rather than bedded on a single level. Have the composition weave into the landform, as you have mentioned, disappearing into the landscape.



Tir, Geoffrey

Strengths: Incorporation of detail elements such as stairs and openings, taking us through shots in-between your prisms brings the scheme to an architectural and spatial experience. Video takes us through moments where spaces open and close upon crossing thresholds, where views cycle.

Improvements: Overtly horizontal and planar architecture with a domesticated rather than a monumental expression. Little variety in material thicknesses. Too much texture! drawing attention to everything and nothing at the same time.



Vase, Pranav


Strengths: Precision in the model close up. Highly selective mapping of tectures drawing attention to edges and corners rather than whole blocks.

Improvements: Accessibility, path of travel from the landform, premature underdeveloped scheme directly imported from the sketchup exercise with little design development and refinement.



Wu, Claire

Strengths: Well balanced scheme between two different concepts expressed by transparency, light, shade, and the contrast between the reflective and the solid.

Improvements: Model shrunken drastically from the design development phases. Miniature and solitary experiences have been designed rather than the monumental.

Has all received marks for EXP2?

I have emailed them on Tuesday morning to each of your student or zmails. If you have not received them please let me know as the feedback as crtical for your improvement on exp3.

Also, if you havent installed Curviloft into your sketchup at the moment and would like to get more functionality to do free forms, have a go at it....sooner rather than later. I have already done a demonstration with this tool during experiment 1.

Your Lecturer has appeared on TV!

Crunch time for EXP 3

Hi all, i cannot stress how critical it is for you all to have week 1 and 2 tasks plus the independent study completed by the end of next week in order to proceed. You all essentially have three more weeks to deliver a scheme comparable to the ones shown in the lectures and tutorial. Half of you have made no attempt to model a landscape in crysis last week, and as a result missed out on receiving bridging opportunities to think about for this week.



By next week be prepared to have everything blogged in order to join everything together and get advice to shoot you off to your next step. These include:


1) 36 one(18) and two(18) point perspectives with power related keywords associated with each one.

2) Mashup demonstrating a synthesis of the ideas behind three articles, reinterpreting a relationship based on power - this would form the concept for your next step

3) Landscape modelled qualitatively in Crysis, also in it demonstrating a preliminary testing of an elevator.

4) A first concept draft of your final scheme placed in the crysis environment, based on a set of H shaped models from two or more keywords. The selection of these prisms/keyword  should be inspired by the ideas in your mashup. In a way, think of this exercise as another mashup of different models and keywords that relate to your interpretation of the articles.




The last point will be crucial and throughout the week I will upload a few examples in drawing(out) from blocks and abstract shapes once enough people have made an attempt on them. Regardless, we only have two more classes left so don't waste the opportunity to receive crucial feedback by leaving the task unfinished and unblogged.

Pattern book

Pattern Book - Notes of Myung Dal Kim - Toronto

Reminder for tomorrow

As discussed in class last week, for tomorrow,

1) still bring your laptop and notebooks
2) blog everything so far! we will be reviewing in groups of three in front of the main screen, so whatever is not shown on the main screen wont get a review.

Did everyone get their EXP1 grades back?

I sent them all out last week, if you yet to get them can you shoot your email over to me.

Please be reminded that uni correspondences happens through your zmail or studentmail - your official uni emails.