Archinect

New York Institute of Technology (Max)

  • anchor

    D6 - logistical failure

    l8rpeace Feb 15 '07 5

    So we were told last Friday that today would be a graded concept review with an outside panel of jurors. That’s fine, so I worked on manipulating the programmatic elements to create some passive sustainability opportunities. Last Friday, I came into studio having done my due diligence towards finding out all that I could about the program – square foot requirements, zoning, etc. So I laid out the program in big boxes, and adjusted my programmatic diagram to reflect actual square footage:

    image
    "boxy" program

    image
    new program diagram

    The professor and I decided that a return to the more, er, “exciting” designs I had come up with would be more suitable. So again, I manipulated program to fit this formal language I have been developing. I tested the idea of broken edges – can I break the uniform street edge to accomplish things like sustainable design, proper circulation, and rich spatial qualities. I essentially blew the program up in a movie, and rearranged it:

    image
    original massing – broken edges

    image
    interlock of formal design vs. program requirements

    image
    blown up program

    image
    floor plans

    Now, I have been working on the structure to hold these idealistic designs up (literally). I would show a picture of the model, but someone put a backpack on top of it and broke it. I’ll see if I can perform some emergency surgery on it tonight.

    Outside of that, I want to know: did anyone else have “group” reviews? We are trying to review ~45 projects with 5 jurors in 3.5 hours in a 450 SF space (that is 8.5 feet tall). I think it’s been proven logistically and physically untenable. We only got to 15 works that day. It was a graded review. What now? I understand that there were time constraints and all, I just don’t think this format can work. Thoughts?

     

     
    • 5 Comments

    • Becker
      Feb 15, 07 8:43 pm

      your design process seems to require little human thought... are you a new type of computer?? what happened to a little thing called empathy and warmth, as opposed to simple square meters etc. get REM out of your head.

      sorry to be harsh, but i find this type of design very destructive

      Sir Arthur Braagadocio
      Feb 15, 07 9:58 pm

      he's just perparing for the real world...

      l8rpeace
      Feb 16, 07 12:05 pm

      metamechanic -

      preparing for the real world...possibly. the position of the faculty with regards to this project stems from lack of preparation for design 7 and 8 - the thesis studios. the idea is to research potential programmatic elements for real world use - realistic size, relationships, and yes, real-world uses. the faculty felt that students were ill-prepared to tackle their general thesis projects without this training exercise.

      mhollenstein -

      harsh is good; coddling doesn't get anyone anywhere, so don't apologize. I am moved to ask you though, for clarification...you, "find this type of design very destructive." what does it destroy? I'd like to as constructive as possible, as opposed to destructive. Interesting you should mention REM...if I am not mistaken, my current studio professor, Casey Mack, was formerly employed by OMA Asia.

      generally, my projects are far more abstract than this approach, but right now I am giving in to the complacency and seduction of simply adhering to the program and following the lead of the studio professors.

      Aaron WilletteAaron Willette
      Feb 17, 07 12:31 am

      I think he might mean destructive as it removes the human element: empathy, emotion, etc. that (in the opinion of many) really makes a good piece of architecture shine. if you bring this into the process later in the game it often reads as just that: an afterthought. However I think it can be useful to work within the numbers-game approach that you seem to be using as long as you realize it for what it is and remain critical of this approach (or any approach you work within) - a full investigation into it would not only result in understanding the benefits but more importantly the caveats.

      myriam
      Feb 17, 07 12:56 pm

      I'm confused... you said it was going to be a "graded concept review", so I kept reading to see what your concept was. But I got to the end and didn't see anything. What is your concept? Did I miss it?

      Also, yes, group reviews are common and very helpful. Sounds like it wasn't run very well this time around. Are the 30 people who didn't get a crit going to get one on another day?

      Also, I agree with Pixel's elegantly worded comment.

    • Back to Entry List...
  • ×Search in:
 

Affiliated with:

Authored by:

  • l8rpeace

Other blogs affiliated with New York Institute of Technology (NYIT):

Recent Entries


Please wait... loading
Please wait... loading