National University of Singapore (Adib)

  • anchor


    By dibster
    Apr 19, '06 4:48 AM EST

    I had my crit on monday..panel was Philip Bay, Chan Yew Lih and Ruzica..

    i'm not really sure how to classify the crit.. the main points of contention was why it was such an inward-looking space and Philip insisted that the elderly wants to be outdoors although i argued that air-conditioning helps them to keep the changes in temperature and humidity under control . My design ws based on the idea that by default, its air-conditioning but you'll have the option of opening the sliding doors and let the space be naturally ventilated and also the option of working at the cafe(with the wireless network connection). But as all crits go, there was never a conclusive answer.

    The second point was the expression of the rear facade towards Duxton Plain Park. Programmatically, all the residences and offices had little decks and opened up towards the park. The intention for this link between the interior space and the park to be linked was there but..the tutors felt that it wasnt expressed very well. Good thing, i had a little diagram on my panels to explain my intentions but the end decision was that it just wasnt expressed architecturally enough.

    Last but not least was the closing comments of Philip.. he felt my building was boring. he told me that i'm competent but needs to push myself to do something more exciting. Incidentally, he was also on my crit panel for the previous project and also coincidentally, both the projects had a square form and similar spatial organisation techniques. For that, he 'challenges' me to either break away from the box or make a more interesting box and develop the skill to add the social dimension to my architecture.

    so now, i'll wait for any personal comments from my tutor and also my design grade.


    • boring may be the best solution in some cases. i hope that all buildings don't have to be exciting. we'll end up with even more of an urban cacophony.

      you might, if you get a chance, point philip to the urban form of the nineteenth century when there were 'fabric' buildings and 'feature' buildings making up a coherent urban landscape. we still have it in some cities, europe moreso than the us - and probably much more than singapore's more recently developed cities.

      every building doesn't have to shout. if you're already learning restraint in school, that may be a good thing.

      sounds like you're also pretty good at self-critique and understanding the relationship between the critiques you hear and how your work is communicating.


      Apr 19, 06 6:59 am  · 

      thanks for the comments. I completely agree with the notion that not all buildings have to shout. Unfortunately, it seems that in this image-based generation..all architecture is judged by how interesting they look. In the real commercial world, it seems that only those buildings with some wow factors get built or if its a really 'quiet' building, then only those by really famous architects get built.other cases are the exception rather than the norm.

      On the other hand, in academic architectural projects,where the crit panel only have that 5-10 minutes to listen, they have to rely on whatever they choose to listen or see and make a judgement. Architecture now seems to be all in the image. I personally find it a pity that even in academic architecture, it has been reduced to that level instead of any real critical discourse on 'what is architecture?'

      Apr 22, 06 9:27 pm  · 

      Block this user

      Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?

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

Affiliated with:

Authored by:

  • dibster

Other blogs affiliated with National University of Singapore:

Recent Entries