General strengths: Overall, a good effort has been made to engage with the project and pick up on the new software. All of you have picked up on the use of light and shadow in the program - great to see. Looks like many of you have also used graphic programs such as 'InDesign' to lay out and present your work on the blog as well. This lends a lot of weight to your visual presentation. Well done.
General weaknesses: Most signficant weakness is the understanding of scale. UT2004 lends itself to generating monumental spaces due to its gaming nature. This needs to be brought under control in EXP 3. Remember you are creating for a real client and the physical relationship between scale of space and user needs to be addressed. You all need to take care with your English on your blogs. Proof read aloud to eliminate silly mistakes. If English is your second language, have a native English speaker read over your work to iron out any problems.
Key strength of the scheme: Aleze, your axonometrics show quite a bit of promise - neatly drawn/presented and some interesting volumetric experimentation.
Most significant weakness of the scheme: Your explanation of the scheme is not clear at all. You have not fulfilled the requirements of the brief - there are no ramps. The external lab I presume is for Cousteau? This is not habitable and cannot be reached from the meeting place. The internal lab is a series of corridors off a main space that appear to lead nowhere. In terms of scale, the application of textures is inappropriate. Not a successful scheme.
Key strength of the scheme: Angel, strong point in your scheme is the articulation you have developed for the structure of Nobel's lab and the meeting space. This relates clearly to your design intent. Axonometrics are good and well presented.
Most significant weakness of the scheme: In your lab for Cousteau, the proposition for his sunken private lab isn't well resolved - how would he get down there if the ceiling is glass? How high is this space? The ramp from the meeting place to Nobel's lab is way too steep. The double ramp of the meeting place is an interesting concept, but is a little ambiguous in its current stage of development. Overall a good effort.
Key strength of the scheme: Art, you've made a good job of exploring the metahpors you propose for each of your clients - Cousteau's exploration through a circuitous ramp, Nobel's myopic vision through a space with limited perspective. The use of textures and light is restrained and works well too.
Most significant weakness of the scheme: The route through the spaces feels a little labrinthine, which tends to detract from the impact of metaphors of your architecture. Some ceiling spaces and head-room in Cousteau's labs feel a little claustrophobic. Overall, a very good effort.
Key strength of the scheme: Austin, the strengths in your submission are the textures and some of the axonometrics. There is some evidence of exporing what you were asked to consider in each of these exercises.
Most significant weakness of the scheme: The laboratory spaces and meeting space are very weak.. They are simply a network of tunnels with no serious proposition of how the laboratory spaces will be occupied. Some texural application is evident but it is hard to see how it relates to your scheme. This is an unsuccessful proposal.
Key strength of the scheme: Baha, it's clear that you have put a lot of time and effort into the axonometrics and texture experimentation. They are carefully drawn and show some good exploration.
Most significant weakness of the scheme: The same level of care hasn't found its way into your model yet. The proposition for Campbell's lab is ok, although the choice of materials and the notion of the yard is kind of questionable. Nobel's lab is seriously unresolved - stairs are not accessible and the upper labs are blocked by a glass screen making them also unaccessible. This compromises your scheme dramatically.
Key strength of the scheme: Brandan, your work with the axonometrics is strong. Exploration with volumes, links between spaces etc. is good to see. The proposition of height in Nobel's scheme is also a solid idea.
Most significant weakness of the scheme: The meeting space is not strong. The disposition of the stair makes the space awkward. You've chosen to deny any view out of this space which is puzzling. Your choice of gaming-based colour and texture effects also detracts from the architecture as you are relying on a visual effect of wall surface (much like wallpaper) to convey your ideas.
Key strength of the scheme: Brendan, your textures display good variation and there are some very interesting propositions of volumes in your axonometrics. In your scheme, the double-height space for Nobel with elevated walkway is a good start. So is the idea of an lab open to the sky for Cousteau.
Most significant weakness of the scheme: The weakness lies in that these ideas feel like they are at the beginning of development rather than at the end. How could you have further explored openess for Cousteau but still give him some sheltered space? Could the tunnel down to Nobel's space have provided some view into the space as you approach?
Key strength of the scheme: Did not submit.
Most significant weakness of the scheme: Did not submit.
Key strength of the scheme: Charlie, there are some interesting ideas in your later axonometrics that have found their way into your model. The textures show good variation from light to dark. The consideration you've given to the lighting effects is also evident.
Most significant weakness of the scheme: The weakness is in the overall resolution of your scheme. There are no ramps. The ideas are evident - growth, expansion, etc, but the spaces lack discipline. The external lab for Campbell does not provide a convincing, enclosed lab space and the stairs to the platfroms are not practical. Cousteau's lab reads as a series of rooms connected by corridors but there is no hierarchy or sense of progression through these spaces.
Key strength of the scheme: Ethan, your strengths lie in your axonometric explorations and textures. Both are solid efforts.
Most significant weakness of the scheme: You have failed to translate any of these ideas into your model. Think carefully about the meaning of each of your quotes and whether providing a difficult route through your laboratories is appropriate. You have proposed a series of different ideas that are difficult to move through and it is hard to see how they relate to one another. You need to develop your scheme much earlier on in the process so that we can look at what is working and what needs to be edited.
Key strength of the scheme: Frances, you've made good use of the textures through the progression of your spaces and there is a clear relationship between your axonometric sketches and the model. The lab space for Cousteau seems more convincing than Nobel's.
Most significant weakness of the scheme: It's almost impossible to get to Cousteau's lab from the meeting place, which suggests to me that you haven't tested this very thoroughly in the game. The stepped ramp is also really just a series of steps, not a series of stepped ramps as we discussed. Feels like this needs another week to develop into a more convincing proposition.
Key strength of the scheme: Hao, your axonometric sketches are the strongest part of your submission. They show some care in drawing style and potential in expoloring 3-D forms. Take care with scanning and cropping. Textures are ok.
Most significant weakness of the scheme: Your model is very basic, and disappointing considering the sketches you generated. Ramps are not distinctive and the labs do not propose any character that could relate to your clients. The meeting space should be either straddling or engaged with the edge surface.
Key strength of the scheme: Jin Chen, your axonometrics and textures are very good and you have come up with some impressive-looking propositions for Cousteau's and Nobel's labs. The undulating cubes in Nobel's upper lab are the most compelling element here and bear further development. The interlocking pieces of flooring and the frames of Cousteau's scheme are also evocative.
Most significant weakness of the scheme: The weaker points are to do with how you express your ideas - when you say that many stairs represent a thousand ideas, is this metaphor as convincing as you say it is? The meeting space also seems the least convincing of the three spaces - not as much consideration of this space evident as in the other two.
Key strength of the scheme: John, this is a very well thought-through scheme. All aspects of the project have been developed and tested - quotes, conceptual proposition, spatial explorations, mapping of textures, and the architecture. This is a compelling proposition that is underpinned by a solid conceptual position, imagination and astute interpretation.
Most significant weakness of the scheme: N/A. Congratulations.
Key strength of the scheme: Kate, strengths in your scheme are the manipulation of visual relationships between your spaces and the circulation routes (although a bit labyrinthine at times). Good modulation of lighting as well. Cousteau's double ramp is very interesting.
Most significant weakness of the scheme: The meeting space is the least exciting of the three and there are a couple of problem ledges that are easy to fall from (a technical point). The in-game rock and coloured lighting effects work well for Nobel, but I think you could have explored the use of some of your textures to differentiate the materiality of Cousteau's lab from Nobel's. Very good effort all up.
Key strength of the scheme: Kent, you have some really beautiful elements throughout your spaces - the bifurcated stairs, the slot windows, the articulated wall planes and work surfaces, the frame structure over the meeting place etc. There's a lot of thought going into the detail which makes for a rich experience.
Most significant weakness of the scheme: Really feels like the application of your textures is competing with the architecture. The grided interiors to the cubic recesses in the walls work well, but the diagonal patterns confuse your stepped surfaces that are already complex enough. Work to improve your editing skills and you will strike a much more convincing balance.
Key strength of the scheme:
Linh, a solid proposition. Your axonometrics and textures exercises carefully drawn and show skill in exploration of scale and linework. The volumetric experients in the axo's make for a promising design proposition in the labs. The labs and meeting space display a good variety of spatial qualities and some deft handling of form, architectonic elements and lighting - eg. the ramp and screening elements in Campbell's lab. This definitely feels the most convincing of the two labs. Good selection of images.
Most significant weakness of the scheme:
Some of your gestures I find a little conventional in comparison to your overall proposition. The ramp into Nobel's space feels a little pedestrian - perhaps it's the resolution of the balustrade. Your argument of the mesh pillars representing explosion is also tenuous. This would have been more convincing had you managed to incorporate a texture of your own rather than one from game. Your goal next project is to concentrate on the interpretation of your idea in architecture, rather than representation of that idea.
Key strength of the scheme: Rezi, the it's possible to see how your consideration of the clients has influenced the arrangement of your your spaces and the way you access them - some merit here.
Most significant weakness of the scheme: There are serious issues with scale in your model. It is physically impossible to negotiate the ladder and the size of the shelving and work surfaces in Nobel's space is absolutely monumental. This suggests that you have not spent a lot of time testing your model from inside the game itself. Try to stay away from the in-game textures and finishes to surfaces and explore the potential to be found in your own textural experiments.
Key strength of the scheme: Rouhi, some intersting volumetric ideas in your axonometric sketches.
Most significant weakness of the scheme: These haven't found their way into your model. The spaces you provide are very basic, with no apparent consideration of how they would be used. Choose colour and texture carefully to accentuate your architectural intentions, rather than just decorating a wall surface as you would with wallpaper.
Key strength of the scheme: Simon, some interesting ideas - the visually restricted spaces of Nobel's lab, the open frame approach to Costeau's lab and relationship to water.
Most significant weakness of the scheme: Be careful with the scale of your proposition. These are huge spaces and I'm not convinced they need to be this big. Your allusion to a lost temple is tenuous - how do labs and a meeting place relate to the idea of a temple? Why have you adopted this approach?
Key strength of the scheme: Terry, there are some simple yet powerful ideas explored in your axonometrics. Your textures show good variation despite their being more like patterns than textures. Good use of lighting in your model and some interesting gestures such as space frames, etc.
Most significant weakness of the scheme: The model lacks the clarity of volumetirc relationships you explored in the sketches. It's difficult to read how the themes you picked up on in the quotes are informing your spaces. Make sure you have a clear understanding of your initial concept as this will help direct and focus the architecture you produce.
Key strength of the scheme: Tom, your axonometric sketches are good - textures less successful as they deal with variation in pattern more than they do light and dark. Good effort also in the use of light in the model. Being able to see back from the meeting place to Costeau's lab is a good gesture.
Most significant weakness of the scheme: The ramp up to the meeting place still has not been resolved as much as I had hoped. The 2 lab spaces show some thought in terms of layout and use. However, the premise that Campbell's work is restricted from the public whereas Costeau's is not is flawed as Campbell's work has helped inform stem-cell research. This compromises the intellectual basis of your scheme. Again, be careful with proportion and scale in your spaces.
Key strength of the scheme: Tristan, the arrangement of the lab space for Nobel is the most developed. The testing platform and viewing area for testing work well together. The meeting space has a stable feel and the ceiling texture works well here.
Most significant weakness of the scheme: Like a few others, I think your proposal suffers a bit from the sheer monumentality of the spaces. This makes gestures like your encircling ramp less tenable than would otherwise be as the route is so long and circuitous. Your lab space for Campbell aslo didn't find the resolution we were hoping for in your last crit. Would have been good to see some development of how the spaces would be used in addtion to their relationship with each other.
FINAL HAND IN CELEBRATION!
8 years ago