hmmm... that's wierd it will not enlarge this image when I click it. Oh well... Werner, if you need to be able to see this clearer let me know and I can email it to you.
rick, yes please email the .jpg. to whofmann@addinc.com. The drawings don't have quite the vibrance of the first sketch. Is that time related, or did my comment squasch enthusiasm? (I hope not). If you don't mind, add a line or two on your thoughts to the changes you made.
I agree with you that this model does not have the same vibrancy that the first one did. It is a little bit time related. Your comments were just fine, no problems there. Just the end of a long day for me when I repsonded and thought it would be best if I just got some rest and came back at it with a fresh start. Anyway, here is what I was thinking...
Through reading your comments on the first model, it seemed that my LT being formed by a series of AT was not a viable solution. Although I feel that it is, I thought I would see what else I could do to achieve the same spacial transition. It is a less articulated solution but still a strong LT. I like the addition of the angled wall. Perhaps simply just the addition of the angled would do the same and not eliminate the double walls? hmm...
The thing that has given me the most trouble is the GT. I replaced the short walls that were a very strong seperation between 1A and 1B, with columns that have a smaller mass so that all of zone 1 could be seen as a single space. The GT needed to be placed between two spaces and not between two zones of a single space. From the week 1 assignment post I picked up on the gradually occuring transitions that are difficult to clearly define. It is my intension to create a very sublte GT by setting one the columns slightly off of its axis near the corner between zone 1 and 2.
I like the space defining elements of zone 2 in the first model better than the second. Zone 2 is not as interesting of a space as in the second model.
Well... those are a few of my thoughts regard the revisions. Some of which may not have been all that successful. Let me know what you think. I'll post these comments on the blog for the rest of the class to share. Thanks.
M.Arch student at the Boston Architectural College.
1994 graduate of The Ohio State University, BS in Arch.
Project designer and manager for Meyer+Bates Architects and Planners in Perrysburg, Ohio.
3 comments:
hmmm... that's wierd it will not enlarge this image when I click it. Oh well... Werner, if you need to be able to see this clearer let me know and I can email it to you.
Thanks, looking forward to your feedback.
rick, yes please email the .jpg. to whofmann@addinc.com. The drawings don't have quite the vibrance of the first sketch. Is that time related, or did my comment squasch enthusiasm? (I hope not). If you don't mind, add a line or two on your thoughts to the changes you made.
I agree with you that this model does not have the same vibrancy that the first one did. It is a little bit time related. Your comments were just fine, no problems there. Just the end of a long day for me when I repsonded and thought it would be best if I just got some rest and came back at it with a fresh start. Anyway, here is what I was thinking...
Through reading your comments on the first model, it seemed that my LT being formed by a series of AT was not a viable solution. Although I feel that it is, I thought I would see what else I could do to achieve the same spacial transition. It is a less articulated solution but still a strong LT. I like the addition of the angled wall. Perhaps simply just the addition of the angled would do the same and not eliminate the double walls? hmm...
The thing that has given me the most trouble is the GT. I replaced the short walls that were a very strong seperation between 1A and 1B, with columns that have a smaller mass so that all of zone 1 could be seen as a single space. The GT needed to be placed between two spaces and not between two zones of a single space. From the week 1 assignment post I picked up on the gradually occuring transitions that are difficult to clearly define. It is my intension to create a very sublte GT by setting one the columns slightly off of its axis near the corner between zone 1 and 2.
I like the space defining elements of zone 2 in the first model better than the second. Zone 2 is not as interesting of a space as in the second model.
Well... those are a few of my thoughts regard the revisions. Some of which may not have been all that successful. Let me know what you think. I'll post these comments on the blog for the rest of the class to share. Thanks.
Post a Comment