Dedicated to learning how to appreciate architecture and design buildings. Ian is an architect and tutor at various universities.
Dedicated to learning how to appreciate architecture and design buildings. Ian is an architect and tutor at various universities.
5 comments:
could have sketched/drawn/montaged a couple of human figures n objects onto your model's photographs because it's rly hard to grasp the scale of space initially. Both exterior and interior.
(if you are,)don't be afraid to tarnish the photographs.
the concept is strong. the board layout is clean, organized, and straightforward.
however, the overall presentation is not catchy. Drawings are not presentable. Photomontage is not strong at all: unimpressive angle, wrong lighting, and the building looks like detached from site.
that's just my two cents--never stop learning.
since presentation methods has been touched on, i think i shant say more...
in terms of how the building works, your board really doesnt say much.. if it is meant to "send the malaysian gov a message" then the message isnt clear at all...
and if the tugu has so much significance.. why cant i see it from ur board.. if i didnt take time to read ur words (which some i cant read cos its so small) i wont have detected any relation with the tugu...
everything has to show on ur board without the use of words.. frankly, no one is gonna read the lil write u wrote on the read brothers...
and i believe such a building technology has been widely used in freeway construction already, so there really isnt much challenge in tht, technologically..
and structurely, ur building doesnt make alot of sense, becos it will tip over, unless u tie the building down somewhere else, but of cos i dun wanna go into another "studio vs practicality" debate again... cos trust me, if ppl dont challenge u now, ur gonna have to defend urself in front of potential employers, and how u wing it, is up to u... but thts another story...
what could have been bolder is to have the whole building cantilever from the ledge.. now tht would be a sight, duncha think?
=)
i think tht the cad drawings needs way more effort and i believe u can do better than tht..=) perhaps it was a time factor...
also, it is pointless to show an elevation when ur building is so simple.. ppl can clearly see it from ur model, so its fine.. might as well use the space for a hero image... the board is missing tht wow factor... tht lasting impression, tht 1000 words picture tht sells for u..=)
and dont take pictures of ur model if ur gonna show exterior shots.. it's just another space waster.. again, ur model is good enough... in fact i think it is quite well done.. it's clean... but be careful with ur perspeks tho.. can be messy... use transparency paper instead... easier to cut and less hassle...
i guess i ended up on presentation again.. cos really i cant tell much about ur building from wat i can read..=/
MR.KS: thx for the advice!
MR.Brian: i admit the photomontage is not strong enough, because i m still learning how to use photoshop. thx for the advice.
MR.Richard: yea i think my cad drawings are not clear enough, i think the idea of cantilever was great and actually i try it before but just does not work so well. thx for the time to actually look through, i appreciate it. thx! well hope to let u crit again in the future.
For all its shortcomings in presentation (some of which are indeed valid) this proposal nevertheless doesn't fail to impress. The location of this building is particularly bold, on axis with the National Monument. Whether the 'political' antagonism will be picked up by those who can make a difference to our policies on treatment of minorities is debatable. But it's there. That both sets of heroes are doing their bit in opposing ways--one to rescue, the other to build up the image of, the nation surely cannot be missed? One uses positive, literal icons while the other compiles empty spaces; one rests heavily on terra firma while the other floats precariously in the air: there's no competition, just a silent conversation that the designer sees as protest. The ensemble of spaces in the telescope is complex enough to be engaging--there is enough variation in the scale of architectural treatment of parts to suggest an awareness of detail as a component of architecture.
The missing access bridge (there is one) from the plateau to the building, if inserted, would have allayed fears about structural stability for what is essentially a poem in highway constructional language--not entirely inappropriate, given the site.
All in it does exude an air of contemplation, even quietness, within; and that brings one very close to the experience of the wonderful brothers whose polar feat on foot it commemorates.
I'd have to say 'Well Done!'
Post a Comment