feedbacks n defences

Feedback from ian regarding the whole project statement & thingies:

" the overriding desire for transparency is ok, but the building must be buildable, u must b sure that it is structurally sound, and the amount of framing u use will be the thing that will be questioned. i mean it will have to relate to how much non-transparency it contributes, and sometimes "see all, all the time from anywhere" is not as interesting as "see some, see sometimes, see from somewhere, not everywhere" so that we will be enticed to want to see more and see again. it looks like you have a cross btw installation art and a landscape structure. That's ok if there's enough enclosure (enclosed spaces) where and if it is needed."

then...
ks says:
just read ur feedback
ks says:
ya.. the amount of framing does contributes to being some level of visual obstacle, so it's not actually 100% transparent because as u move around the building, the frames block ur vision at diff angles
ks says:
transparency is achieved by not having immediate walls etc, but doesnt mean there's no visual obstacle that is formed further away from the spaces
ks says:
so there is this quality of see some, see sometimes, see at different angles
ks says:
anyway, a couple of non-transparent enclosed programes do exist in here.... the toilet m&e and gallery(half half but definitely not letting the public to see it through) la....
endorphIAN says:
ok, as long as u understand the value of opacity and translucency for visual purposes
endorphIAN says:
and acoustic separation where required and desired
endorphIAN says:
so that you have a variety of spaces in terms of acoustic as well as physical privacy
endorphIAN says:
and also try to have an overlay or merging of "off-xyz" axes
endorphIAN says:
onto the xyz axis of your frames
ks says:
there is... a little bit
endorphIAN says:
so that it has an element of escape from the "restrictiveness" of the frames
endorphIAN says:
little bit may not be enough to make a statement
endorphIAN says:
may be a bit too static
ks says:
yeah ... but i've never really wanted to do that, though i understand it's effect
ks says:
because i tot i've already made the frames tranforming, so there may not need to hav the opposite element transforming like that again
ks says:
else i'd question myself what is the active n wut is the passive.
ks says:
so.. it's kind of contradicting if both tries to escape from one another
endorphIAN says:
you odi have curves which gets away from xyz
endorphIAN says:
you can take that further and let the curves actually slither away from the xyz in a more definite way
endorphIAN says:
there can be multilayers of msg
endorphIAN says:
sometimes u can't be too subtle
endorphIAN says:
cos it may get too cerebral
endorphIAN says:
and the children of lesser gods dun get it

that's bout it, just don't forget that we have to consider ourselves presenting to a range of ppl from primary school kids to Norman Foster, and make them all understand! darn it's hard..

Good luck

4 varieties of Market re-arrangement

pic.1: highlighted area is where I propose to redevelop(basically rearrangements of existing buildings). Rearrangements are based on 3 conditions:
1. Connecting the boulevard,
2. Generating public square(s) spaces, &
3. Take away the Ugly Monument, Food court building & another recent-built free-standing building at the far right end.
P/S: just discovered that around 1971, they were thinking of converting the far right part of the highlighted zone into a public square sort of space, but duno why it ended up like today.


pic.2: option 1 & 2. Option 2 requires chopping across the market building, not really favourable.

pic.3: option 3 & 4, and an Adjacent Zones diagram.

I am thinking the new public square would go well with the food & shopping junction (indicated in green).

.....so far I favor Option 1 & 3, based mainly on traffic/access consideration.

Some ideas to share (Studio3)

ks says:
hello
endorphIAN says:
yos
ks says:
have been thinking bout the covent garden thingy..
ks says:
it's similar yet the building there is now successful
endorphIAN says:
yup
endorphIAN says:
lessons?
ks says:
a building standing in the middle has no problem....
ks says:
but...
ks says:
the difference is it is more multi-functional rather than just market stalls , that's y it is popular n socially suitable for many kinds of people..
ks says:
isn't it?
endorphIAN says:
yup
endorphIAN says:
interesting to find out what the original market sold
endorphIAN says:
my guess is that it was very much like taiping market
endorphIAN says:
i.e. wet market
ks says:
vege n stuffs
endorphIAN says:
yeah
endorphIAN says:
the artsee fartsee
endorphIAN says:
and yuppie
endorphIAN says:
and touristy stuff
endorphIAN says:
came later
endorphIAN says:
when they redeveloped it
ks says:
yes..
endorphIAN says:
Central Market has similar, but not same, story
endorphIAN says:
the wet stuff has been relocated
endorphIAN says:
and the shell of the building retained
endorphIAN says:
the inside's all transformed
endorphIAN says:
important that the shell (at least) remains
endorphIAN says:
for continuity, rite?
ks says:
yeah right
ks says:
i think covent garden's original wet market is also gone? in 1973
ks says:
when it was no longer suitable to be there
endorphIAN says:
should be the fact
ks says:
have to think if this is the same for the taiping old market now
endorphIAN says:
yup, but even if it is
endorphIAN says:
i think to do something similar
ks says:
is not suitable
endorphIAN says:
is too big a project for our Project 2
endorphIAN says:
yeah
endorphIAN says:
good idea
endorphIAN says:
it can be the conclusion of your research and exploration
endorphIAN says:
then you can decide not to touch this building in this way
endorphIAN says:
so you leave it for the real full potential to happen
endorphIAN says:
or you can have this as a masterplan and do your visitor centre in a way that won't
endorphIAN says:
get in the way when the real big thing happens
endorphIAN says:
so it can function nicely as a visitor center
endorphIAN says:
WHETHER the masterplan is enacted or not
endorphIAN says:
that would be SUPER clever
ks says:
err.... i am getting blurred lol
endorphIAN says:
aiyah
endorphIAN says:
you ar
endorphIAN says:
i mean,
endorphIAN says:
you can dream up the redevelopment of the entire market
endorphIAN says:
i mean all 3 buildings redeveloped
endorphIAN says:
like covent and Central
endorphIAN says:
you show a conceptual masterplan for final presentation
endorphIAN says:
and one part of this masterplan is actually ur visitor center
ks says:
got it!
ks says:
ok clearer now
ks says:
that means i dun have to
ks says:
literally 'do everything'
endorphIAN says:
which can still function NOW even without the complete redevelopment of the master plan
endorphIAN says:
yala
ks says:
hmm.....great....i'll think about it


.....................


ks says:
but guess we cant always hold on too much to preconceptions or assumptions?
ks says:
need consider thoroughly n at different points of views...
endorphIAN says:
ya
endorphIAN says:
i think if the overall building shell is still intact
endorphIAN says:
then it's not a disaster
ks says:
still is judged by justifications i suppose..
endorphIAN says:
always
ks says:
ya
endorphIAN says:
if it's not a total redevelopment then i think it's important that you do not displace any of the stall holders at the moment
ks says:
hmm i c..
endorphIAN says:
the very obvious thing is to just redevelop the food court into a new visitor centre with food court
endorphIAN says:
modern and nice and comfortable enough for jxxxxx
endorphIAN says:
and it's kind of in a prominent point
endorphIAN says:
can be seen from all vistas
endorphIAN says:
etc. etc.
endorphIAN says:
can be tall
endorphIAN says:
and expansive
endorphIAN says:
with wings
endorphIAN says:
and limbs
endorphIAN says:
and underground connections to all over
endorphIAN says:
and everybody's happy
ks says:
hmm...
ks says:
but a bit sien , to me..
endorphIAN says:
make it unsien
endorphIAN says:
intellectual research has to be tough and rigorous
endorphIAN says:
like if the conclusion is negation of initial fancies
endorphIAN says:
then, so be it
ks says:
yeah, but havent come to a conclusion i hope
endorphIAN says:
haha
endorphIAN says:
i guess your still exploring the original idea
endorphIAN says:
keep going
endorphIAN says:
and don't forget the monument
endorphIAN says:
space can be used to be fused into the head of the market building
endorphIAN says:
so that may be another approach
ks says:
yeah...
ks says:
must try explore as many varieties as possible la............
ks says:
hope wun conclude with a too much compromising n sien solution......
endorphIAN says:
yup good
ks says:
still wana be egoistic.... a bit also nvm
endorphIAN says:
the final do-able solution is always the BEST solution
endorphIAN says:
and it's never the FANCIFUL idea
endorphIAN says:
egoistic doesn't necessarily mean big and all encompassing and heroic
endorphIAN says:
it can mean small and modest but stamped indelibly with an unique character
endorphIAN says:
EXQUISITE's the word

And a special highlight...

endorphIAN says:
shoot the idea doesn't mean shoot the person
endorphIAN says:
even if it sounds like it
endorphIAN says:
ideas are cheap
endorphIAN says:
people are precious
ks says:
yeah wor...
endorphIAN says:
when tutors shoot they don't shoot people
endorphIAN says:
they shoot ideas
endorphIAN says:
even if it don't sound like it

(we know it but sometimes just don't understand it! or rather just me?!)