Midreview Review

The driving point of my project is that it is focused on reintegrating the wood/metal shop back into the education curriculum. With shop class added into school work, kids, adults, and mostly students would learn practical knowledge in addition to the information that they learn in regular schooling. Through a live/work building, it can inspire younger generations to become more insightful, confident, and knowledgeable.

Following yesterday’s midreview, I have learned a lot more about my project, what it lacks, what can improve it, and what should be on my to-do list from now until the final review.

midtermpresent_page_07

In regards to my narrative, there are technical aspects that need to be resolved in order to realize my “thesis” into an actual project. For example, the issue of how this project would be funded. Would money come from a grant/subsidy from the government? Would businesses have to pay for the project? This also ties into what kind of program is operating in this project. Is it a charter school? Is it a private school? Is it more of a daycare than it is a school at all? Another question was how did the housing work. Having “barebone” units seemed too idealistic and reliant on occupants shaping their own way of living and working. Perhaps having actual designed units instead would be more feasible even if it does take away that interactive housing aspect of my project.

midtermpresent_page_05

The next area was how to use research essays and scientific studies about architecture and space to give concrete proof that my project can lead to the results as intended. This is similar to how the Department of Education in California sets standards and curriculum for programs like the Common Core based off of research findings that would guarantee specific results from each grade. I mentioned The Function of the Oblique as a driver for how I approached my project but did not include its specific findings as to how it affected the perception of architecture.

When it came to program, it was a consensus that there needed to be a more detailed and specified form of living and working. I gave somewhat general terms for my program and there needed to be more specific ones that would support my housing “communes”. Even more development of the programs would enable me to develop the building more in both sections so that it was not as oriented towards the longitudinal section.

Another critique was that there needed to be more formal areas of architecture such as the location of walls or the structural system used to support the building. Walls were not included in the model and they were not really covered as much in the drawings. If my project were to be based around the redesign of the concrete podium and how it meets with the housing units, I needed to be more specific about the form and organization of the podium so that structure is part of the resolution.

sectionscopy_page_2

transverse section

sectionscopy_page_1

longitudinal section

For improvement, I plan to start redefining the program and really digging into how these programs and characters meet to create a building that serves their needs as makers and occupants. More research that is based on published findings are also on my agenda to improve the project, such as how overlapping floor slabs can encourage a sense of playfulness or how a “barebone” housing unit can encourage inhabitants to use their creativity. Overall, I need to gather all my energy and push through all the ideas to the very end and give the project all the life it was missing.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s