Deliverables_Final Review

DUE:  April 29th, 2pm, Upper Core Crown Hall.  

Further details will follow, but reviews will take place the afternoon of Wednesday, April 29th, in Upper Core Crown Hall.


DELIVERABLES: 

A term you have come to know.  But to us, more important than the quantifiable list of goods is your ABILITY TO DELIVER.  (“Delivering” means resolving and finishing the project, not just working continuously toward the deadline.)  The ability to deliver a well crafted and clearly communicative idea or proposal is almost always our highest objective, and never more so than at a final review.  Be clear of your intent and objectives as you work towards your final review, and use this list not as a checklist but as a reference tool.

 As always, the specific instructions you receive in your own studios take priority over this list, but armed with this guidance, use the next two weeks to see beyond a list of deliverables, and instead, deliver a presentation that exhibits understanding, meaning and depth using all means of technique and craft.

Neighborhood Understanding :

Areas of Interest Maps, site models, GIS mapping, site images, precedent Images, site drawings, and diagrams across multiple scales that describe your relevant research and analysis of the city, the neighborhood, the site, the program.  Ideally, your final proposal is “thick” –  aligning with the criteria developed from this process, but where there is divergence, be sure to edit/curate this work to support your project proposal.  Revisit, where necessary, and establish a wider reading of your project.

Proposal (Criteria/Agenda/Objectives/Parti):

Diagrams, sketches, drawings and study models that explain your design intent, design process and design criteria. Clearly composed, carefully edited, and titled/annotated with concise verbiage defining and supporting the big idea of your project.

Architectural Development (Plans/Site Plans/Sections/Elevations):

Developed orthographic drawings that fully describe your proposal through its various architectural systems, regulating systems and design logic(s) at scale.  Every project should have fully detailed plans and sections that describe the significant spaces and uses of your project using the detailed graphic conventions that we know and share.   Think about your project in orthographic section as a means to dissect and expose the behaviour of your building as an assembly and an actor.

Your plans should make clear the character of structure, envelope, circulation, apertures, thresholds between interior and exterior, material shifts, scale, use, building’s relationship to site, etc.  Building sections should contain parallel information and also explain connection to site and environmental context.

Additionally, all projects should present larger scale sections which show both assembly and spatial detail through several key areas. These drawings may be composites of wall sections, connection details, and vignettes.  The presentation scale should be appropriate for the presentation of technical assembly and spatial characteristics and quality.

Experiential views (Inhabitant’s Eye): 

Section perspectives, vignettes, sketches, model photographs, rendered elevations, etc. The techniques for these can be hard-lined, computer generating views, loose but carefully considered hand drawings, or an intelligent combination of media.  The type of drawings you choose should reinforce your ideas and the essence of your project as well as your methods of delivering your story.

Use the experiential views to communicate the experience of the IDEAhaus within and in relation to its place.  Consider this request carefully, and use it as a test and critique of your design.  How does the IDEAhaus (its organization, ambience, site relationships, architecture) activate or encourage new behaviors once in operation?

Situational Views (God’s Eye):

Site plans, site sections, aerial perspectives, aerial axonometrics, site history narratives, sequential  panels, etc.  These expose the project as an actor within the neighborhood situation; organizational changes; how the project reshapes, extends, or alters site conditions; a vision of new metropolitan life.

Final Models: 

  • 3/32” to 1/8” final model, with site relations.
  • 1/4” to 3/8” scale sectional/spatial competition model.
  • All relevant study and process models (See process artifacts).

The final model should include necessary site features to communicate materiality, scale, structure, frame, experience.  Think carefully about what each scale of model is able to describe and allow different scales to convey complementary information.

Process artifacts:

Although most of your sketches, working diagrams, study models, etc should be woven into the proposal, its useful to discuss how you controlled a design process, directed research into solid criteria, established project controls (drawing systems, project geometries, modeling systems), generated iterations, evaluated them and made decisions.

Include all relevant process/study work to communicate critical developments in the design process  – edited, curated, and assembled in relation to the final..

Project Description: 

Project descriptions are encouraged but not necessary deliverables.  Written text which describes the intent and condition of your project will help you more than reviewers to consolidate the essential ideas of your project.  This is not a chronological recounting of your entire process, it is a description of the essence and substance of the project in its “realized” state. Consider how this text frames your oral presentation and choreographs your presentation of your deliverables.

Presentation:  

Please consult with your individual professors for details regarding your specific presentation instructions.  That said, your presentations should be well considered and well composed.  Composition is an ethic that is paramount to our profession and craft.   All drawings should be sequenced, not necessarily chronologically, but in an order most relevant to the appropriate reading of your proposal and with the intent of establishing the most legible and compelling presentation of your project.

Lastly, the materiality of your drawings can, and should, be as evocative as the materiality of your models, and the experience of your buildings.

Advertisements

FINAL REVIEW deliverables

Deliverables.  A term you have come to know.  But to us, more important than the quantifiable list of goods, is your ABILITY TO DELIVER.  The ability to deliver a well crafted and clearly communicative idea or proposal is almost always our highest objective, and never more so than at a final review.  Be clear of your intent and objectives as you work towards your final review, and use this list as a reference tool.

As always, the specific instruction you receive in your own studios take priority over this list, but armed with this guidance, use the next two weeks to see beyond a list of deliverables, and instead, deliver a presentation that exhibits understanding, meaning and depth using all means of technique and craft.

 

XL, L, M, S:  Images, drawings, and diagrams across multiple scales that describe your relevant research and analysis of the city, the neighborhood, the site, the program, the structure, etc.  Ideally, your final proposal is in close alignment with the criteria developed from this process, but where there is divergence, be sure to edit/curate this work to support your project proposal. Revisit, where necessary, to locate the firehouse and establish a wider reading of your project.

Criteria/Agenda/Objectives/Parti: Diagrams and models which explain your design intent, design process and design criteria. Clearly composed, carefully edited, and titled/annotated with concise verbiage defining and explaining the big idea(s) or essence(s) of your firehouse.

Site and Building Plans:  A complete and fully realized site plan. Components of a site plan include but are not limited to roof plan, shadows, hardscape, landscape/softscape, topography, vehicular/pedestrian paths, figures/activity, etc. Use this requirement to fully interrogate and design the experience of circulating to, from, and around the building for pedestrians, cyclists, automobiles, public transportation and fire apparatus. Context is very important here – what does your firehouse mean on this site? How is it physically embedded in the urban condition?

Plan diagrams are no longer acceptable. Your proposals should be fully detailed descriptions of your intent, your agenda, your objectives and your tactics using drawing conventions that we all know and share. Your plans should make clear the thresholds between interior and exterior, material shifts, scale, use, etc.

Building and Detail Sections:  Some projects may require 1 building section, others 5. Building sections should convey the interior connection of spatial experiences, through circulation, view, juxtaposition, etc. Building sections should also explain connection to site and environmental context. Think about your project in orthographic section as a means to dissecting the behaviour of your building as this is the best place to illustrate this type of thinking of your project.

Additionally, all projects should present larger scale sections which show both assembly and spatial detail through several key areas. These drawings may be composites of wall sections, connection details, and vignettes.  The presentation scale should be appropriate for the presentation of technical assembly and spatial characteristics and quality.

Experiential views:  Section perspectives, vignettes, sketches, model photographs, rendered elevations, etc. The techniques for these s e can be hard-lined, computer generating views or loose but carefully considered hand drawings. The type of drawings you choose should reinforce your ideas and the essence of your project as well as your methods of delivering your story.

Models:  Final model at ⅛”=1’0” including necessary site features that communicate materiality, scale, structure, frame, experience. Process/study models which communicate critical development of your design.

Process artifacts: Although most of your sketches, working diagrams, study models, etc should be woven into the above deliverables, you may find reason to show many of the artifacts of your project development on their own. Show your work – edited, curated, and assembled as relevant to the final.

Project Description: Written text which describes the intent and condition of your project. This is not a chronological recounting of your entire process, it is a description of the essence and substance of the project in its “realized” state. Consider how this text frames your oral presentation and choreographs your presentation of drawings/models/etc.

All wall mounted 2D deliverables should be composed on landscape-format 11x17s.  All drawings should be sequenced, not necessarily chronologically, but in an order most relevant to the appropriate reading of your proposal, and all presentations should communicate between and across sheets using tried and true representational techniques – orthographic projection, key plans, coordination of font/color/tone – to establish a legible and compelling presentation of your project.

Each 11×17 composition should be deeply layered with content and meaning, such that both the informational and the qualitative aspects of the project are legible within each drawing.  Consider using hybrid techniques, utilizing manual and digital tools, and printing on papers which reinforce the systems of your design and the ideas that shaped them.  The materiality of your drawings can, and should, be as evocative as the materiality of your models, and the experience of your buildings.

Lastly, as a reminder, reviews are two weeks from this Wednesday.  We’ve been assigned the morning session, on Wednesday, November 28th, from 9am to 1pm.  More specific details regarding the review will follow.

 

 

FINAL REVIEW deliverables

As we mentioned in lecture, final reviews have been moved to Friday, April 27th from 2-6pm in Upper Core.  As the culmination of a fine semester of work, we look forward to seeing some incredible presentations and models.

To reiterate the discussion in lecture last week, it is your responsibility this semester to develop and design your entire presentation in a manner that best describes and details your design for the Monastery.

This semester, your deliverables are vague, yet at the same time comprehensive.  For the final review, you will be expected to present finely crafted models and drawings that fully and clearly communicate the following for your proposal:

– agenda

– environment

– scale

– circulation

–  structure

– materiality

– enclosure

– experience

We encourage you to treat your presentation as though it is a conversation or dialogue led less by your words than by your work.  Organize your work in any manner you see fit, but do so thoughtfully, and with intent, such that your project is communicated and revealed to the reviewers on your terms – using the criteria that you have established.

After the review, we will have a short exhibition of your work.  Each of you will display your models and pin up your 4-5 favorite drawings in a vertical column so that we can see everyone’s project, and we will walk around to make some selections for end of year show at which point you can remove your work and return Upper Core to the condition we found it in.

Lastly, and with more details to follow in a subsequent post, we will reconvene in studio on Sunday, April 29th to clean the studio and then celebrate the semester with a studio wide BBQ outside M&M.  It’s always a fun afternoon, and we are looking forward to socializing with you all a bit and toasting work well done.

2b | space, experience and midterm reviews

overview:
As we move towards the mid-term, our goal will be to fully develop our proposals by working in model form, using sectional models at various scales to understand the complete array of architectural systems that combine to form space.  Working with light, material, boundary, structure, circulation, use, furniture, scale, texture, threshold, etc, you should continue to build on your ideas from the inside out, working in as much detail as possible to fully develop the spaces of your monastery, and perhaps more importantly, the transitions between the spaces.

objectives:
– design space and experience, as opposed to form
– continue to implement your programmatic strategies using architectural systems that primarily shape the interiors and volumes of your monastery
– learn to build efficient and effective large study models with a variety of materials focusing on spatial impact and an iterative process.
– develop diagrammatic building plans and sections in conjunction and harmony with models and spaces as opposed to before and/or after.

process:
In the week’s time between now and midterm reviews, you are to rigorously develop the space and sequence of your projects iteratively, and predominantly in model form.  Using whole building massing and sectional models of various scales, the individual spaces of your monastery as well as the sequence between spaces, and between the interior and exterior.  Develop a series of models at a variety of scales that can be used to accurately and comprehensively describe your comprehensive building proposal, leaving no space unexplored.
Ignore the standard and time-consuming conventions of MDF walls and replace them with a quicker, more nimble, less consequential, and therefore more effective strategies for exploring layers of materiality, aperture, circulation sequences, furnishings, etc. Work in models as you would with drawings.  Treat them as a sequential process of development. No two models should be exactly the same and no two models shall be completely different.  Work in a controlled manner, yet rigorously to develop a number of different explorations that will ultimately provide the highest potential for your monastery design.

Develop a thorough midterm presentation that describes a complete building proposal, it’s spatial organization, it’s spatial character, it’s massing, and it’s site impact predominantly in model form.

deliverables:
Midterm Reviews will be held in Upper Core on Wednesday, March 7th, starting promptly at 2pm.  Reviews will be conducted in your individual studios with guest critics.

Deliverables for the review are as follows:
– an organizational diagram or diagrams (such as plans and sections) that describe the sequence/scale/arrangement of your spaces and their relative position on the site.
– full building sectional models – minimum of 2 – at ⅛” to ¼” scale describing massing, sequence, scale and relationship to the site.
– individual space and between spaces sectional models at ⅜” to ½” – minimum of 3 – describing scale, light, experience, materiality, texture, structure, etc.
– any other drawings or models necessary to communicate your proposal or process. These make include study models, massing models, sketches, rendered photographs of models, etc.

NOTE:  Models can be made of any and all materials, but focus on being specific and accurate to ensure that you adequately describe the depth of your exploration and the full and accurate experience of the space.  For example, don’t model 12” thick gray concrete walls from a single layer of black chip board for your final presentation as it doesn’t fully convey your understanding or the proper experience of the material or scale.