It has been awhile since my last post so before I upload the final journal for this porject i shall recap the last few weeks of the semester.
Following the various precedent studies into urban ladscapes, I settled on a way forward for the topography of the urban parkland - based on the 3rd experiment done prior to the studies - largely because that one did more with the topography, which was necessary for the significance of the site.
Once this decision was made it was much easier to move forward.
Another challenge that cam up was the connection between theMarine Base and Urabn Park, which was tested and tried before the final design was settled on, resulting in a simple connection of materiality.
The planning for the marine base didnt change much although the advice givien at the interim review to simply and rationalise was taken and the base simplified to one level rather than two.
The other significant move forward was in the realm of materiality - I was always felt the materials and window stratergy we akward together - but in going back the marine origins and considering how copper an timber were used in boat building, a solution became clear - copper shell with timber interiors. - this also allowed a more cohesive rationalisation of the door and window configurations.
The other move forward related to the loosening of the tigth orthoganal geometry and while I was a little hesitant at first - as i explored and experimented with notion of the copper shell as having a certain ribbon like quality, it allowed for some opportunities to strenghten and celebrate the material language.
Then things moved into the production phase - which was fraught with many things going wrong at inconvinient times - but alls well that ends well!!
Unfortunately my presentation fell in the gap between critics, so i only had Danielle Pinet - but no matter.
I definatley felt I presented much better than last time - much m,ore cohesive and thought out - i think it helped i had thought about this while putting panels together so they were organised in an appropriate order.
2 main comments were returned.
Firstly that the weak spot was the connection between the first ang ground floor volumes. And this i acknowledge and agree with as i have struggled with it the whole semester - and while it can certainly be improved, it is much better than it was before!
The other was that i was trying to do too many different things in the one building. This one I'm a little unconvinced about - and perhaps it was a communication issu - or emphasis in the wrong places - but nonetheless, were i to continue with the project would certianly consider this in more detail.
Towards the exhibition!!