Use your center space as a void. It will make your other forms stronger. The connection of bridges in your physical model is very strong - this is missing in your computer model. Try to keep the geometry of the rotated shapes on the upper floor plans. This will keep your concept in all levels.
Happy to see the evolution of your earlier concepts! A few first thoughts after looking at your midterm presentation.
Stacking: You should draw sections ASAP. It would be interesting to see different heights for the stacked volumes according to the enclosed program. You may already have an interesting height differentiation but definitely it is not clear. Stacking is a very playful design operation. Your volumes miss a bit of this playfulness. They are very rigid. Experiment more with heights, with rotation and with variety in the overall proportions for each stacked volume. Also, is there a reason that the two main volumes separated by the glass covered space have similar overall height?
Elevations : You should elaborate orthographic drawings with shadows so you convey the whole rotating and shifting concept of your stacked volumes. Your diagrammatic elevations are very generic for the time being. Every visual you are presenting should convey the main design argument.
Separated Box Volume: Is this the casino? It is very hard to see the program labels for each volume since your boards are very low resolution. This volume is not in a great dialogue with the rest yet. Try different orientation and if possible programmatically make it smaller in plan. It seems too close to the other mass which makes the bridge connection looks somewhat unjustified. The bridge is a powerful move so make sure that is bold.
In between glass space: I agree with prof. Jill that it could be interesting to see that as empty space. As far as I understand, you have an elaborated bridge network that if "revealed " will also justify the bridge connection with the Casino. If though programmatically this volume still needs to be covered then experiment more with the glass structure grid.
Looking forward to see the progress. Keep in touch!
The simplicity of your initial massing model, and its land form massing held a lot of potential for a project that is graceful and easily understood. It appeared to fit within the massing of the. And It's first iteration began to examine how the view corridor could affect one side (the casino) while leaving the other in tact. I then got lost with the shifting of the entire floor plates that were still being cut with the view corridor. Here the view corridor feels like an arbitrary remnant.
I suggest that make a few studies in section. The hotel floor plates, repetitive in nature, will be very different form the taller lobby and casino spaces. And then are these spaces integrated and connected or do they continue to be separated by the view corridor.
Use your center space as a void. It will make your other forms stronger. The connection of bridges in your physical model is very strong - this is missing in your computer model.
ReplyDeleteTry to keep the geometry of the rotated shapes on the upper floor plans. This will keep your concept in all levels.
Happy to see the evolution of your earlier concepts! A few first thoughts after looking at your midterm presentation.
ReplyDeleteStacking:
You should draw sections ASAP. It would be interesting to see different heights for the stacked volumes according to the enclosed program. You may already have an interesting height differentiation but definitely it is not clear. Stacking is a very playful design operation. Your volumes miss a bit of this playfulness. They are very rigid. Experiment more with heights, with rotation and with variety in the overall proportions for each stacked volume. Also, is there a reason that the two main volumes separated by the glass covered space have similar overall height?
Elevations :
You should elaborate orthographic drawings with shadows so you convey the whole rotating and shifting concept of your stacked volumes.
Your diagrammatic elevations are very generic for the time being.
Every visual you are presenting should convey the main design argument.
Separated Box Volume:
Is this the casino? It is very hard to see the program labels for each volume since your boards are very low resolution.
This volume is not in a great dialogue with the rest yet. Try different orientation and if possible programmatically make it smaller in plan. It seems too close to the other mass which makes the bridge connection looks somewhat unjustified. The bridge is a powerful move so make sure that is bold.
In between glass space:
I agree with prof. Jill that it could be interesting to see that as empty space. As far as I understand, you have an elaborated bridge network that if "revealed " will also justify the bridge connection with the Casino. If though programmatically this volume still needs to be covered then experiment more with the glass structure grid.
Looking forward to see the progress. Keep in touch!
The simplicity of your initial massing model, and its land form massing held a lot of potential for a project that is graceful and easily understood. It appeared to fit within the massing of the. And It's first iteration began to examine how the view corridor could affect one side (the casino) while leaving the other in tact. I then got lost with the shifting of the entire floor plates that were still being cut with the view corridor. Here the view corridor feels like an arbitrary remnant.
ReplyDeleteI suggest that make a few studies in section. The hotel floor plates, repetitive in nature, will be very different form the taller lobby and casino spaces. And then are these spaces integrated and connected or do they continue to be separated by the view corridor.