May 12, 2019

Since the mid-semester review we as a class have been undertaking an iterative design process to further enhance our design and bring our discussed concepts to fruition. By immersing ourselves and our designs through such a process we have been able to explore different avenues in how to create compelling designs, responsive to our concept and the site itself. This constant evolution is informed through individual contemplation, research and design and also through discussions within the class and the groups we have been placed in relative to our final projects. This evolutionary design process additionally has been understood to also consider the final outcome. As such, one of this week focuses was to decide upon the deliverables of our design being that of a physical model, prototype or the use of VR. Each form of the deliverable was to be informed by our own individual design, and how our design would be best conveyed.

In our past class, we were able to present our design developments and our path of progress since mid-semester. Through these presentations, it was evident to see each individuals concept enhanced through a developed physical form. It was evident the language of the studio, being that of perfection intertwined with fashion, was enhanced through each interpretation into an architectural form. Through these presentations feedback and possible further directions of our work were explored. As the focus of the iterative design process, following the presentations are designs are aimed to redeveloped, informed by the feedback given.

• 

Many of our designs have evolved to properly incorporate and respond to the opportunity’s on the site. Furthering mid-semester it was imminent that most of us would revisit site analysis in a more in-depth response. Rather than focusing on the typical site analysis responses, we as a class, have returned to exploring the site on a deeper level in response to our particular designs. This has resulted in further mapping and diagramming of typography, solar access, neighboring characteristics and facade systems (just to name a few), to ensure each and every design in appropriately responding to the site in an informed manor.

Meanwhile, we rethink our own concepts by analyzing existing cases and site on Friday. With our mini pin-ups, we were able to gain formal feedback to ensure that our design process is presented in a narrative like manor. This iterative presentation process is vital in progressing our aesthetics and formalizing our ideas for our final presentation.

In order to integrate the knowledge of the fashion industry and the research of the site gained through the past weeks, as to provide a foundation for the proposed programs, the team started drafting their site plans. However this was proven to be quite a challenging task. While the site plan demonstrates the grand picture of how proposed programs relate to the surrounding environment, such relation does not necessarily generate the concept of space. On the other hand, the layers of site are a complicated mixture of knowledge. It is often emphasized as an essential pre-task to research and document the site so that the architectural parameters can be extracted. Here lies the challenge: how to distillate the content relevant to the specific design concept from a broad site context and how to determine whether the site analysis was sufficient to justify the design decisions. A clear objective always helps with providing the core concept that every new decision comes along the way will have a root to return to. The objective can be performative (The design input enhances architectural programs the capability of conducting their original tasks, e.g., new facade shading design improves IEQ). It can be user experience (programs are driven). It can also be environmental, cultural, political, etc. After the objective is set, the parameters of the site and the parameters of the architecture can be established at the same time through critically analyzing the current state of site analogues.

• 

• 

•