Bilyana, first of all I would like to thank you for the amount of work & energy you’re giving into your project. Every week your concept is changing and every time you are showing a project solved into an advanced depth of detail. In fact the solution you’ve introduced is … correct. There are some minor details of layout issues which could be better, but overall solution works. However I would appeal to you to think it over once more. During the semester you brought a lot of inspiring ideas and propositions. I appreciated especially your contextual approach in which you were actively thinking about the whole citadel as an inseparable part of your design. The Mies inspired pavilion you introduced on Monday is a universal solution. It could stand anywhere, because it is never firmly connected with any place. Of cause it could be placed even at Vyšehrad bastion. Why not? Why yes? If I wouldn’t follow your work during the semester, I wouldn’t try to convince you to change the design. Truly the last solution is not bad. But I’m deeply convinced you could bring much better one – one which is much more connected with this singular place. What I found always very interesting about your approach was the terrain modulation. Since the first concept of a spiral you were always working with rich topographical relations. In that way the last proposal is quite ordinary – it in a way reminds an ancient Greek temple placed on a natural krepis. What I found more interesting is the hollow you created to the south of it. Maybe it could be partly incorporated into your layout system? You are double level anyway, so why don’t utilise a terrain modulation in vicinity? Maybe it could be even connected with the depression by the old chapel? Just an idea… So far students have come with three conceptual solutions of this place. 1. A building which is creating an inner courtyard space by its footprint, 2. A building which is an object put into a garden, 3 A building which is part of the terrain. Your approach is the second one – from the very beginning. The difference from your first design is that while “the nest” was a beautiful object to be looked to, the Mies pavilion is an object to be looked into. The building seems to be so transparent that you can look right through it. On the other hand it is positioned in a superexposed place so you will always see it as a box. How it would be perceived from the other side of the valley? Isn’t it a pity that almost a half of the building façade is just a corridor next to the kitchen and toilets? The other concern of mine is of the character of the inner space. It is great that you provide almost a 360° view for all the customers, however is it a really pleasant space for a dinner? Someone likes to be visually exposed nevertheless most of the people when enjoying a dinner (in a group of friends) search for a cosy enclosed space (with one firm wall at least). It is subconscious – the longing for a place with a possible view yet shielded back.
During the semester you showed a lot of concepts. Majority of them expressed your aim of natural connection of dining areas with the topography of your garden. Somehow in the latest design they seem to be completely detached, non-related to the place. In your designs it seems you’re trying to provide a universal quality of the space to all the customers. I would advise you to relax and leave the space to emerge more naturally. Some dining areas could be more sunken, hidden in a shadow, by a wall or in a bay, in a separate room. Some dining areas could be more open. Some of them could be on a top of an earthwork, some of them in a hollow. Not every one of them has to be wheelchair accessible. Some of them could be for punk guys with sausages burned black and beer, some of them for hipsters with tea and biscuits. Maybe it would be better to think about the place as a small town with a lot of different houses. Some of the houses are under one roof, yet there are streets and maybe even squares. Still the most challenging part is how to design your building so it is an integral component of your sensual promenade – not an object sitting aside. I believe people must want to explore your building from outside – from all the sides.
2 comments:
Bilyana, first of all I would like to thank you for the amount of work & energy you’re giving into your project. Every week your concept is changing and every time you are showing a project solved into an advanced depth of detail.
In fact the solution you’ve introduced is … correct. There are some minor details of layout issues which could be better, but overall solution works.
However I would appeal to you to think it over once more.
During the semester you brought a lot of inspiring ideas and propositions. I appreciated especially your contextual approach in which you were actively thinking about the whole citadel as an inseparable part of your design.
The Mies inspired pavilion you introduced on Monday is a universal solution. It could stand anywhere, because it is never firmly connected with any place. Of cause it could be placed even at Vyšehrad bastion. Why not? Why yes?
If I wouldn’t follow your work during the semester, I wouldn’t try to convince you to change the design. Truly the last solution is not bad. But I’m deeply convinced you could bring much better one – one which is much more connected with this singular place.
What I found always very interesting about your approach was the terrain modulation. Since the first concept of a spiral you were always working with rich topographical relations. In that way the last proposal is quite ordinary – it in a way reminds an ancient Greek temple placed on a natural krepis. What I found more interesting is the hollow you created to the south of it. Maybe it could be partly incorporated into your layout system? You are double level anyway, so why don’t utilise a terrain modulation in vicinity? Maybe it could be even connected with the depression by the old chapel? Just an idea…
So far students have come with three conceptual solutions of this place. 1. A building which is creating an inner courtyard space by its footprint, 2. A building which is an object put into a garden, 3 A building which is part of the terrain. Your approach is the second one – from the very beginning. The difference from your first design is that while “the nest” was a beautiful object to be looked to, the Mies pavilion is an object to be looked into. The building seems to be so transparent that you can look right through it. On the other hand it is positioned in a superexposed place so you will always see it as a box. How it would be perceived from the other side of the valley? Isn’t it a pity that almost a half of the building façade is just a corridor next to the kitchen and toilets?
The other concern of mine is of the character of the inner space. It is great that you provide almost a 360° view for all the customers, however is it a really pleasant space for a dinner? Someone likes to be visually exposed nevertheless most of the people when enjoying a dinner (in a group of friends) search for a cosy enclosed space (with one firm wall at least). It is subconscious – the longing for a place with a possible view yet shielded back.
During the semester you showed a lot of concepts. Majority of them expressed your aim of natural connection of dining areas with the topography of your garden. Somehow in the latest design they seem to be completely detached, non-related to the place.
In your designs it seems you’re trying to provide a universal quality of the space to all the customers. I would advise you to relax and leave the space to emerge more naturally. Some dining areas could be more sunken, hidden in a shadow, by a wall or in a bay, in a separate room. Some dining areas could be more open. Some of them could be on a top of an earthwork, some of them in a hollow. Not every one of them has to be wheelchair accessible. Some of them could be for punk guys with sausages burned black and beer, some of them for hipsters with tea and biscuits. Maybe it would be better to think about the place as a small town with a lot of different houses. Some of the houses are under one roof, yet there are streets and maybe even squares.
Still the most challenging part is how to design your building so it is an integral component of your sensual promenade – not an object sitting aside. I believe people must want to explore your building from outside – from all the sides.
Post a Comment