design review presentation – spring


On Wednesday we gave our last presentation before our final presentation for thesis.  Instead of the normal jury format we only presented to one other instructor.  The idea was that by presenting to those familiar with our projects already we could save time and effort from preparing standard presentation type graphics and use that time for designing instead.  I also like the change of format because the presentation is really more like an extended conversation where both parties can be candid and have a dialogue as opposed to the more formal setting of a juried presentation.

The boards below were just a few of the ones I used for my presentation.  I also used parts from the final review at the end of last quarter but I’m not going to repost them here.  You can find them a few entries down.

In alot of the massing shots I’m basically showing a unit represented by a box.  The unit will not take that form nor will it even necessarily be that size but I needed a place holder to roughly represent a unit.  It would have been too labor intensive at this point to show units in detail and the emphasis for this presentation was mostly on the site anyway.   I still need to work out a few things - standardizing the articulation of openings (doors/window), developing the feel of the south side entry courtyards, the roofing, and the billboards and a couple of other things.  Other than that I plan on starting on the layout for the final presentation – from here on out I’m not working on anything that won’t end up as part of my final presentation.

Most of the feedback I got was concerning materials.  Since labor is cheaper in Mexico it was suggested I may want to look into using a concrete structure instead of a steel one, which would probably be more expensive.  Also instead of bolting the wood framing to the steel the instructor suggested using SIP’s.  I’m still looking into it but the more I work out the details the less feasible it seems to make the switch.  The advantage of the steel structure is that when it is bare it has less of a presence than the thicker and seemingly heavier concreter column and beams – but he was right, it would be cheaper.  What initially appealed to me about the SIP’s is the same reason now that they seem unlikely to work.  The SIPs seemed simpler than wood framing since it was essentially just a panel and did not need to be faced or insulated.  But SIPs are not entirely structural, that is they require a material along their lengths to attach to like wood studs.  So instead of being simpler, they require an additional structural component to work.  The wood frame is entirely structural by itself.  It seems they are heavier which would make them harder to put in place.  Also they are difficult to cut into or alter to insert windows or doors.  I still need to look at it closer before I move on. 

d

  1. No comments yet.

You must be logged in to post a comment.