Following the feedback on Friday, Ive worked on the feedback provided.

I have started working on how all the information gathered would be fed into a proposal. Ive got the basic idea, now its just a matter of applying the ideas on site.

After easter break i will have much more of a sited design.

I have been working simultaneously on the taxonomy drawing.

For the material taxonomy bit, i felt it would be a good inclusion of a material palette and also explaining the properties associated with these materials in relation to the elements on site. Eg. Water etc. It would make the drawing stronger from a technology perspective as well. The last 6 boxes show how all of these different elements of fact and fiction come together to form the interventions.



Ive also edited the Topology modification drawing and typology drawings according to the feedback. Everything needs to be annotated and explained properly, but as of now ive kept that aside as i need to crack on with the proposal.



One thought on “Update

  1. The main taxonomy is really coming along – I like how you have incorporated the dimension of time to show how fact and fiction coexist through history and the present. The use of the site plan and the time line/ curve is very effective in locating the different proposals in time and space. Obviously this is still a work in progress but when you start to dissect the proposals or classes into their respective orders it starts to lose some of the rigour because each one is divided up differently. I think as we read the taxonomy we should be getting an insight into your brain and the processes by which you abstract each of these projects to form your proposal – spatially, structurally, materially, environmentally and experientially. Perhaps this will become clearer as you annotate it and think about the material expression of each – just make sure you’re thinking of what’s the general strategy of fact/ fiction that applies to all the examples and explains how they go from their original fiction to factual application on site. Look at this project by Serie Architects: http://www.dezeen.com/2009/12/07/the-tote-by-serie-architects/ and the drawings like this one: https://static.dezeen.com/uploads/2009/12/dzn_The-Tote-by-Serie-Architects-21_1000.gif really show how they took the mature Rain Tree and abstracted it to form their eventual architecture. You need to have a similar system that applies not just to nature but to the bridge, gristmill, stadium and nature etc. Just keep at it and make sure you apply equal rigour to all parts – don’t have the final proposal fixed based on your earlier drawings/ sketches – since that’s what is present as the end-result of the taxonomy. Instead see how this evolutionary process informs what that design could be, and bring in the lessons you have learnt from redrawing all of those precedents in how you develop and take forward the system and the design. If you think of the last part of the taxonomy as a matrix how do you take each of those examples of the bridge, stadium, mill etc. and start to apply the operations you have abstracted from the precedents: layering, dispersal, guided movement, etc. Is that something that you want to use at an architectural scale or at the scale of the site as an overview? I think these things are important to clarify as you progress with the design – good luck!

Leave a Reply