Page 1

Martin Smidak Arch 24 Fall 2010


- Evidence I chose would be the Nature that is captured, forced limited by its surroundings - Clarity and organization works well on my first board

- For second iteration I was trying to loose the linear layout but it became too chaotic and the board lost its readability


- For this project we as a group decided to split the research but put it together as a one presentation board. This allowed us to keep it simple and clean even though there was a lot of different sources and many big ideas

- What didn’t work well was the fact that the whole presentation looks like it was all done by one person. The board actually was but we all put our ideas and research together and then sketched it how it should be done.


- Site I chose at first, as the best for the project, didn’t work very well probably because I was thinking about the end project from the very beginning. And also the site is a small park which would have to be destroyed.


- I believe this site has a great potential for future development because of many reasons: - location, amazing views - it’s been abandoned for more than 50 years already - close to many city landmarks such as Fisherman’s Wharf, Fort Mason, Ghirardelli square, North Beach District or Lombard Street - I would like to bring the history of the reservoir back but also keep the open space for recreation and public events. The site is also very quiet which works well for the library and research center.


- This document has very appealing front page and nice pictures used to document the site but I used too many pages of just statistics and just words which makes the whole document little boring. - Document is complex and very important in order to understand the specific site and the whole area as a whole not just as a piece of a land.


- Focus on and highlighting the void

- Filling in the missing parts subconsciously and creating connections

- Deformation of a grid by layering the mathematical grid over the natural - Top vs bottom of the hill


-

planes structure intersection support

- Natural vs made - Expanding vs limiting

- I am always trying to use new or different materials and explore the possibilities they have


- This models are little bigger which was challenge for me to keep the density and to add more details - Big parallel planes give to the models too much of a base feel which doesn’t work well as an abstract gesture model


- good: density clarity use of materials simple ideas organization

- doesn’t work: too literal and specific


- this models are focused on 1) translucency and opacity of planes using different materials

2) linear vs curvilinear 3) chaos vs organization 4) visible vs hidden 5) penetration vs interaction


- This model came up as a combination of what I thought worked the best in all previous models and enhancing it with better materials, bigger size, use of surfaces, integrating ideas and abstracting specifications.

- Iterative gesture process works well for me because it is easier to see the progress and to see where are the ideas going rather than have set in stone final idea to begin with.

portfolio arch24  

midterm portfolio

Read more
Read more
Similar to
Popular now
Just for you