This blog post is to summarize everything that happened in my progress this term.
We had two midterm reviews and one final review. A recap of what was shown and what feedback was given at each session will be presented below:
1. Midterm 1 – I gave a presentation of my thesis topic and program elements. My thesis program is a fitness facility with sports therapy emphasis. After presenting background information I laid out master planning ideas. Most of this presentation is shown in the previous blog post done at the end of January. The feedback I was given was which master plan to focus on for further development of my project.
My process between then and the next midterm was revising the program, developing a sketchup model, and doing extensive sketches to understand the building idea and function. A presentation on timber framing was also researched and presented to the class as well as an investigation on a biomimetic design. Other elements of the project which were investigated for the design and urban plan of the site was healing gardens, veterans memorials and sky walks.
Midterm 2 Pin up Work
2. Midterm 2 – presentation of sketchup building model to date. Plans, sections, explorations, drawings, precedents, etc. Our review was conducted in the Eugene style with two reviews and a smaller group of reviewers. The first review went very well with suggestions for furthering the building design so reach a little more outside the boundaries of possibilities. Concept ideas were embracing the program boxes more and playing with the variety of heights and dimensions to create a more interesting, playful design instead of sticking to a ‘pancake’ level by level facility. Also reinforces was the concept of ‘ease of movement’ through the facility and site.
The second review in this midterm did no go as well. The reviewers focused more of the retail value of the land and the reality of constructing my facility instead of a 20 story housing building. This was good to hear, but did not help building development and ultimately guided my next development decisions of changing sites to the north parking blocks instead of what I had been working on.
Progress after midterm 2 – re-evaluation of master plan in a step by step analysis. Re-development of a program elements and a building design. Construction of study models and topo of new site area. Daylighting/tectonic model of building design iteration in progress. Partial construction of final building design. Organization and layout for final pin-up including: urban study, building design and master plan. Most work was done by hand with the urban and master plan poster done digitally.
Final Review Pin up work
page 1:
Page 2:
Page 3:
3. Final Review – Feedback was given on the master plan, building design and building approach. My panel was composed of 5 people ranging from UO professors, Place Rep, and Opsis Reps. During the review I was given very constructive criticisms and presented with challenging questions to consider in the development of the project and where I ultimately was the design to go along with what I want it to generate in a conceptual idea. Major ideas presented were:
re-investigate whether I was to amend the existing grid or utilize the existing grid and respond to the site in a way with exactly elicits the solution needed to stitch together the Rose to make everything coherent. Or, use the proposed master plan and re-evaluate the design response. Go along with this, do a more external study on the surrounding site instead of the user response within the building. Let the surrounding landscape, and patterns shape the arrangement internally.
Determine whether the function of the building is the create an internal energy which dissipates externally or whether it is the external energy of the Rose which influences and sparks the energy within the facility.
The site is located in an area where every surround street is a major street with a totally different function and character. Investigate this further and allow it to shape each of the building fronts in it’s own way so it can better respond to the site.
Re-consider the organic shape. I knew this while designing and running into complications, but it was re-presented. It is difficult to effectively and easily place geometric spaces within an organic shape and not end up with awkward spaces.
Investigate and develop the paralleling idea of health and stitching together the site response.