First Draft - Revised

In receiving the opportunity to revise the submission for the First Draft, I chose to practically start from scratch. The architectural ideas are still consistant, with the "greenhouse" atrium being developed, as well as the general organisation of spaces remaining intact, however I decided to redo the submission from the ground up due to the fact that my building was horrendously out of scale with the site that Ryan produced. Rather than working on something that was incorrect, I used my original submission as the basis for this one.

I made a number of changes to the original design based on what I thought was weak, as well as the feedback from my tutor and peers.

1. The "Greenhouse"
I feel quite strongly about keeping the atrium, as it serves many purposes, both symbolically, practically and architecturally. However, seemed too block out more than it allowed in, so I opened it out, with each floor moving out approx 600mm so it appears that the ramps form a "V" shape when viewed from the north or south (as opposed to the original scheme which was more of an "11").

2. Reducing the mass of the building
Comments made about the building seeming "heavy" and "serious" lead me to explore opening the building up. Larger and full wall windows have been placed in numerous places around the building to give it a porous quality. I hope to take this notion of stripping down and carving out my building as I move forward from here.

3. Experimenting with windows
Windows in the first scheme were an afterthought. Basic window sizes were punched into my walls, with little consideration of what lies behind them. In this scheme, I designed a few windows very specifically in how they frame views. I am also experimenting with an irregular window that is based around the idea of "peering through trees", however, in this current scheme it is still very sketchy and something I would like to work on more closely.

4. Simplifying Bedrooms
The dangers of an irregular shaped site became apparent in my first submission, with my attempts at working with the angles only caused awkward spaces. In this scheme I experimented in going against my original manifesto, which included making every room and every window unique, it order to get a quick example of what orthogonal, modular rooms would feel like.

5. Romoving the southern spine
This narrow alley of only about 6m wide has made it very difficult to design around. I am constantly reminded about the pitfalls of designing in plan as these spaces are practically unusable for anything but circulation. I cut off the spine and have used it only as a viewing point and as an entrance to the carpark (which is also new to this scheme)

6. Alternate Entrance
Last week it occured to me that an alternate route through Hutchinson Lane may be appropriate given the intensity of the traffic on the street front. I still find it important to have a public face at that entrance, so that has not been changed, but the ground floor (which was previously all bedrooms, a small staff outpost and a reading area) has been cut in two, to provide a carpark, and a large entrance from that carpark which is greeted by a recpetion.

7. Exterior Detailing
The only exterior detailing I did in the first submission was my terraced gardens above the theatre. While that remains (in an experimental smaller form), I tried to break up the monotity of my facade by introducing elements to act as a symbolic reference to the role of the building. I have been trying to repeat themes of things "interlocking", in an effort to portray a sense of piecing things together.

8. The "Wandering" ideal and Vantage Points
As I refer back to my picture grid from last session, one concept that thought worked in conjuction with paths was nodes- places of stillness of quiet, in my interpretation. I felt that my original scheme promoted too much movement. Although this was the ideal, it neglected the importance of stillness, so I have stripped some back, and allowed for quieter spaces to flourish.

This scheme has a number of issues with it as well, which were only apparent due to Crysis testing. Some rooms are far to small to be practical, and some open spaces so large they are daunting. I seem to be battling with ceiling heights as I design this structure, so that will be something to proritise as this scheme develops. I would also like to increase my knowledge base of Crysis a lot more, and a lot of time is spent battling with the program. Unfortunetly for this submission, I couldn't get AI to work (unless you count the birds!) and I would prefer far more furniture in my building, however, I sacrficed these elements in order to progress my design.

I also did not get the chance to revise my posters. Having said that, despite the fact that these posters are simply screens from the first proposal, I am fairly satisfied what them. They are designed to respond to the brief by relating the concepts of Sun et al's research to my design in that the movement of people and openings is of great concern to my design specifically. The quotes themselves were, of course, a relation back to the first posters I did at the beginning of the year, that had very dark quotes about Alzheimer's disease, while these quotes attempted to propose a lighter side.