Hi everyone!

I've been visiting the PPB forum on a regular basis for quite some time now, but never posted anything. I enjoy the really interesting discussions in the other threads and the quality of the critique given by some of the members is just amazing. Therefore I thought I should try it out by posting one of my own projects.

The posts will be snap shots from the pdf-file of my presentation (because I have no access to the original In Design file at this moment, hope the quality is okay).

Since I’m new to this I might miss to provide bits and pieces of information, but please, just let me know if there is something you’re missing and we’ll fix it!

Here we go:

Project – University, 3rd year studio
Location – Heurlins Plats, Gothenburg, Sweden. (see map)
Type of Project – A small temporary centre for culture.
Design Parameters – It was to be a building that should function for all seasons and in all types of weather. It should be of high architectonic quality and constitute a natural focus point and meeting place for everyone, regardless of ethnic background and age. It is a temporary building that will be removed in 5-10 yrs.

The given plot was to be respected. The outer line indicates the area allowed to be “managed” and the inner line marks the buildable plot (approx 600 sqm) A lot of different activities were suggested in the brief which also stated that flexibility was a criterion for the building. We were asked to consider its relationship to the city and to the public: how could neglected backsides be avoided and what could the temporary do for the development of the city?

Program max 300 sqm:
Flexible exhibition space, café with seating for 20 persons, a smaller meeting room for various activities, work areas for 1-2 persons, goods/trash, lavatories and general storage areas. Specified areas were given in the design brief and are respected in the proposal. Availability was also a criterion since it’s a public building.

Design Approach – The design puts its focus on the relationship between culture, the city, the building and the user. The aspect of temporarily is secondary, although present.

Tools/Programs- Sketch Up for 3D modeling, V-Ray for volume/spatial renderings, Illustrator and Photoshop for basically everything else.

Map of central Gothenburg. The lines indicates the main thoroughfares and commercial streets. The majority of them are abruptly broken and creates a fragmented city flow. Heurlins Plats sits just in between some of "the loose ends". Perhaps a temporary centre for culture could help improve the city integration by linking the lines?

first slide - exterior night view

Project summary - What is the leading question?

Foundations

The Concept

HOW IT WORKS (explanatory diagram will follow)

Explanatory diagram + variations

The Context

The Ambitions

Analaysis + proposition part 1

Analysis + Proposition part 2

Site plan

EDIT:

Just noticed the bad quality. City centre up-north (passing "Esperantoplatsen"), Järntorget (transportation node) down left (100m). Offices and shops in the buildings to the right an left. A cinema and dance acadamy in the building to the left. The area to the north is an open space for various "special events". The green cones markes the perspective points (nr 1 on the first slide, nr 2 on the one following this)

TEXT:
Up left:
"THE ART of LIGHT 5 – 8 meters high light posts, projecting coloured spots on the ground. There are similar ones on Esperantoplatsen and Järntorget. They are a part of the effort of creating a sense of continuity by creating a series of visual focus points."
Middle left:
"There are several activities on this side; the cinema “Draken” and the dance academy “Dansforum” which attracts a lot of young people."
Down left: "the building forms an entrance plaza togheter with the surrounding city walls"
Up right: "In an attempt to maintain the feeling of temporality, NOTHING IS CHANGED regarding the site materials. The red gravel is and asphalt is kept"
Middle right:"The FAÇADE can be used for outdoor cinema and video installations. Perhaps even when the World Series of football is showing? Space for outdoor activities and seating can made on both sides depending on occasion and season"
Down right: "The façade acts as a PUBLIC BILLBOARD for culture. The building itself uses its excellent position for advertising its activities and transmitting the flow of culture"

The Facade

West Facade

The café

The exhibition space - the café in the distance to the right

The spaces

Plan

Text (starting from the left down)

1. "THE SLIGHTLY ELEVATED PLANE offers by passers protection against rain or a place to sit in the evening sun. There is a similar niche facing the ENTRANCE PLAZA"

2. "The WORK AREAS are roomy and enjoys an excellent sea view."

3. "AS LITTLE AS POSSIBLE of the facade consists of solid walls. With the exception of these two. The glass panels are, however, mounted all around the facade, so even here. The difference is therefore not notable.
The building opens up in all directions, avoiding the creation of backsides."

4. "THE RESTROOMS are discretely separated from the main void."

(Right column)

5. "THE TRANSPARENT FACADE offers 360 degrees of exposure and advertising of cultural events and activities. The internal voids can, at times, be used as storefronts."

6. "From the EXHIBITION AREA views over the sea and Kungshöjd can be seen"

7. "THE INDOOR ACTIVITY SPACES are easily separated by folding walls. The spaces are flexible and suited for different types of co-use."

8 "The CAFÉ offers views over Järntorget and the busy city life outside. Just have a seat, take a sip of your café-au-lait and watch people go by"

Spatial Layout

Section a-a

section b-b

Program

Flexibility study

Construction principles

That's the last post. If I've missed anything, please let me know.
Feedback is most welcome!

Holy Crap!Thats a nice presentation-Im just going to go through it properly first and then comment on design etc-but holy crap, nice presentation!

Great work, thanks for posting!
Your presentation is very thorough, the only thing I can think of now that I would like to see more of would be some external perspectives (there are only a couple of these, in posts #2 and #13 if I'm not mistaken).
I think your project looks great. The irregular geometry and compact shape seem to work well in relation with the geometry of the surrounding urban space. The continuous treatment of the interactive building skin gives it a strong presence. Still I wonder if you have considered playing with the roof surface a bit instead of using a horizontal surface.
My only doubts would be regarding the entrance ramp and the volume framing the door (they seem too narrow and too formal), and how you resolve the "curtain wall" when wrapping opaque volumes, as it will surely not allow the same kind of interaction of the rest of the façade. Also on this subject, I have some doubts about projecting images from inside onto the glass and how this can work with the normal use of the building (people moving around inside, lighting, etc.).

Thanks for the nice comments!

The lack of perspectives is due to a presentation size limitations. I have, however, some quick renderings fron sketchup that I could post. The trouble is though that they are not in context, but could perhaps improve the understanding of the volume.

I wonder if you have considered playing with the roof surface a bit instead of using a horizontal surface

You got me asking the same question vOid! I went back and took a look on some of the early model studies (of 8 other concepts, but with the goal of understanding the context) and I had tried various heights, angels, shapes and so on. The context could handle a more irregular roof, it might even do good. Why this is not used in the final proposition might be a combination of me, working to much in plan (and not in model) when developing the concept, and some notion about projections screens having to be square (it sounds stupid, I know but some fix ideas seem to cling on).

I agree completely on the comment about the entrance, it is to formal and it doesn't act well with the rest of the building. I got crit for this when I had my presentation. I would have tried to integrate the ramp and entrance in the overall shape had I done it again.

About the functionallity of backprojections:

I understand your concerns, the thought have crossed my mind too, but I'm still not sure. It depends if the aim is to create a direct flow of information (e.g. Tv, movies, news etc). Some sort of visual media where it is crucial that there are no interruptions. On the other hand, at times there will be a mere blur of images fading and changing, and in that case it might not be any harm to have people moving in the background, casting their shadows onto the screens. Perhaps this would just enhance the feeling of cultural flow and activity? I like the idea of being able to use visual and moving media, but still, had I redone this project I would have dropped this bit and focused on the dynamic lighting instead.

God, this turned out to ba long answer, I'll keep 'em shorter from now on!

Thanks once again for the comments...

/alex

I found some quick facade and perspective sketches, some of the final building and some of just sketches. I'll start with the ones of the final model.

Here's a view approaching from the south (Järntorget behind you)

I think this is a wonderful project with some of the most beautiful images I have ever seen :craqueur: (expecially post 13) and a great thread.

My only compaint is the use of the word 'nice' as in 'nice views', 'nice urban space' etc. Nice has no meaning or if it has one it is bland and non-descriptive. I would suggest more decsriptive or emotive adjectives (this is obviously a language issue though).

Haha, that's true Gorgon. I hadn't even noticed it. My bad. It's an important aspect and I'll try to think about it in the future.
Thanks for the very nice comments!

more perspective sketches:

Standing on Järntorget

Järntorget behinde you (on the other side of the street in theperspective before the last one)

even closer (about the same position as post #2)
Unfinished perspective

The last perspectives were sketches, you might have noticed that there were no windows and the lack of detailing. Anyhow they might have said something about the context after all.

I have two more perspectives just like the one in #13, but I can't seem to find them. If I do, I'll post them.

Here: Enlargement of facade variations from the concept diagram:

Back projections

Dynamic colour scheme

Passive transmittance for when the other systems are not in use.
(you get a hint of what's going on inside)

i really like this project. the presentation is ace! i love the images on post #12 + #15. really sweet! did you do the plan in post #15 with just cad and photoshop?

Thanks for the nice comment mak156!

Actually, most of the work on this project was done in photoshop. About the plan: I got the drawings by exporting 2d from sketchUp, fiddled some with them in Illustrator and did most of the work in photoshop. So yes, the plan was mostly done in Photoshop. It's the best invention since internet (at least some times).

Just as a note, sometimes you have to edit the images you show - less is really more - I think your latest posts 34-37 are the standard images you expect and are thus reducing the impact of your initial drawings and work
Apparantly Alvar Aalto was very keen on some lack of clarity in his work to allow different interpretations...

:bump:

please rate this thread.

:cheers: i love this project, very simple, focused and well executed, and this is reflected in the presentation.

The diagrams on the first few pages are refreshingly clear and communicative, good project --- explained very well. I think you can start to pick up on this when no one really has any questions about the design because it has been conveyed clearly. Which is one of the things I like about posting work here.....to experiment with how well the design speaks for itself before trying to explain it further or respond to questions. A different type of setting than a studio crit, but I think it can be equally valuable....anyway I'm sold on this one.

aderklint, first of all congratulations ona great presentation. it's very beatifull, atractive and on top of all that it actually does what it was supposed to do, that is to show the project and your options.

As for the project itself, well it does have it's strong points, i like how you find the final shape of your solution and the plan seems to be very well solved. But to tell the truth it's something missing for me to be completly thrilled about your solution. I agree with the coment made by vOid, maybe it would gain alot if the roof surface could be diferent.

Congratulations for your work. :)

A good studio project. Can not say anymore about the design.
However, I am thinking if the site, feactured as a crossing, busy place in the city, could be revitalized throught a kind of architectural installation instead of the mere architectural pavilion.

Imaging a device provided with the passway, the bridge, the flexibility, the dynamic facade and the mutiple program, that could be a way of thinking.

very nice presentation!

btw, are you still a student? or have a studio named "3rd year studio"
did you do this all by yourself? - im really impressed

how did you paint the pictures in photoshop? how did you create the human figures the white silhouette?

Nice project!
3rd year?? Unbelieveble!!!

I'm SO sorry that I missed this thread when it was fresh!! For a third year this presentation technique is fantastic. Bluddy well done!!! Strong design concepts and I really love the montage images with the coloured design set within the black and white photographs. Works of art in themselves.

Again....well done!

Hi everyone!

First I would like to thank everyone for the feedback and the five-star-rating!
I always enjoy the critics and refreshing insights on the posted projects and having the project rated and stored in the five-star-archive is somewhat of an honour. So thanks again everyone for sharing your thoughts on the project and rating it!
Secondly I want to apologize for not being nearly as active in the thread as I initially had hoped for. I’ve had my hands full of work and unfinished projects, among them my diploma project (which I’m planning on posting here in a few weeks).

I’ll answer the questions and finish of by following cvankley’s advice on picking up on the question of presentation technique, since the thread has mainly revolved around this matter and because it in itself is really interesting to discuss.

The project was made during the first half of my third year studies, so this is a third year studio project. However, the name third year studio isn’t that bad, I might use it some day if you don’t mind dudekracked.
Basically all graphics were made in Photoshop. This goes for the perspectives as well, that were made on top of a basic rendering from v-ray (giving the main characteristics and proportions of the spaces).

About architectural pavilion versus installation:
The idea isn’t bad at all, I really like it!
As a matter of fact, I had a similar idea amongst my initial concepts. An idea of “the cultural forest”, a structure of interactive pillars, spread over the whole site (both to the north and east), in some places clustered to create spaces that could be filled with the programme etc. This would have been a nice way to go since it is rather strong conceptually and is an interesting interpretation of the brief.

However, my only remark is that it would have been hard to reuse the building (structure?) for other functions and purposes and on other sites. Since this was not a criteria stated in the brief, its not that big a deal. I obviously just went for another way of capturing the feeling of “temporality”. That being a tightly organised building, barely touching ground. The distinctly placed object and ever changing façade.

I’ll follow up on the question of architectural communication and visual presentation in a following post. I would just like to take the opportunity to receive feedback on the presentation boards of the project. Every type of feedback is more than welcome!

Thanks again everyone for posting!

fourth board.

Following up on the question of communication:

I’ll try to formulate this as clear as possible, however I’m counting on the help of you guys to develop it as we go along.

Presentation technique is obviously central to architectural practice. That is one of the first things you understand when starting your architectural studies. That if you have a great idea but lack the skill to present it and make others understand it, it is not worth anything. You might even go as far as David Zahle (BIG CPH) and saying that “…if you cannot present your idea in a five minute lecture, you don’t have an idea”.
The need for fast, easy and effective communication is crucial to become successful as an architect.

The goal of visual communication must be to explain the project and its features of relevance, seduce the spectator and in the end convince them that your idea is the best (perhaps the only) answer to the question they put forth.
The question of what arch firm (in Europe) manages this the best today, was asked to a professor at the school, Gert Wingårdh (Bo01, Müritzeum). The answer he gave was that it is, without a doubt, BIG in Copenhagen (www.BIG.dk, Bjarke Ingels, former partner of PLOT).

They have a way of making everything sound so natural and easy with their almost naïve graphics and texts. However, after having studied their website, lectures etc, I feel that they sometimes run the risk of oversimplifying things and in the process they miss to communicate the actual depth and complexity of their projects.
Personally I have the tendency to go the other way and making the mistake of, not thinking to much, but to wanting to communicate it all. This makes you loose focus and the project becomes un-accessible.

The question in general is, in your opinion, what are the characteristics of good architectural communication? It could be examples of firms, specific presentations, articles, lessons learned etc.

My interest in particular is to discuss how to achieve a simple and effective presentation of complex projects without loosing its richness and complexity? Simple complexity?

I am well aware about the vagueness of the question, but well see where it leads. Cheers!

amazing renders:clap:

I love this project :D it inspired me in my uni work xD