Brainstorming and Conceptualizing

As we progressed with module three where we expand our childhood homes into an institution that benefits our community, the discussion began with a conversation on our visit to House of MG and answering the question why is it a great example of adaptive reuse of architecture. Along with this we also analysed the importance of threshold spaces, entryways, foyers etc. We deliberated over the programs of our institutions and contemplated whether the institutions would really be helpful to the community.

After coming up with a program, we made axonometric model to elaborate on the spaces that we wanted to create. I decided to make an entertainment centre that has a music and a comedy club as well as an outdoor cinema. I chose this because I feel like this could be a great place for the members of my community to relax and have fun at. It would also be a space where people of all age groups could bond over their taste of movies or music at. We were also supposed to add the context of the neighbourhood our houses are loacted in but I missed that in my model because I lost track of time.

After understanding the context of our neighbourhood, we dove deeper into designing the institution. To continue with the idea of having amphitheatre as a place for congregation in the first module, I made an amphitheatre which could be used as seating in the comedy and music club and also led to he terrace above which would be used as an outdoor cinema. I decided to extend my institution 1.5 meters outside the pit to have balconies around. Using orthographic drawings this time, we showed inhabitation, vegetation as well as the context of neighbourhood in them.

After the discussion on the orthographic drawings we made, we made another iteration using a form model that showed the neighbourhood of our houses and another model of our designs at a larger scale. I tried to replicate a footover bridge on the topmost level that functioned as the music and comedy club but misinterpreted the discussion with our tutors and failed to incorporate the idea. Although this was a failed attempt, I learnt about these inclined steel columns which resulted into a truss structure.

Following this we had an offline peer review where we examined each others models and gave each other commendations and recommendations. This process was so much better than an online one because we could actually pinpoint spaces and feel the model with fingers rather than annotating on a screen. I feel that the feedback that was given and received was far more constructive than one received in an online peer review.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s