Reposting:
In stepping back from the model, I do not see it. Something has been lost in the translation from the simple drawings above to the 3D model. Pushing back to the 2D drawing...
2.01.2007
studio:05
This latest study model does little to embrace the concepts that I have been focusing on. In actuallity, I think that the first plan and section that I did from the BB7 excercise are ten times more effective.
Reposting:
In stepping back from the model, I do not see it. Something has been lost in the translation from the simple drawings above to the 3D model. Pushing back to the 2D drawing...
Reposting:
In stepping back from the model, I do not see it. Something has been lost in the translation from the simple drawings above to the 3D model. Pushing back to the 2D drawing...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I agree. And the move back to 2D is necessary/well chosen one.
Cut a wall section through both sides of your vertical gallery.
Think about what is supposed to go on outside the gallery walls/wrapper/enclosure, what is supposed to go inside the thickness of the wall, and what is supposed to go on inside the vertical gallery itself.
Questions to ask: Is the thickness of the wrapper unform (on all sides, from floor to floor)? Is there program inside the wrapper (see my comments on your previous posts)? Can you only occupy the vertical gallery on the ground level? etc.
Don't just answer these questions straightly. Explain "why" you are answering the way you are.
Hi Rick -
Do you think that, like these diagrams, the sharing space can be not just one huge space, but different spaces dispersed within the building that somehow relate to each other? Or maybe they all frame views of other specific spaces, or parts of Copley Square? Maybe the vertical gallery can change shape from floor to floor, but still be more or less stacked one on top of the other. Just some thoughts...
Post a Comment