Based upon feedback from the crit (which also allowed me a good rant), I started working on a completely alternative proposal over the previous weekend, so I had something to compare the previous iteration to; both for my benefit, as well as my tutor’s (potentially). The reasoning behind this was one of the criticisms I received was that I had not demonstrated how that particular form & programme had been derived - something I need to work on - and after showing my tutor the working drawings and key lines, he did mention that it was overly complicated. Hence why I decided to try a far simpler proposal - which we both ultimately rejected as the original was fine, I just needed to explain it better.

This leads us to the third proposal (and another round of massing: red = core, black = atrium, white = inhabitable space) - still an Art & Design school specialising in digital & virtual development, attached to the Moholy-Nagy University of Art & Design (and possibly working in partnership with the ELTE - to be worked out). It has moved away from the educational/professional/research/implementation approach, as I was struggling with working out the mechanisms and precise reasoning behind it. Hence adjusting to a purely educational/research approach. Fortunately, the programme remains almost completely the same (phew!) and it allows me to cut out an entire floor - as I no longer need ‘professional studio’ spaces. Bits and pieces are being re-arranged, and that will be formalised in the coming days, as we have our final pre-Easter crit next week. If I understood correctly, my tutor wishes to see a technical exploded axonometric of the proposal as well as a single plan for the crit - due to the fact I’m working in 3D, rather than 2D (the latter being the one that is encouraged for the most part). In addition - one key piece of advice he gave was to look into creating a facade system that can be varied enough to prevent monotony and allow space differentiation, in addition to aesthetic considerations.

Apologies for the differing exposures - still getting used to the Enscape rendering engine (also, probably used different Photoshop layer combinations…). The reasoning behind Type A was the desire to seek a ‘chunky’/heavy appearance, as I have settled on stone cladding (to blend with the local limestone and sandstone), as well as integrating static louvres into the fenestration by way of setting back and angling the glass in addition to providing a tapered frame. Whilst I felt that the aesthetic at least worked on the front facade, the moment I tried to turn the corner, the system ‘broke’ visually in a way that I couldn’t get my head around. So I moved on to Type B - heavily inspired by the Giant’s Causeway Visitor Centre by Heneghan Peng Architects, which uses basalt columns arrayed around the facade to provide a weight to the structure, along with solar control. I turned to grasshopper again to rapidly (after spending an hour setting up the script…) iterate facade formations based upon the manipulation and summation of sine waves. Then I manually tidied up the output to achieve Type B - which by no means is the final version.

In addition to sorting out a facade system, I was investigating two (narrowed from three) structural concrete systems: plate/column, two-way beam slab/column, slab + drop-cap column. I disregarded the plate/column system that I used in the first proposal after further structural considerations, which left me deciding between the two-way beam/slab and slab w/drop caps; ultimately settling on the latter due to both aesthetic and structural considerations. I’m still looking to have a suspended ceiling on all floors bar the basement, which will have raised floors - in part due to there still being a server/data block incorporated into the programme. Which leads me to another structural consideration - one which I had the chance to discuss with an engineer on Friday: walls & column thickness. The engineer talked me through what ‘effective height’ means wrt. columns and how that affects stability, along with how lateral forces act on a structure, and thus placement of shear supporting walls, and the symmetry in such a system; along with reminding me of what does and does not constitute a load-bearing wall, and thus reducing the mass of non-load bearing walls. As such, I spent most of Friday afternoon going over with a fine-tooth comb the placement of load-bearing walls, non-load bearing walls, internal partitions, additional support columns (especially for the atrium canopy, and how that interacts with the primary structure) and the makeup of each. Currently I have 9 different types of load-bearing and non-load bearing walls, and internal partitions. One mistake I realise that I have since made: I figured that if I did not insulate the external walls surrounding the basement server block, then the ground would help provide a natural way to dissipate the excess heat generated. However, I forgot that a) this is an urban environment, b) the basement is only a single storey underground, c) insulation works both ways. Whilst this may provide a slight aid in a cold winter, in summer, the ground would be a lot warmer and negatively affect the server block. Something to clarify. It is a quick fix fortunately - just need to offset a line and add another one (if only other things in life were so easy!).

The engineer also provided me with useful insight into the construction of new buildings adjacent to existing structures: in that as in-situ concrete is being used, the formwork will need space to be created, and possibly dismantled afterwards or otherwise constructed in such a manner that it will remain safely hidden and not provide any structural malus should it not be possible to remove the formwork after the concrete has set. This came up as of course my proposal butts against the existing wall of the adjacent bank, so the suggested course of action was to simply pull the structure away from the bank (by a couple of meters perhaps?). There was also the issue of the planted terraces - which of course would need to be sloped (already factored in), however one thing I hadn’t realised was that it is common practice to cut the slope into the insulation layer, thus allowing the top layer to be level, and forgoing the need for a significant amount of extra screed (which adds both mass and financial cost). Last point on construction (for now) - another thing that the engineer mentioned was that usually you just took the required thickness of the thickest slab element, and applied it to the entire floorplate, rather than creating different slabs of different thickness along the same floorplate (again, ease of construction - only one level of formwork required rather than multiple).

Alright, so, reality check. We have our pre-Easter crit on Thursday, which gives me 5 days to bring up an exploded axonometric, perspective elevations, indicative plan(s) (and after, start on the two-point perspective 1:50 section). We then have one week of term, and two weeks of Easter ‘break’ prior to our final crit, followed by two and a half weeks to submission. Call it six weeks. We have six weeks left. We’ve got this, right?