
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
Illustrator WireFrame: Surrealistic DayCare

Jenga 4+4=8 Charrette
After meeting with both Beaucoups and Jives team members it is no stretch of the imagination to say that the design approach for Angling is significantly different in form. That being said, I believe the overall chemistry in attitude and design principles is stronger with that of Beaucoup. Conversation ignited very quickly between our groups starting with our individual design concepts. This helped spark ideas about building orientation and material choices that would remain constant while the form of our combined structure morphed from primitive angles to refined curves. As a whole, we noticed that both structures have a central sculptural landmark that dominates the building, Angling having a large steel tilt sloping gently out to greet the public entry while Beaucoup has a glass curve weaving through each floor plane. If allowed to collaborate, we plan to merge these distinct icons to unite the differences between both structures. Furthermore, I believe we work firmly as a team because we each had input and communication wasn’t an issue like it has been previously.
When given the opportunity to collaborate with Jive, conversation was quite stagnant. The only conversation piece we could salvage was to somehow merge the subtle protruding balconies of Jive with the balconies of Angling to produce giant C’s that permeate the entire structure. We delved into a light discussion about material options. Jive has wooden balconies that contrast to their concrete shell while Angling has steel balconies and brick shells. In this instance, we decided to change the shells of our structures to a white stucco and have the steel balconies morph into wooden balconies.
While each of our groups has magnificent designs, I would prefer to collaborate with Beaucoup simply because the conversation has been established and the ice broken; I didn’t feel the same connection with Jive.
Friday, February 25, 2011
Jenga 3.0 - Jigsaw
Friday, February 11, 2011
Jenga 2.0 Reflection
If I have learned anything from the 2nd phase of this project it is that I need to work on compositional integrity and flow. Coming into this semester, I have realized my close attachment to hand rendering and technical drawing, a quality I never would have guessed, entering the major, would be more important to me than computer aided design; there seems to be something more personal and intimate about it that I have grown accustomed to. On that note, my focus has been on the spatial layout and crafted quality of the project, while creating a crisp layout has been put on the back burner and this is, in part, due to hand rendering because it takes more effort to scan in everything and create a composition as opposed to everything already preexisting on a computer. My efforts as I enter the next phase of this team project is to combine our strengths and get more comfortable with the computer aspects of design that I could truly benefit from and grow as a designer. I also tried to choose my team members with careful selection. Anna has experience in Auto CAD and utilizing the wood shop for model building that I would prefer over chipboard models primarily cut at CAM Studio. Faith has experience with Auto CAD and Podium rendering for perspectives as well as excellent color and placement judgment represented in her diagrams. I have a focus on hand rendering and meticulous study of space as well as work in CAM Studio so we can be efficient and proficient in both CAM and the woodshop. On a final note, through observing everyone else’s work, I witnessed the same issues with compositional layout but I feel I am a step behind simply because hand rendering has more restrictions and hurtles to cross to create an organized board and that is what I plan to improve on in the next phase of this Jenga project.
Jenga 2.0.
A Spark can be thought of as a fresh and spontaneous occurrence, and therefore can be seen as raw and inspirational. It can take on a figurative meaning, or physical form, and in this space I attempted to merge the metaphysical rawness of a spark with the physical crudeness of select materiality.A rusted metal veneer, coarse wire mesh, slanting metallic slabs joining at clashing angles, rough paneled railing, cold concrete flooring, and Indian red/Terracotta carpeting are but a few of the ominous but playful features explored within this space.
There is a sharp contrast in the design of the first and second level in order to provide both the sense of comfort and unease that a spark can initiate. The first level is foreboding and boldly rough but the more intimate areas of the loft and lower level provide more of a sense of warmth and comfort through material choices like plaster walls and warm coated surfaces.
The design is initially meant to shock the viewer and provide a sense of the primitive side of a spark, but as you circulate through the space to smaller nodes the spaces become more inviting and provide the undertone of the warmth and comfort of a spark.














