Wednesday, October 24, 2012

Idea Sketches

I'm leaning towards of the idea of the falling pages. However the model I made is too rectilinear, too stiff. So I was exploring the look of paper when it flutters in the air, or when it falls. Here are a few sketches I've made based on that concept.

The sketch that I like the best is the top left corner. I think it fits in well with the triangular site that I've chosen for my building. My site is also on a slope, so I'm going to try to make it look like the paper is flowing upwards in the direction of the hill (or falling from the hill depending how you look at it).



I am going to work on a model to explore this more.

2 comments:

  1. The sketch is captivating in and of itself. I like the forethought to the site and deployment thereon. It is a bit disappointing that you are abandoning the strong tectonic examinations in your first series of sketch models. I am losing the link to "connection" with this series of sketches. The paper is a way more literal metaphor that can end up being constraining. THese constraints CAN be exploited, but that becomes an exercise in and of itself (see Gehry's design process, for instance).

    The earlier studies lent themselves to a massing study. This approach is more of a surface exploration. With no value judgement on mass vs surface, understand that the 2 are exceedingly different in how they create and/or enclose space. The design challenges are different with each approach.

    Either way, you have a great pool of ideas from which to draw out a strong approach. As I have suggested in the past, seeing as you were looking to explore connections, feel free to synthesize and combine these ideas. The result might garner all of your metaphors into one expression.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I like the idea of the fragmented rigid volumes of the previous models and the free flowing surfaces of this one.
    In the first case: you have to deal with volumes, whose scale and
    size is defined by the building program.
    In the second case: you have to deal with surfaces, whose dynamic form dictates the building program.
    They are different approaches, think which one serves best your design priorities.

    ReplyDelete