Key strength of the scheme: Clarity in the concept of what constitutes the monumental. The apparent impulse for perfection in everything: axo sketch of prisms, textures, and the demand of an “objecthood” in the finalized model. "Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away" (Antoine de Saint-Exupery). Indeed!
Most significant weakness of the scheme: Do take your 5 images more thoughtfully. Get the balance of the overall view including the larger environment, the final model itself and the interior space showing how it relates to the external environment. Better panel organization with concept + design development process should be attempted in EXP-3.
Evan
Key strength of the scheme: The thoughtful presentation of the design idea, concept formulation as represented in the prismatic aggregation, and the finalized monuments that were clearly inspired by the 2 architects' works yet totally onto your own projected formal characteristics. Thinking beyond the Box (Brief) in textures upload! Well done.
Most significant weakness of the scheme: Please exercise better graphic judgement in the layout of panels. The way they are is comprehensive but visually chaotic! The 2 final monuments, compared with your EXP1, are more composed and forceful formally. Think something beautiful and/or sublime in EXP3. Carry on.
Mengi
Key strength of the scheme:
Ambitious built form (2 monuments) engaging with vast landscape and the scale of both seemed complimentary. The contrasting themes, for example: verticality and horizontality, static
landform vs cantilevered built form; were well represented in this submission.
Most significant weakness of the scheme: No interior views were captured! This is a serious drawback. Please carefully arrange your 5 captured images. Show a range of viewpoints to best representing your final environment in EXP3.
Morgan
Key strength of the scheme: Dramatic application of texture on the monument for Mies. The “sculpted” land form with paved surface was considerate and well executed. Ambitious in general and the flawless 36 textures!
Most significant weakness of the scheme: Must have views captured from the interior of the monuments looking out and/or into in-between spaces. Please do this in EXP3. The Koolhaas monument is less convincing and the form heavy and solid even classical to a degree, like the Greek temple! You need to challenge your own conception of “Architectural Form” in EXP3. Otherwise, well done.
Sam
Key strength of the scheme: Beautiful prismatic aggregation in final forms. The textures were creative and sensitively drawn. The bare landform possessed painterly quality and the earlier panel organization was effective (wish you had done the same for submission images!!)
Most significant weakness of the scheme: This could have been a D to HD work if you had donethe texture application video and developed the details of interior space further! The "X-shape" motifs should be employed with more care and infused with intended effect instead of just repeating them everywhere!! For example, the pavilion for meeting place: it doesn't help the overall scheme. You have great sense of form and beautiful hand sketches. Do try to
excel in EXP3!
Lucia
Key strength of the scheme: Very thoughtful submission with well organized pages to demonstrate the design development process. The 2 monuments were distinctively different but they did share same architectonic elements. The scaling of the built form and landform were dramatic, impressive and memorable. Beautiful texture application was enhanced by the theatrical lighting effect. A very delightful submission indeed.
Most significant weakness of the scheme: The Meeting Place. Its curve roof contradicts richly interpreted Miesian ideas and its scale as shown in the captured image undefined. This should be a jewel of the whole cluster instead of a modernized primitive hut!! Great progress and carry on!!
Bennet
Key strength of the scheme: The earlier design development was engaging and possessed potentiality.
Most significant weakness of the scheme: The final prismatic form could have been a solid project if more details were developed. The submission didn’t demonstrate the way landform relating to built form. All of the captured images indicate that the monumental object is floating in the CryEngine environment instead of meaningful siting. This is a big drawback. Please spend more time mastering the gaming engine in EXP3.
Bazzi
Key strength of the scheme: Earlier panels of design development were promising and the series of axo modelling by Sketchup were creative in color application and in the prismatic formation.
Most significant weakness of the scheme: Not enough development in the CryEngine environment and the final built form is devoid of texture application. The monument appears to be floating in the landscape. This could have been a solid CR submission!! Please pay attention to the marking criteria in EXP3.
Vicky
Key strength of the scheme: The earlier design development possessed great potentiality and the concept panels were well organized. The final built form is dynamic and ambitious.
Most significant weakness of the scheme:There was no application of texture onto the final model. The built objects appear to be
floating in the Cry-environment. This is an enormous drawback for EXP2 submission. Please
make sure to always develop your EXP3 in CryEngine environment week by week. If you don’t do so,
a lot of the great works along the design develoipment process will be lost!! (Additional comment that will help your EXP-3: learn to differentiate "just a cluster of shapes" from a strong set of composed forms that articulate your understanding of the Brief, the key architectural idea and your design strategy, and as always, the inter-relations between the landform and the built form.)
Jackie
Key strength of the scheme: Beautiful vision of the monumental cluster that was anchored in and suspended from landform. 36 textures were delightfully musical and the application of them elegant. The panels documenting the design development process were rigorously presented.
Most significant weakness of the scheme: Not enough articulation in the relationship between the 2 Forms: land + built. If the suspension was the theme, then the captured images needed to show that. The 2 images showing the very thin “stick” carrying the whole weight of the monumental cluster are not convincing enough! Otherwise, well done.
Michael
Key strength of the scheme: A great progress from EXP-1. The 2 monuments were well textured especially the one for Koolhaas. More rigor in the earlier design development compared with EXP-1.
Most significant weakness of the scheme: Both of the monuments remain undefined formally. Try to get to a level of composition where “there is nothing left to take away”: tightly organized into one coherent built form. The meeting place is weak in terms of “between-ness”. Its curve arches are too crude. The entire project appears to be floating in the environment and is in need of careful and time consuming manoeuvring in the CryEngine environment. Please make sure you do that in EXP3.
Molly
Key strength of the scheme: Strong panels of design development with axo prismatic formation. Effective texture application in the Landscape panel.
Most significant weakness of the scheme: Confusing organization of the submission and explanatory captions. Regardless of your efforts, the captured images didn’t show the relationship between the 2 monuments, the landform and the build form, and the meeting place with the landform + the monuments. Please be clear in everything you do. Allow yourself time for thinking!! Good progress otherwise.
Renda
Most significant weakness of the scheme: No interior views were captured! This is a serious drawback. Please carefully arrange your 5 captured images. Show a range of viewpoints to best representing your final environment in EXP3.
Morgan
Key strength of the scheme: Dramatic application of texture on the monument for Mies. The “sculpted” land form with paved surface was considerate and well executed. Ambitious in general and the flawless 36 textures!
Most significant weakness of the scheme: Must have views captured from the interior of the monuments looking out and/or into in-between spaces. Please do this in EXP3. The Koolhaas monument is less convincing and the form heavy and solid even classical to a degree, like the Greek temple! You need to challenge your own conception of “Architectural Form” in EXP3. Otherwise, well done.
Sam
Key strength of the scheme: Beautiful prismatic aggregation in final forms. The textures were creative and sensitively drawn. The bare landform possessed painterly quality and the earlier panel organization was effective (wish you had done the same for submission images!!)
Most significant weakness of the scheme: This could have been a D to HD work if you had done
Lucia
Key strength of the scheme: Very thoughtful submission with well organized pages to demonstrate the design development process. The 2 monuments were distinctively different but they did share same architectonic elements. The scaling of the built form and landform were dramatic, impressive and memorable. Beautiful texture application was enhanced by the theatrical lighting effect. A very delightful submission indeed.
Most significant weakness of the scheme: The Meeting Place. Its curve roof contradicts richly interpreted Miesian ideas and its scale as shown in the captured image undefined. This should be a jewel of the whole cluster instead of a modernized primitive hut!! Great progress and carry on!!
Bennet
Key strength of the scheme: The earlier design development was engaging and possessed potentiality.
Most significant weakness of the scheme: The final prismatic form could have been a solid project if more details were developed. The submission didn’t demonstrate the way landform relating to built form. All of the captured images indicate that the monumental object is floating in the CryEngine environment instead of meaningful siting. This is a big drawback. Please spend more time mastering the gaming engine in EXP3.
Bazzi
Key strength of the scheme: Earlier panels of design development were promising and the series of axo modelling by Sketchup were creative in color application and in the prismatic formation.
Most significant weakness of the scheme: Not enough development in the CryEngine environment and the final built form is devoid of texture application. The monument appears to be floating in the landscape. This could have been a solid CR submission!! Please pay attention to the marking criteria in EXP3.
Vicky
Key strength of the scheme: The earlier design development possessed great potentiality and the concept panels were well organized. The final built form is dynamic and ambitious.
Most significant weakness of the scheme:
Jackie
Key strength of the scheme: Beautiful vision of the monumental cluster that was anchored in and suspended from landform. 36 textures were delightfully musical and the application of them elegant. The panels documenting the design development process were rigorously presented.
Most significant weakness of the scheme: Not enough articulation in the relationship between the 2 Forms: land + built. If the suspension was the theme, then the captured images needed to show that. The 2 images showing the very thin “stick” carrying the whole weight of the monumental cluster are not convincing enough! Otherwise, well done.
Michael
Key strength of the scheme: A great progress from EXP-1. The 2 monuments were well textured especially the one for Koolhaas. More rigor in the earlier design development compared with EXP-1.
Most significant weakness of the scheme: Both of the monuments remain undefined formally. Try to get to a level of composition where “there is nothing left to take away”: tightly organized into one coherent built form. The meeting place is weak in terms of “between-ness”. Its curve arches are too crude. The entire project appears to be floating in the environment and is in need of careful and time consuming manoeuvring in the CryEngine environment. Please make sure you do that in EXP3.
Molly
Key strength of the scheme: Strong panels of design development with axo prismatic formation. Effective texture application in the Landscape panel.
Most significant weakness of the scheme: Confusing organization of the submission and explanatory captions. Regardless of your efforts, the captured images didn’t show the relationship between the 2 monuments, the landform and the build form, and the meeting place with the landform + the monuments. Please be clear in everything you do. Allow yourself time for thinking!! Good progress otherwise.
Renda
Key strength of the scheme: Ambition in the scale and the formation of the monuments. The Sketchup prismatic modelling were clearly represented.
Most significant weakness of the scheme: The scale of the monuments is incompatible with the landform. In some captured images, the built forms appeared to be floating in the environment. This is a big drawback. Please enhance your skill in representing EXP3 using gaming engine. The overall formal composition remains unresolved and lacking a sense of organization. To do so, you need to edit your prismatic formation for a few times before getting the final model.
Christine
Key strength of the scheme: Well balanced scale between the landform and the built forms. The dark landscape contrasts the white monuments in a dramatic way. The beautiful captured images in general and particularly the Texture Applied panel.
Most significant weakness of the scheme: This can be a D to HD submission if the micro-environment had been created by detailed development, meaning that if you would make some part of the platform or vertical form habitable by showing stairs, sheltered space and so on. Great progress and please push forward!!
Laura
Key strength of the scheme: Textures had been applied effectively as shown in the captured images. The contrasting long platform with the vertical and pressing monumental volume was dramatic. Solid earlier design development as demonstrated in the panels.
Most significant weakness of the scheme: It is not clear that there are two distinctive monuments in one prismatic formation. The red color is not enough. Some detailed development would have greatly enhanced this submission. Otherwise, good job.
Kieran
Key strength of the scheme: Highly effective texture application. The panels showing the design development of axo prisms were well organized and promising. The earlier version of the landscape expressed surreal painterly quality.
Most significant weakness of the scheme: In the final submission, the captions weren’t clear enough to describe your concept, design ideas and the 2 clients. The scale of the landform seemed incompatible with your built forms. Although the individual monument looked effective, some level of details should have been developed. Otherwise, good job.
Lorrain
Key strength of the scheme: Rigorous design development as evidential in the concept panels. The intention to intersect built form with the landform was ambitious.
Most significant weakness of the scheme: The form of the monument needs further editing. For example, the connection to meeting place: a series of repetitious frames; is well intended but architecturally it lacks formal imagination. Always pay attention to each element you want to apply onto a cluster of forms. Otherwise, well done.
Darren
Key strength of the scheme: Creative design development showing many highly plausible possibilities of prismatic formation. Beautiful texture sketches. The captured images of the in-between spaces. They were imposing and expressing the quality of the built form.
Most significant weakness of the scheme: Uneven development throughout the process and in the final submission. For example, there appears to be texture application onto the monuments in the earlier panels but not in the final submission!! Why? (Correction: You did apply textures onto your final model but they were overwhelmed by the strong overall white light. Make sure you've uploaded LEGIBLE images for EXP-3!!) Please be more patient with the process and exercise a level of control for the outcome! You can do better than this in EXP3.
Shanny
Key strength of the scheme: Strong sense of formal composition and the scale of the 2 monuments seemed effective. The airy blue glass passage was well imagined. The design development panels were clear and graphically comprehensive + effective.
Most significant weakness of the scheme: In all of the captured images, there isn’t any evidence of an equally important landform. It has been treated as the background instead of the equal partner in EXP2. This is a big drawback. Otherwise, this submission could have received a higher Grade!! Need detailed development too to introduce human scale in the virtual environmnet.
