This review went pretty well for most. Of course I have the usual to say: some aren’t working as hard as they should be. But that is always the case (both that I will always want more, and that some will always not produce to their capability). Being able to focus like this is a luxury.
One big theme from the two days is that the “big view” was missing from most presentations. A single comprehensive view of the project in the site was needed. This can take many forms: physical model, digital model, hand-drawn perspectives or axonometrics. Anything that gives a sense of the totality of the project. The nature of the artifact is dependent upon the nature of each student’s investigation. It was difficult to read from the drawings presented, the overall form of the intervention into the site. There were some nice drawings, some were fantastic, but ultimately frustrating because it was difficult to assemble the project in our heads. This is why physical models still get so much attention in reviews – they are the easiest representation to understand the complexity of relationships.
The other theme has to be about the narrative of the project. Sometimes this is luck. The projects with the better confluence of ideas got the better reviews. They were easier to engage because there was a symmetry of the parts. When your project is sited on a former landfill turned into a vast public park, and you combine these elements into buildings built of trash and recycled materials, combined with a landscape that thinks of the changing seasons, this is a strong narrative. What makes it especially so is that it combines the narrative aspect, with the performance aspect. Thus the idea of the materials becomes a challenge for the building enclosure.