In this iteration I decided to increase the area of my third spaces and depress them slightly from the main path to better define the space. In order to increase its presence on young street, that side of the building will be covered with a curtain wall and to increase the view from the inside I put in a small atrium. On the east side of my residential floor I added a kitchen and a small area for the students to relax together while depressing platform half a story so that those main community areas are shared between floors. For the amenity room, it would be a place that would have a different function on each floor such as a gym on one, a games room on another, a computer lab, and a study room in order to promote someone one the 3rd floor for instance to roam around to the other floors and meet new people
Going forward I still need to figure out an elevation and overall form of this building and I'll probably switch my handicap unit with the married unit next to it, as well as maybe figure out a way to reduce the size of my communal spaces.
I'm still going with the idea of "increasing the amount of times people see each other so that its easier to develop bonds"
Im just wondering, if your west fire stairs are allowed by building code. Imagine in case of emergency you will have to go down and then go three narrow steps up before reaching the nearest exit.
ReplyDeleteAnd Kate is right - you are not clear for that egress on two counts: a) you are fire exiting through potentially an assembly area, and b) the change in grade adds another level of danger.
DeleteGood eye Kate!
This is exponentially better than what you proposed at the P2 review as it begins to follow some level of architectural discourse and shows some promise for future development. That said, there remains quite a bit to improve upon:
ReplyDelete-this is not isolated to you but I am now putting a moratorium on creating box plans that solely take up the entire site build-to footprint; if anyone in section one does this, they will have to defend this as I will automatically question whether or not they understand what architecture is (in fact, this is a filter I will use for any section I evaluate); in this design, it is apparent that you are literally thinking inside the box which is quite distressing given your professed desire to create great architecture; your ground floor shows signs of heading in the correct direction but then your upper levels devolve into the "fill in the box" model of design often associated with at best functional programmers and at worst building managers
-you still lack a sense of structure; though it is something explicitly called for in the subsequent deadline, I believe everyone will benefit from this level of consideration; it also lets your figure out your materials, spacing/configuration of partitions, etc.)
-I do not believe your minute drop downs of two steps to the "Third Spaces" is inclusive and accessible; fix this
-another problem which I hope I will never have to repeat to section one (but ultimately will when people fail to listen or are too mentally feeble to retain) is the simple boxing out of an area and referring to it as a "Third Space"; you might as well say that it is a "community centre" or "hangout"; in either case, it is generic and fails to describe the designer's ability to understand the space and actually design it; fix this immediately
-I also find it extremely distressing that you are designing like a first year student or a second year who just learned Revit; what I mean is that you are developing a project in plan and then once it begins to "work", you subsequently switch to thinking about elevation whereupon it is simply a matter of accessorizing (i.e. punching holes for windows, cornices, etc.) and conformity (i.e. height restrictions and percentage glazing); you are ALL better than that as you are in second year; in your specific case, I know that you are capable of this as you certainly did not approach your P1 project with such an attitude; continuing this workflow currently adopted will be taking a step backwards
-your idea of a generic room on each floor that changes programming demonstrates another potential flaw in your design approach; a games room and a gym space likely are not going to require the same scale of spaces, similar support spaces (i.e. washrooms, change areas, storage, etc.) yet you seem to be presenting that idea; this is a dangerous proposition as it presents you as very naive
-you still have awkward spaces that either you do not really understand (i.e. the generic amenity rooms) or do not have an understanding of scale (the area outside the elevators on the residential floor)
-fix your drawings to align with convention
The idea is getting somewhere. Now it is a matter of refining and developing it so that it is well-considered and well-presented.
In regards to the fire stairs, the fire stair on the more eastern side of the building does not exit directly outside. Maybe that travel distance may be too high for this configuration to work. What is your take on both fire stairs not having direct access to the outside. Does the building code allow this?
ReplyDeleteI just think in general the location of staircase cores makes no sense right now. I know that its a tough part. But since Vince suggested changing the approach to designing the residential floors, circulation and location of stairs will also change. The trick is to make it safe and make it work throughout the whole building.
Delete