OK, so I took the comments and thought about it more. I kept the simplicity of the original but tweaked the gradual transition and the separation of 1A and 1B.
Carli, isn’t it amazing what small moves can do to the feel of the spaces? I guess you fell in love with a little wall in Peter’s latest production. As much as I have some problems with it in his space, for me it doesn’t quite work in yours: it doesn’t register on any wall, other than being parallel/perpendicular to the majority in space 1. Zone 1B is not defined strongly enough, as are the two 3s. Without the additional wall, but with the adjustments you made to the space currently marked 2, I would start to belief in the labels for your spaces in your first sketch: 1B upon entry, the rest of the large space 1A. The columns near the OT on one hand take on a sculptural quality (unlike in the first sketch, where they clearly helped to define space) which competes with the OT, on the other hand enclose a space. At and LT are nailed, GT is not convincing yet. On an other topic: the simplicity of your approach would lend itself to one more research piece: how large can the gaps become between the individual elements, before you loose the space definition? How can you still keep the hierarchical order between main entry and openings? I hope you can invest some more time in this.
1 comment:
Carli, isn’t it amazing what small moves can do to the feel of the spaces? I guess you fell in love with a little wall in Peter’s latest production. As much as I have some problems with it in his space, for me it doesn’t quite work in yours: it doesn’t register on any wall, other than being parallel/perpendicular to the majority in space 1. Zone 1B is not defined strongly enough, as are the two 3s. Without the additional wall, but with the adjustments you made to the space currently marked 2, I would start to belief in the labels for your spaces in your first sketch: 1B upon entry, the rest of the large space 1A. The columns near the OT on one hand take on a sculptural quality (unlike in the first sketch, where they clearly helped to define space) which competes with the OT, on the other hand enclose a space.
At and LT are nailed, GT is not convincing yet.
On an other topic: the simplicity of your approach would lend itself to one more research piece: how large can the gaps become between the individual elements, before you loose the space definition? How can you still keep the hierarchical order between main entry and openings? I hope you can invest some more time in this.
Post a Comment