Schematic feedback

The feedback from my schematic hand in was in relations to improvement that needed to be made. I've separated the feedback into the criteria that was on the CRA sheet.

Design Development

- Design concept - This was the concept of my folie design and how it was further investigated and applied to my design proposal. The folie concept related mostly through form, rather than concept. A monolith like structure that contradicts its surroundings. these where things such as the nature and vegetation, which is reason for the cantilever protruding out of the rock face, and the complex structure of the Story Bridge, which was the reason for the heavy, manmade form. Where I possibly need improving on this was to have a stronger relation of concept AND form to my proposal, because at the moment I have both, yet form is mostly related to my proposal.

- Design context - This was the contextual understanding of the site in relation in surrounding areas and relate back to issues with my folie and relation to my proposal. I did well in this area. The reason that I had chosen a bar as my building type was from analysing the direct neighbours of the sight. What was immediately apparent was the fact that the CBD, Fortitude Valley and New Farm where all heavily based on the bar and nightclub scene. So seeing as our sight was smack in the middle of these areas, it would serve as a perfect junction for as a bar of nightclub and relate back to its sight and surrounding areas. Another thing which I think related to this criteria was the concept of my folie was heavily based on context. This was the concept of views, and how Howard Smith Wharves has many different views and viewing directions for the sight. The concept of my folie, which was directly related to my proposal was the manipulate and control these views of the CBD, kangaroo point and New Farm through a structure.

- Design tectonic - This was the structural and tectonic aspects of my proposal and how well investigated and demonstrated they are. This was a criteria I knew that wasn't too good in my proposal. The cantilever structure of my proposal was not feasible in reality. I discussed this with my tutor, and the basic rule of thumb for cantilevers is 2/3 e.g. 2 parts fixed and 1 part hanging. My design did not follow this rule, it was pretty much 2 parts hanging, 1 part fixed. I knew that this would be a problem, so to try to counter this problem; I added concrete blocks on the fixed end to try to weigh down this end and stop the turning moments. The feedback from this was that it would still not fix the problem and would most likely be where the point where the structure will crack under its own dead load.

- Design Function - This was a criteria that I didn’t do too badly in, yet there was still room for improvement. The whole idea of a bar and a nightclub pretty much came from the idea that the building has a multi-use. This was that during the day, the building would serve as a bar, a place where workers could go on their break for a drink and even take work along with them if they wanted to. This was the reason for adding technologies such as the Telstra 4g network and oxygen bars. The 4g network so people could access WIFI internet on their laptop if they wanted to. The oxygen bar works for both the bar and nightclub aspects of the building, e.g. during the day workers can come and relieve stress from using the oxygen bar, and during the night, dancers can use the oxygen bar to rejuvenate their tired body. This is because during the night, this is where the party starts, and the building becomes a nightclub, with heavy dance scene. This is elevated through technologies such as the Philips living colours LED lighting and the yellowbird 360. My floor plans where an area in which the function could be greatly improved. The feedback I received on this was that even though on the outside my building is a great monolith solid rectangular form, it doesn't need to be the same for the interior. People that see my building that are intrigued by it will want to come inside only to see numerous square bars and rooms just like any building.

- Design contribution - This was how my building relates social and cultural relevance. This tied back to my proposal of a bar, and how I came to the decision from analysing surrounding areas. The social surroundings would benefit from a bar/nightclub at Howard Smith Wharves. The cultural aspect of my proposal was lacking.

- Design Issue - This was my own interpretation of theme-specific architectural issue. This area could be improved. I suspect the reason for this was again the floor plans for my design. They didn't reflect the theme of a bar. It was just square bar after square bar, accompanied by square rooms. People that are intrigued by the exterior of my building will find the interior very disappointing. I was suggested to scrap the whole floor plan and start again, creating cool flowing bars and rooms.