Design Year Report
My aim for this year was to experiment with different design projects and push them to their limits by challenging the brief. It was a deliberate choice as I wanted to try different design options before starting my graduation year project next year, in order to rule out which direction in architecture I should pursue, and to avoid mistakes which I would regret. Despite the fact that I didn’t focus too much on marks, I jeopardised my final project by comparing myself to other students and stressing out that they were two steps ahead than me. In general, I think I gained some useful design experience, but this year has made me realised that in practise, I am not able to replicate the complex designs imagined in my head. My design approach for this year wasn’t consistent, and was determined spontaneously throughout all the projects. It was rather chaotic, as I kept jumping from one aspect of the proposal to another, losing the structure and coherency of the project, making it more complicated than it should have been by purposely challenging the brief. With Placed-Displaced, I generally favoured the idea of being restricted by a particular volume with no possibility to alter it in any way. For me, as a person who’s approach can be described as “function follows the form”, it was a truly fantastic experience. I solved the basic house layout very quickly and then started to play with strict and unengaging floor plans by breaking them, fragmenting and superimposing levels until I achieved the result which was both satisfying for brief requirements and my ego, but not all the design aspects played out in the way I expected. In the process of the internal planning and interior design of the house, I lost the connection to the façade. It was a drastically bad decision to leave it to the last week as I ended up desperately looking for any solution that would match the futuristic interior with the uninspiring old terraced houses positioned on the same street. Eventually I temporarily fixed the problem, but the façade remained a “last minute decision” rather than serious line of studies, especially when I finished a photomontage with the house and its surrounding. Despite all the drawbacks, I significantly improved my model making techniques, Personally, I believe that the success of the project truly depends on your personal belief in the direction in which your work is leading. The beginning of next project “Living on the edge” seemed to be a very exciting journey. I picked up site A instantaneously, but I wanted to challenge the brief by creating a form of “social condenser” rather than an accommodation block with adjacent workshop. Another decision I made was to play against the strict industrial face of Ouseburn, by creating a building, which would stand out from the surroundings and transform the abandoned area into a new cultural venue. The proposal, which seemed favourable in plan and models, turned out to be way too large when presented in context. I focused of the communal aspect of the building, trying to create a machine, which shapes the life of the buildings troubled inhabitants, transforming them into new people with bright future on the horizon. I was seriously lacking the construction and structural knowledge of the building and it took me weeks to figure it out as well as the shape and internal inelegance caused by it. Another factor which affected the outcome was stress over the fact that people in the studio managed to complete their projects and make them consistent by the beginning of last week of the project while my proposal was still too diagrammatic. Eventually after my final presentation I was left with the feeling of being way too overambitious in terms of scale, concept, structural
2
understanding and my abilities as a designer to design within the timeframe. It is also worth mentioning that I failed to do any digital work on this project, being forced instead to make simple hand drawn interiors in comparison to other students that produced better presentations and beautiful renders. I spend too much on shape and function on paper rather than a physical realisation of the dream. The negative outcome of project slowed me down at the beginning of “Prospect and Refuge project” as I decided that I should restrict myself from challenging brief. But the site visit provided me with much inspiration, and I quickly came up with some new ambitious plans for the project. This project was a lesson, by restricting my design process in terms of the form of the building. I never liked the aspect of the building being a pure cube on a plinth, as I personally envisioned it as a monument, completely unfitting to the nature of the site. I was also struggling with a program as I didn’t want to just follow the brief simply as a tick list, desperately trying to fit everything within that cubic volume. I spent couple of weeks experimenting with different cuboid shapes trying to keep their visual resemblance of the pure cube while breaking its rigid monumentality. Eventually I got criticised during my interim crit for thinking too much about the shape rather than function and structure. I didn’t think it would be a problem as I was developing a building form with a structure, which would allow an open plan and incredible flexibility to all internal planning. Despite significant model and plans development, I believe I failed the project. My façade concept was interesting, but was far too underdeveloped and diagrammatic. I was lacking any internal renders of spaces, apart from atmospheric photographs again in comparison to the beautiful works of other people. I think this project was in general the worst experience of the second year. The only one positive thing about this project was the fact that I researched large scale timber frame buildings, and as a result learned a lot about the subject. To conclude, it is worth mentioning that I started to take the structural approach very seriously in comparison to first year. All of my structures were discussed and developed with support of Dr Steven Dudek, which was a great learning experience. He pushed me to figure out the solutions. My aims for the rest of this year is to study hard to fill the gaps connected to the context
Alex Jusupov BA Architectural Studies Stage II Portfolio 130384195 2014-2015
3
4
“I know the price of success: dedication, hard work, and an unremitting devotion to the things you want to see happen.� Frank Lloyd Wright
5
6
The aim of the project was to design a temporary structure for proposed Tyneside folk music festival. The busker musicians need to be provided with some sort of sheltering structure made out of standartized or recyclable timber. The focus of the project lies in carefull structural consideration and its integration into design of the shelter. Civil engineering students were providing us with some help with construction knowledge,making necessary calculations and spans estimations.
7
Site photos
8
Site diagram
[series of diagrams] 9
[series of sections] 10
[long section]
[long section] 11
The Structure The pavilion was design using only widely available standartised materials like gluelam beams, which can be reassembled and reused after the festival. All junctions were designed with the help of civil engineering students.
12
[photomontage] 13
[Model development diagram] 14
[final model photograps] 15
[advertisement designs] 16
[site drawing] 17
18
Prospect and Refuge Amble Reseach Center
The aim of the project was to design a university research facility situated in Amble - a city with a very evident post-industrial past. The building should bring an new landmark on the map of a relatively small town, which is not only supposed to attract students and tourists, but also become a new cultural venue for the local community with a possibility to organise and host exhibitions, community gatherings and concerts. The brief is very challenging as the shape of the building was chosen to be a cube with a strict list of spaces required for university facilities.
I Since “ wanted the
I visited the site, I clearly building to be a new landmark of Amble rather than just a university facility, where local people could gather, socialise and organise cultural events, while students would research and study.
�
[project photo summery] 19
[site analysis diagram]
20
Green parking
landscape design
Promenade with weekend parking Retaining wall
Sunday market
Local Nursery
[building diagramatic study] 21
22
23
[building diagramatic study]
24
[floor plan development]
“Creating a different experience for potential users is interesting, where each floor plan or room has it’s own individual character.” 25
Ground floor 1 2 3 4
26
-
Showroom lobby Aquarium Reception office Main assembly hall
First floor 1 - Commion reading lounge 2 - Individual study unit 3 - Group study/meeting room
Second floor 1 - Kofibar lounge 2 - Twin seminar rooms 3 - Teaching room
Third floor 1 2 3 4 5
-
Small office Exhibition/assembly hall Marine Center exhibition area Observatory Marine Center office
27
[internal atmospheric section] 28
refuge
prospect
conceptual sketches of study cell
[study room concept] [student study shelter concept] 29
[internal respective photomontage] 30
[final model pictures] 31
[photomontage from custom house] 32
[photomontage from pier] 33
34
Living on the Edge
The aim of the project was to design a foyer for youth - a special facility for young people with troubled past allocated in Ouseburn valley in Newcastle. The building should serve as an accomodation with the boatmaking facilities where potential tenants are going to have a course of professional education in order to get skills for independant life and future career. The Ouseburn valley is a place which gathers professionals of art and craft industry all over Newcastle. Being once an area of a strong industrial past, these days it is undergoing an extensive redevelopment in order to be tranformed into a new cultural urban village with exhibitions, farms and studios hosted in old converted factory buildings.
[project photo summery]
35
[site analysis] 36
[site analysis diagrams] 37
[building site proposal]
38
[building site ]
[building concept sketches] 39
1:500 conceptual model
1:200 volumetric model
1:100 structural model
1:200 diagramatic model
1:200 contextual model
[building concept models] 40
[building concept diagrams] 41
ACCOMODATION BLOCK +1
LEVEL
COMMUNAL BLOCK
G
THE LOBBY
-1
DESIGN STUDIO
LEVEL
LEVEL -2 LEVEL
WORKSHOP
[building arrangement diagrams] 42
43
3
2
4
5
1
1 3
2
4
44
45
section scale 1:50
46
[the foyer concept development] 47
the lobby perspective
the lobby/showroom perspective
tutors flat perspective
the communal kitchen/ lounge perspective
[interior concept drawings] 48
[the lounge + kitchen room] 49
[the common study room concept sketch] 50
[the common study room] 51
(study time)
MORNING
EVENING
light quality
natural cross-ventilation
PRIVATE SEMI PUBLIC
level 2
SEMI PRIVATE thresholds
spatial zoning
[the individual unit concept diagrams] 52
[the unit perspectives] 53
[final model photos] 54
[contextual photomontage] 55
56
57
[site analysis]
58
sunpath/wind direction
site topography/site access
Sunset
Sunrise +22.0 m +20.0 m +13.1 m
extend the daylight
prevailing wind Minimize the glare
network of existing paths
Reflection of existing landscape
[site analysis diagrams]
59
[house concept diagrams]
60
[floor plans development]
61
[concept study models development] 62
Floor plans
63
[house elevations] 64
[facade structural diagram] 65
[1;50 atmospheric section 66
[interior photomontage perspectives] 67
the nest bedroom
the entrance hall from living room
kids bedroom
[interior photomontage perspectives] 68
dining area
meeting area/office
living room
[interior photomontage perspectives] 69
70