Design workshop_Part 2: ANCHOR | UNSEE | COMPOSE (Tuilza Sindi)

The intention of this workshop was to guide in the process of exploring what the spatial experience is/could become with our interventions. This was through a few short, exercises that had us draw what we imagine the completed intervention would be, and draw/sketch/paint what we imagine that experience of that space would be like.  

4 Initial compositions from the exercise. 

PART 1_ANCHOR

For part 1, the aim was to sketch the anchoring elements of intervention, without looking at the page. This was under the 2 themes of "Movement and Route" and "Volume and scale.

Movement and Route

Considering the main and secondary users, how they move through the spaces, and where that movement overlaps/ connects. I considered the darker colours to be the primary users, while the feint/lighter colours would be the secondary users moving through. 

Volume and scale 

The spatial volume and the experience it creates was explored. Here I consider the volume of both the intervention as well as the existing elements around the site, and the site within the city.

PART 2_UNSEE

Using various mediums, the second task was to draw with eyes closed while facing the page. This is in continuing from the first part, but considering the other layers of spatial hierarchy and what intention we have behind the intervention as a landmark. 

Hierarchies 

Here i attempted to express the finer grain patterns found throughout the site, as carried on in the architectural intervention. Some of the spaces would feed off of the activity happening on the route throughout the site (Fietas), while the more contained activities happen deeper within the intervention. 

Landmarks and marks on the land

The idea of "landmarks" is what the intervention does as a landmark/ what statement it makes. Here I explore the idea of the intervention as being a part of its contexts and stitching the gaps made from the apartheid demolition, and also making a monumental statement of Fietas as a valuable part of the city. 

PART 3_COMPOSE (MODEL)

The third part of the task was to translate the spatial intentions put on paper, to a 3D model expressing what we want our interventions to achieve spatially. This was to be done from one of the drawings selected. 

#WorkInProgress 

Model from "Volume and scale"

From the "Volume and Scale" drawing, I considered the model as a sectional perspective through the intervention and the previously vacant site. Its layered with the linear planes for movement through the intervention, still relative to the existing and surrounding context. 

Summary of reflections 

This process was a helpful exploration of what the architectural intervention could become. I enjoyed the freedom of the process, which was very helpful. The intuitive decision making and responses helped to get out of ones comfort zone. 

From the exercises, I re-considered why I made some of the spatial gestures I did, and how the spatial ideas can be explored in reality, on the actual site. 

A major intention is to have the intervention relevant to, and also support, the valuable happenings within the context. 

Spatial exploration and contextual relevance

The next step is really to ground the various intentions into a more focused, overall approach that informs the next decisions. At this point I still think I have not clearly articulated that.

Design workshop_Part 1: Spatial Exploration

This past week Unit2 engaged in a design workshop to explore the spatial intentions behind our individual design intervention. Through various short exercises we go to explore and express the spatial possibilities within our sites.

The task(s)

Sketch Sections

The first task was to explore, in section, a key space within our interventions and explore the spatial possibilities. This involved looking at the relationships between the various spaces, the (vertical and horizontal) planes and points that define that core space. The exercises were very short to get us to make quick, intuitive decisions based on our findings from site analysis.  

Initial Sections through core spaces of intervention. 

The task was quite helpful in pushing me to intentionally consider, spatially, what my intentions are (in relation to the overall themes I am dealing with.) Although at the beginning of the task I wasn’t quite settled on what the functions should be, but I considered the exercise as a tool to assist in that direction.

Open Recreational Spaces   -   Internal workshop and "making space" -  Route and Interface between structure and outdoor workshop.

The core space I considered was a portion through what would be workshops, related to other spaces of less activity (internally), as well as a route through the intervention connecting various parts of the site, the building thus acting as a gateway through the site.

Getting this idea across in section was a slight challenge, explored the spatial intentions in perspectives, making intuitive decisions as i go. These also furhther informed the sections.

Sketch Models

From the sections, we were also tasked to explore the spatial intentions through models informed by the sketches through a core space.

Model 1

Exploration sketch model 1. Considering the intervention within its relation to the existing buildings, and the urban fabric. 

In the beginning of the exercises, I found that I was considering the models more as massing, rather than expressing the spatial experience and the intentions behind them. 

Model 2

To further explore the spatial intentions, I decided to consider the model at a larger scale. 

Personally, considering the spatial experience in perspective was a helpful tool in exploring the possibilities.
Here I consider the spatial relationship between the intervention and the public realm, and what positive spaces are created. 

The idea is that of a route through the intervention, the spatial experience being as of a gateway through the demolished sites. 

Model 3

Further explorations began getting a bit more character after sketching over the previous models.
These models better express a sense of lightness, structure, and the relationship with the street edge and the public spaces on the previously demolished sites. 

The intention is to have an increased scale in the intervention, while still being contextually relevant. With the sites location at the entrance into Fietas, the architectural intervention defines the threshold into Fietas.  

While making these models, a slight challenge was to express  the same spatial expression that I expressed in the sketches. This challenge was better resolved through Part2 of the design workshop later in the week. 

Personal reflections from the exercise

I really enjoyed the push to consider the spatial intentions of my individual projects intentions. This exercise forced me to test the abstract ideas spatially, relative to the actual site. 

I found myself going back and forth with the various exercises. Considering the intervention from various perspectives, was helpful.

Allowing oneself to make the intuitive decisions (without necessarily discarding the more rational ones) made me consider the whole intervention with more creativity. 

Although during the process I felt as though I had not settled on the spatial intentions, the exercises assisted me to consider what I really mean with some of my intentions. 

In retrospect,I find that my intentions (spatially) seem to focus on:

- The idea of filling the spatial gaps made by the demolitions

- Spatial for connectivity and legibility through the intervention and adjacent spaces

- Giving Fietas a presence spatially as a part of the city, rather than a gap within the city. 

From here 

From the exercise, I think I need to take a bit of a step back to consider what my overall urban drivers are. 
These short exercises were followed by another short exercise with Tuliza Sindi