Mid-Review Critique

During our mid-semester review on Thursday, we received a lot of constructive criticism for our building design. A few of the comments we thought were important were:
- sometimes the geometry works against the fluidity in our building
- the curves need constant moments to register irregularity against.
- the whole form should be thought of as terracing or stepping back (including the south facade)
- the circulation should be further developed because it takes up too much space
Our reviewers saw potential in our cone model. Danielle and I agreed that our project has lost something from our cone model so we compared the two in order to help us decide what aspects would be important to keep and what to change.
We like the cone model because:
-the cone model has regular, predictable curves (cones) in contrast to dramatic, irregular curves (connect curve)
- the courtyard in the cone model is equally important to shaping the building as the classroom cones
- there is more variation in section in the cone model
Possibilities for our current model:
- the terraces could be wider and become occupied
- all of the terraces could lean back toward the north for sunlight
- differences in classroom heights could exaggerate the height difference of the four towers
- the classrooms could touch in the center to create two courtyards (this would allow us to shape the courtyards more like inverted cones)