Monday brought a quick, non prepared peer review to shake up Studio V in preparation for our review on Wednesday. We were given 15 minutes to gather and distill both how and what to present to our fellow studio mates and only 5 minutes in which to do so. The key elements were the basic concept, construction methods, and details. Each partner group presented and then received written comments from everyone else to hold and cherish for future posterity. Many comments centered on what parts of each quick presentation were still confusing and proposed ideas on how to better illustrate through diagrams, sections, etc.
One interesting observation from the review was what seemed like tow distinct methods of trying to solve the design of the CropStop 2.0. A few groups, including mine, focused on conventional, easy to assemble for laymen construction techniques. No innovations in the modular wood truss but thinking of great spaces that could be produced when not bogged down in articulating how the thing will be built. By using conventions, the focus becomes more on materials, layouts, or unique configurations. The second school of thought tried to introduce a new, dynamic way of building. Creating a visual interest in the construction method would seem to further the new life of the CropStop. The fall back to this approach seemed to be less emphasis on layouts, spacing, modular growth, and overall details. The roof detail may be incredible well articulated, but it acts as a separate entity from the volumes it houses. There is a disconnect and one that may be difficult to over come in our short time here.
This impromptu review has stressed a great skill that we as architecture students are trying to hone. Being able to quickly break down a large or small project into its purest form and being able to communicate that to others. This is an integral part of architecture and we will always be striving to perfect our own methods.
Maybe it should be design, edit, review, cry, repeat.