Felix, I’m a bit puzzled. How did you get from the first to the second scheme? Was there a very strong reason to move the OT? You certainly fulfilled the requirements: The GTs are still very tenuous, but the other transitions and the spaces are resolved. As much as I didn’t think the point-line-volume play was helping your scheme, the attempt to find an organizing idea was helpful. Your current scheme is missing an overarching theme (at least I can’t decipher it). With the exception of the extension of the existing wall and the double row of columns there are only random relationships of elements. Some elements are overlapping, some meet in an awkward angles; I guess I’m missing the precision that was starting to happen in your first scheme.
3 comments:
Felix, could you please add your narrative onto one of the product sheets? More comment will follow tonight
Felix, I’m a bit puzzled. How did you get from the first to the second scheme? Was there a very
strong reason to move the OT? You certainly fulfilled the requirements: The GTs are still very
tenuous, but the other transitions and the spaces are resolved. As much as I didn’t think the
point-line-volume play was helping your scheme, the attempt to find an organizing idea was
helpful. Your current scheme is missing an overarching theme (at least I can’t decipher it). With
the exception of the extension of the existing wall and the double row of columns there are only
random relationships of elements. Some elements are overlapping, some meet in an awkward
angles; I guess I’m missing the precision that was starting to happen in your first scheme.
You could easily adapt what you have here to "fit" into your original point theory. I can visualize it.
Post a Comment