Review

PDP - there have been issues in keeping up with detail levels, style and what to include. this is initially due to the vague nature of the brief not including any overly detailed prompts for content or layout. Ease of posting and mood at the time have led to the changes and discrepancies in the rest. a regular check or assessment to establish whether this was appropriate would have been helpful to organise the whole thing. Because of this i have not been inclined to use the PDP as more than just basic recording, i now feel that i could use it as much more of an organisational tool as well.

Skills assessment (since last)-
most of this semester has focused on improving my computer based skills and therefore my skill have improved accordingly, however i have tried to maintain all other skills at a similar level.

Drawing
- Sketching has improved slightly, mainly in trying to quickly draw up interior perspectives from plans however more detailed sketches still lack a lot of depth
- technical drawings have improved slightly but not a great deal
- Handwriting has not seen improvement, i still haven't devoted sufficient time into doing exercises so that it might improve.
- Computer skill have greatly improved. CAD skill were renewed and improved beyond the standards of the CAD course, also improved in speed accuracy and cross program use.
3dsmax skills have greatly improved in creation and manipulation of geometry, creation and use of materials, lighting for scenes and setting up cameras for still frame images. The only area that has not been worked on was animation.
Photoshop photo manipulation has improved as well as use for cross program file use and manipulation.
-Reading has not really improved, generally maintained the same level through research for tech and design work, however there has been less indepth reading for uni, i have read a few other books that have no relevance to uni.
- Research have improved slightly with regards to tech work as well as the design and access statement required more site specific info from local authorities and similar organisations.
- Time management still an issue keeping to timetables and deadlines has been hard, firstly because i still have trouble sticking to these plans when theres a reasonable time to the deadlines however, this wasn't helped by the uni changing the deadlines and requirements.
- Modeling skill has been maintained but not greatly improved.

Semester 2 week 16

ALL time and effort spent in preparing for tech submission and crit.




crit went much better than i had expecting considering the problems i had printing the work. i had planned to print earlier but i fell behind on my work schedule and ended up having to try and print that morning where most of it went wrong.
the results of the crit have very few changes to the over all design, some issues on 1st floor balcony and 2nd floor seminar space. as well as in showing the joints. long section needs a lot of work.


AD3.2‏
From: Morant, Steven (S.Morant@leedsmet.ac.uk)
You may not know this sender.Mark as safe|Mark as junk
Sent: 14 May 2010 12:47:20
To: jim_judge@hotmail.co.uk; j.judge6493@student.leedsmet.ac.uk
Dear James,
Following the review of your work yesterday, I think that I was wrong and that you may need the vertical elements to form a grid of triangles in the framing of the superstructure. By now, you have more photographs of precedent buildings than I have. Please do what you can to strengthen the design. The short section which shows the vertical wall becoming organic looks very weak and Robert Evans was clearly worried about several aspects of the long section. Please come in if you want to discuss matters.
Yours sincerely,
Steven Morant.

Semester 2 week 15

Week Overview: A lot of work, not a lot of sleep.
thursday's tutorial: went for input about entrance layout, ended with much a longer tutorial about the building envelope. result of the tutorial was to redo the build envelope once again making it less angular and the entrance issue was resolved.

Semester 2 week 14

Plan and access Result: 60.

No tutorial this week instead there was a fairly impromptu crit.

The result of this crit is mainly that i need to clarify why im doing the gridshell. Or get rid of it entirely, i'll opt for the former because i've invested so much time in experimenting with the shapes in 3dmax.



Email

Assessment AD3.2 and AT3.2 Thursday 13th May‏
From: x-streammail@leedsmet.ac.uk
This message may be dangerous. Learn more
Sent: 29 April 2010 16:52:22
To: j.judge6493@student.leedsmet.ac.uk
From: Bridget Hansford[1402 - 200910]
To: All Section Instructors; Bridget Hansford and Simon Warren's Group; Sarah Mills and Dennis Burr's Group; Steven Morant and Simon North's Group
CC:
Subject: Assessment AD3.2 and AT3.2 Thursday 13th May
Sent: Thursday, 29 April 2010
All,
As timetabled I am confirming the arrangement for your assessment for units AD3.2 and AT3.2 on Thursday 13th May.

Remember that this is not just a crit so you need to be able to present as complete a presentation as possible for assessment. You will present the work to a panel of 2 staff members. Make sure to arrange a display that tells a full story of your design from analysis to technical resolution both in 2 and 3D.

Regarding technology AT3.2, for your final reviews:

• Your stage 1 technical studies will be available for you to pick up from the fifth floor studio 12.00am Tuesday 4th May for inclusion with your work on the 13th
• You are required, to submit both stage 1 and stage 2 of the technical module along with your scheme design. The scheme design will be on the wall, the combined technical submission will be placed in a portfolio under your work. Please ensure that that you label your work with your name.
• Your stage 1 & 2 submissions will be reviewed in the context of your final submission and examination. The successful integration and implementation of synergistic constructional and structural principles in your final design will be examined.

In terms of arrangements, we are aiming to give all students one board each so that all work can remain in place for 2 days. Please pin up by 10.00am, remember that this is your submission time for the units and late comers will be marked accordingly. Please bring all models and accompanying work placed either in your portfolio or below.

W need you to leave your work up an in place for Thursday 13th and Friday 14th, to be collected at 4pm for assessment.

We aim to give a provisional mark shortly after the assessment.

If you have any queries, please ask your tutor.

Regards Bridget





Comments on the Third Year reviews on Thursday 29.04.10‏
From: x-streammail@leedsmet.ac.uk
This message may be dangerous. Learn more
Sent: 30 April 2010 13:03:53
To: j.judge6493@student.leedsmet.ac.uk
From: Steven Morant[1402 - 200910]
To: Steven Morant and Simon North's Group; Daniel Awunor(c3128381); Scott Bearman(c3187045); Paul Bedson(c3183239)
CC:
Subject: Comments on the Third Year reviews on Thursday 29.04.10
Sent: Friday, 30 April 2010
Following the review of schemes by Simon Hudspith, it is clear that almost all schemes could be improved if attention was given to the following matters.
1.The effect of your proposal on Briggate. Ideally, an elevational study showing your building and how it relates to its neighbours on Briggate should be included at, say, 1:50.
2.The landscaping of adjacent spaces. Is the landscaping an extension of the architecture?
3.The character, identity, atmosphere, mood, appearance, techtonics, materiality, colour, and texture of the scheme, internally and externally.
4.Is there a "killer image" which summarises your intentions and makes people want to understand your scheme? This should be the sort of image which you would want to see included in the Course Yearbook.
5.Two people showed memorable Sketch-Up aerial views of the whole block, showing their proposal in its context. It is hoped that each student will use some similar powerful technique to show an aerial view of the proposal in the context of the whole block.
6.The order in which the information is presented and the layout, and coordinated presentation of the scheme.

Please try to tackle some of these issues by the time of the next studio day on Thursday 6th May and bring a draft of the proposed presentation so that it can be discussed.

Semester 2 week 13

sectional perspective lecture. a very comprehensive lecture which was a general 'how to' with clear diagrams and relative precedent.

Tutorials this week invested a lot of time resolving the technical aspects of the gridshell again. discussed an awful lot of precedent and looked for them mainly in the detail series. The real problem is the joints.
Have recreated the grid in 3dmax again several times in order to make something appropriate that works.




InsideOut Lecture:

Indy Johar
00:/
Transforming existing spaces into sustainable places
-Back to architecture
*end of consumer culture and the change in city and economy
*detachment of architects from government policy
- distribution of funds - social funding - organisation of property
-architects as design/developer
-comprehension of contextual language-> value etc. -Not Arts language
-> 'everyone doing it together' - engage economics
[lack of architectural theory]
> previous generations of architects gave away responsibilities.
>Governing body of Architecture is out of date; cant blame the education system.


Irene Bauman
BaumanLyons Architects
CoAuthor: 'how to be a happy architect'

-disconnections in the cityscape
'disconnections make us unhappy'
3 aspects under utilised - land/property:social networks:skills
company 'urban splash'
-How to stitch
>how we see ourselves
>how we want to be seen
>how we are seen

uniting the city
regeneration of districts


The rest of the lecture involved some very interesting discussions about the nature of government policy, the education system and changes in architecture.
overall it was a really interesting experience that gave alot to think on.

Semester 2 week 12

Plan and access statement Submission

Tutorials: some concern over the way i draw up plans for the tutorials, if i present the drawings in a more finished format then people are less encouraged to change them.
Need to resolve the exterior shape of the building. Also begin to think how the interior relates to the exterior works in 3d, sketch perspectives etc. does the exterior continue into the interior? do the walls curve?
How does the tech work?? Many precedent were cited, mainly look at the details series.




email:

sectional perspective skill input‏
From: x-streammail@leedsmet.ac.uk
This message may be dangerous. Learn more
Sent: 17 April 2010 20:24:40
To: j.judge6493@student.leedsmet.ac.uk
From: Bridget Hansford[1402 - 200910]
To: Bridget Hansford and Simon Warren's Group; Sarah Mills and Dennis Burr's Group; Steven Morant and Simon North's Group
CC:
Subject: sectional perspective skill input
Sent: Saturday, 17 April 2010
All, for those who would like some formal input about setting up hand drawn sectional perspectives , I intend to do a short presentation in the studio on Monday 19th April at 10am. If you think this would be helpful, please attend. Have a good weekend, Bridget

Semester 2 week 10 & 11 EASTER

Stayed in Leeds in order to save money and get work done.
this Easter focused on redoing 1st semester work in an effort to catch up, i ended up with redrawn plans/ sections and a few other drawings sorted but nothing finalised because i had to cut the work short so that i could prepare the design and access statement.


discovered images.






Email:

AC3.2‏
From: x-streammail@leedsmet.ac.uk
This message may be dangerous. Learn more
Sent: 06 April 2010 17:19:07
To: j.judge6493@student.leedsmet.ac.uk
From: Steven Morant[1402 - 200910]
To: Steven Morant and Simon North's Group; Daniel Awunor(c3128381); Scott Bearman(c3187045); Paul Bedson(c3183239)
CC:
Subject: AC3.2
Sent: Tuesday, 6 April 2010
The section of the Access Statement called "Process" asks for inclusions about Planning Policy. One of the documents which sets out planning policy for Leeds is the "Unitary Development Plan". I consists of a book of Plans, a book containing the Main Statement, and a book of Appendices. The books may be consulted at 2, Rossington Street, (the Council Offices at the Leonardo Building, overlooking Millennium Square) . many of you have already visited these offices for details of Planning Applications. The books may also be consulted "on-line" by visiting "Leeds.gov.uk".
The Central Area Maps show that the site falls within the Prime Shopping Quarter Proposal Area. Whereas the County Arcade and Victoria Quarter fall within a Conservation Area, the site falls just north of the Conservation Area's boundary.
Briggate and the County Arcade are classified as Primary Frontages. The Headrow and Vicar Lane are classified as Secondary Frontages. (These terms are explained in the section on Shopping (Vol 1) and in Appendix 12.
The Unitary Development Plan (UDP) makes it clear that Leeds City Centre is the Regional Shopping Centre.




AC3.2 Access Statement‏
From: x-streammail@leedsmet.ac.uk
This message may be dangerous. Learn more
Sent: 08 April 2010 12:51:11
To: j.judge6493@student.leedsmet.ac.uk
From: Steven Morant[1402 - 200910]
To: Steven Morant and Simon North's Group; Daniel Awunor(c3128381); Scott Bearman(c3187045); Paul Bedson(c3183239)
CC:
Subject: AC3.2 Access Statement
Sent: Thursday, 8 April 2010
In A12.1.1. of the Unitary Development Plan (in Volume 2 Appendix 12) it states that:
"An important element of maintaining and enhancing the vitality and viability of shopping centres is to ensure that existing retailing facilities remain concentrated and not diluted by other uses".
However, the following clauses would be helpful for defending a proposal which is not about retail develpment:
"A12.2.5 Generally a ratio of 70% and 30% non-retail has been accepted as an appropriate balance within shopping centres through national planning appeal decisions." ....
"In some cases, non-retail representations within primary parades could be allowed to fall below the recommended guideline figure, for example, where factors such as a series of long term vacancies or changing shopping patterns merit such an approach." ....
"Within city centre primary shopping frontages (defined on City Centre Inset Map 1) proposals for change of use of retail at Ground Floor Level to non-retail within Use Class A2 or A3 may be acceptable where the proportion of retail frontage remains at 80% or above of the total frontage length and the proposal does not result in more that 15% continuous frontage in non-retail use."