Interim Crit
27th July 2006
Venue: Studio 3
The following comments are purely my own based on the notes and observations taken today during the interim crit session. Alvin and Mastura were also present.
There are two sites in Seremban town. Two groups of students for each site presented the urban analysis on Monday, the site analysis on Tuesday and today, the summarized analysis and the three proposals for each site.
Interesting to note that our expectations of the student’s work (visually and verbally) were being met today, although we still feel that the work could be sharper and better prepared.
On Monday, the Site 1 group held the edge, but on Tuesday the Site 2 group managed to present better than the former. As a whole, what one group lacked, the other group compensated, in both the urban and site analysis.
Comments on what were discussed today are as follows:
Site 2 group started the ball rolling by presenting aspects of the responsive environment principles in their site analysis. It could have been a tighter presentation as we would have liked to discuss more on the proposal. Nevertheless, we managed to discuss as much as we could before the students proceeded to attend Dr Ken Yeang’s talk.
SITE 2
Proposed by the group:
1. Taman Warisan Seremban
2. Community Centre
3. Performance Art Centre
In my opinion the proposal for this site could make a statement about what Seremban inspires to be. The planner whom we met last week mentioned the idea that Seremban represents Negeri Sembilan. Will that literally mean that we should relocate an old Minang house and place it on the site? If Negeri Sembilan is about the Minangkabaus or the Minang people, then how could we use this approach in the conceptual design?
If there ever is a site to do it, then I agree, this IS THE SITE. Should the proposal be a gallery or museum then? We discussed today that it could be an Information Centre and yet serve the community. There are two things here. If we create two objectives for the site, will it be “rojak”? Serve the visitors (introducing Seremban) and also serve the community (community facilities). Could we do both successfully or will the impact be watered down?
SITE 1
Proposed by the group:
1. Martial Arts Centre
2. Health Care Centre
3. Tea House
Referring to the discussion, the safe bet is the Health Care Centre, but the “Tea House” could be a radical proposal in which we asked the group to re-propose again.
( I will continue with the discussion later.)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
hi, miss naziaty.
I m phayung, a student in the studio 3.
about the proposal,is it lecturer who decide to choose which proposal?
how do we give the most suitable and secific title for each proposal? if it is a combination of two proposal, how we should give the project name?
For site 1,
i would rather go for turn all the old shophouses to new-housing scheme (maybe turn it to elit-housing-scheme like Sandalwood in Singapore) and proposed a community space at he triangle site in terms to revitalise Seremban and the site value especially....
Site 2,
The community centre issue,how to define successful of a community centre?by the ritual,spiritual,proggramme or the fasilities....???
Hi Mior and Phayung...sorry I did not read your comments earlier. Please keep on commenting and I will make sure that I read it in good time to answer. If not please email me.
Take care...
PS - Phayung, for your CDP, try to strengthen your concept.
Post a Comment