User talk:Jen
From CollabLandWiki
Contents |
Feedback Stage One (Jillian)
A good start to the project. Your position highlights a number of questions which can inform future site/design investigations - these will feed back in and tightened your position. Good precedents and theory - but make sure you keep researching. Need to think about how to use the theory and precedents.
To do: Suggest you devise two site investigations - first one that explores relevant pragmatic site issues and the second drawing from your theory to interrogate the site. Do them, evaluate and feed back into your position. And so the cycle begins....
Feedback Stage One (Mark)
Thorough theory/precedent presentation. Regarding the position statement, how are you going to evaluate whether you have been successful in the end or not? Specifics regarding the detailed questions and how you will investigate each issue would be a good next step.
General comments Stage 2 (Jillian)
Went OK - crits valuable in providing a lot of useful direction. Although these comments may not be overly ‘encouraging’ they highlight major points to consider. Please do not get defensive about your work at this stage – we are dealing with complex sites so you have to be prepared to drop ideas, move forward, revisit agendas. We still have over 10 weeks to go so there is plenty of time to achieve good design outcomes.
Group presentation. Unfortunately individuals regurgitated a lot of the same information as presented in the group presentation which made the day too long and your presentations somewhat tedious. Mainly contextualised your sites but needs to be sharper in presenting the major issues and introducing the sites
Understanding of your sites. No-one has any detailed understanding of their sites. Most of the work presented yesterday contextualises the site but doesn’t analysis or engage with the site. Get off the computer - the scale and detail of your work is being dictated by the computer screen - you need to develop a more detailed understanding of your site but the computer screen is not allowing you to see it. Need to go back to basics of site analysis.
Wairoa river -no analysis of site organisation, qualities, uses, circulation, topography
Christchurch - no analysis of the historical evolution of the square, while analysis separated out into categories, need to bring it back together
Waiheke – no analysis of movement or spatial qualities of site, topography
This lack of understanding of your site means that you have not used theory to ‘think’ about your site. Theory sits independently away from the site. They need to work together plus you may end up rejecting theory but through that process clarifying further what you want to ie discussion on whether it is impossible to consider Waiheke as a ‘non’ place
Language and Rigour. Similar to the site analysis, your use of language and terminology is vague and sloppy. Often your intents remain very generic and non-committed. Need to be more specific.
Use of power point. Extremely poor and irritating. Not to be used as an auto-prompter for you to read off. Information is not legible –flooded with information which is not explained. Stop using it as a crutch to hide behind – it encourages you to rave on and on.... Need to manage more critically what you use power point for and what the role of the printed material is Most printed material a waste of time as could see it more clearly on power point or simply couldn’t see it as it is printed out at A3.
No class on Monday
Mark and I will see you Tuesday at 10.30 with some new stuff from you …
For Thursday Week 6 – present 9am
Revise your position - this should reflect not only the comments from the crit, but be guided by a more detailed understanding of your site and a reflection on how you will use theory
Present more detailed and considered site analysis
Nominate three major design investigations
