During the pinup on Monday we got a lot of very helpful feedback from our reviewers. Rob Thallon was concerned about the dimensions of the vertical members (ie. their length), and noted that we would need to use a good deal of steal to join them together at their ends in order to form one continuous member. What was suggested was cutting the wall geometry in half, so that we’d have a series of alternating triangles forming the wall instead of “X”s- this could help with stability and also improve height clearance at the entries. Rob also suggested a steeper reciprocating roof in order to reduce thrust. Judith Sheine thought the design was practical in that the different parts of the structure all depended on one another. However, she saw this as potentially problematic because the three elements (feet, walls, roof) might not support each other until construction was completed. In the meantime we would need a temporary means of supporting the pieces. I’m not sure that would present a problem if we popped the walls up (like a baby gate) and tightened the pin connections at the middle of each X. Wouldn’t this structure support itself long enough to have its feet tied and its top tensioned? That might be something to explore in a physical model.
The students who gave us feedback noted that we were lacking a loading scenario or form analysis in our presentation. They also suggested adjusting the number of sides on the structure to fit the shape of the pavilion more naturally into the courtyard. We appreciated very much their comments about our project bring a “beautiful”, “light” structure. We certainly designed it to touch the ground lightly and are glad that’s come across.
As we move forward we are considering these alterations, as well as streamlining the architectural language into one variation, ie. reciprocal or scissoring structure going all the way up, with metal tension rings at each set of “scissors”.
Here’s my feedback for Zach’s group- they did a great job!